Lee Anderson says he and Jacob Rees-Mogg have one thing in common: “we were both born on estates”

Is that a country estate?

EXCLUSIVE:

Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.

New @YouGov poll for @TimesRadio - The Election Station.

https://x.com/mattchorley/status/1754764182258360558?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw

Oh dear, but not a surprise. Labour is just Red Tory now, maybe Keith should not have have backtracked too much on his pledges that he announced when he became leader.

And shouldn’t have gone on radio and told the world Israel has the right to deprive human beings of food and water.

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 12 hours, 5 minutes ago
🚨 Breaking 🚨

Channel 4 have finally been shown the dossier for Israel’s claims that UNRWA staff were behind Oct. 7th.

Channel 4 concludes that “Israel provides NO evidence to support this claim”.

===

Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did they sack 9 of the 12 accused then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would encourage you to watch the linked report from channel 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will do later. I assume that the answer to my question is contained therein?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an interview with someone at UNRWA who confirms that no supporting evidence was provided or has been provided to substantiate the allegations. As was suggested at the time, the reason people were removed was to reduce the risk of withdrawal of funding from key donors. Unfortunately, with only the dossier that channel 4 now has that I have provided comment on above, some donors still took that step.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They sacked people with no evidence and admitted as such? 🤔 weird

Other findings:

Marginally more people (47 per cent) say they are clear about what Rishi Sunak stands for, than said the same of Keir Starmer (40 per cent).

Even more embarrassing for Labour.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 12 hours, 5 minutes ago
🚨 Breaking 🚨

Channel 4 have finally been shown the dossier for Israel’s claims that UNRWA staff were behind Oct. 7th.

Channel 4 concludes that “Israel provides NO evidence to support this claim”.

===

Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did they sack 9 of the 12 accused then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would encourage you to watch the linked report from channel 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will do later. I assume that the answer to my question is contained therein?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
whether it is or not you will believe the Zionist propaganda imo.
12/13,000.I bet there are more "bad apples" in the police force you're always defending.
Why do you play this game? Why do you defend the indefensible? Scroll down that twitter link, see what the IDF animals are doing. Support that? Condemn anything the IDF and Netanyahu's coalition of skum do?

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 12 hours, 5 minutes ago
🚨 Breaking 🚨

Channel 4 have finally been shown the dossier for Israel’s claims that UNRWA staff were behind Oct. 7th.

Channel 4 concludes that “Israel provides NO evidence to support this claim”.

===

Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did they sack 9 of the 12 accused then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would encourage you to watch the linked report from channel 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will do later. I assume that the answer to my question is contained therein?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an interview with someone at UNRWA who confirms that no supporting evidence was provided or has been provided to substantiate the allegations. As was suggested at the time, the reason people were removed was to reduce the risk of withdrawal of funding from key donors. Unfortunately, with only the dossier that channel 4 now has that I have provided comment on above, some donors still took that step.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They sacked people with no evidence and admitted as such? 🤔 weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To keep funding. Y'know, money.
Know what is really weird or more precisely, perverse is murdering 10's of thousands in vengeance. Then people like you spouting schit about them deserving it.

Apparently, despite being gov't for 70 of the last 100 years, the Tories have no power, because the legal system, the media, Environment Agency, Natural England, the OBR, Post Office, AND CORPRORATIONS, are all lefties.

https://x.com/bestforbritain/status/1754839578802847833?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw

I cannot wait for this woman to lose her seat in a few months.

Bit ranty and talking sheet SoQ

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 37 minutes ago
Bit ranty and talking sheet SoQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read your own rantings since 7th October. Do you remember?
BTW Have you condemned the IDF? Zionists? Netanyahoo?

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 12 hours, 5 minutes ago
🚨 Breaking 🚨

Channel 4 have finally been shown the dossier for Israel’s claims that UNRWA staff were behind Oct. 7th.

Channel 4 concludes that “Israel provides NO evidence to support this claim”.

===

Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did they sack 9 of the 12 accused then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would encourage you to watch the linked report from channel 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will do later. I assume that the answer to my question is contained therein?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an interview with someone at UNRWA who confirms that no supporting evidence was provided or has been provided to substantiate the allegations. As was suggested at the time, the reason people were removed was to reduce the risk of withdrawal of funding from key donors. Unfortunately, with only the dossier that channel 4 now has that I have provided comment on above, some donors still took that step.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They sacked people with no evidence and admitted as such? 🤔 weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well let’s see what the counter would mean;

Let’s first start with suggesting Israel has evidence. Evidence that it has not shared with its allies. Or made public. Now given the recent history, have we seen a trend of Israel pushing evidence into the public domain or keeping it hidden?

Or, let’s say that UNRWA, and UNRWA alone has the evidence, but hasn’t come out to confirm as such. What benefit does it give for UNRWA for it to say it has no evidence and instead it has asked a senior independent UN investigation to look into the claims?

The mental gymnastics you would have to go through in either instance are Comaneci-esque. What is clearly much more plausible is as SoQ suggested, and as the UNRWA spokesperson implied in the interview with channel 4 that you may or may not have got around to watching,

comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 37 minutes ago
Bit ranty and talking sheet SoQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read your own rantings since 7th October. Do you remember?
BTW Have you condemned the IDF? Zionists? Netanyahoo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what I have written thank you and not once have I ever said anything like people deserving the suffering we knew would come and has come.

Stop taking sheeet

Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity and can be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, a US court has ruled.

Mr Trump had claimed in the landmark legal case that he was immune from criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president.

But Tuesday's ruling in Washington DC struck down that claim.


INJECT IT INTO MY COOOCK

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 12 hours, 5 minutes ago
🚨 Breaking 🚨

Channel 4 have finally been shown the dossier for Israel’s claims that UNRWA staff were behind Oct. 7th.

Channel 4 concludes that “Israel provides NO evidence to support this claim”.

===

Does this come as a surprise to anybody?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did they sack 9 of the 12 accused then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would encourage you to watch the linked report from channel 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will do later. I assume that the answer to my question is contained therein?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an interview with someone at UNRWA who confirms that no supporting evidence was provided or has been provided to substantiate the allegations. As was suggested at the time, the reason people were removed was to reduce the risk of withdrawal of funding from key donors. Unfortunately, with only the dossier that channel 4 now has that I have provided comment on above, some donors still took that step.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They sacked people with no evidence and admitted as such? 🤔 weird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well let’s see what the counter would mean;

Let’s first start with suggesting Israel has evidence. Evidence that it has not shared with its allies. Or made public. Now given the recent history, have we seen a trend of Israel pushing evidence into the public domain or keeping it hidden?

Or, let’s say that UNRWA, and UNRWA alone has the evidence, but hasn’t come out to confirm as such. What benefit does it give for UNRWA for it to say it has no evidence and instead it has asked a senior independent UN investigation to look into the claims?

The mental gymnastics you would have to go through in either instance are Comaneci-esque. What is clearly much more plausible is as SoQ suggested, and as the UNRWA spokesperson implied in the interview with channel 4 that you may or may not have got around to watching,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on this specific matter was never based on Israel’s case that they put forward for obvious bias. It was purely based on the fact that they sacked people, which you cannot say is normal without cause.

If you think that they’ve done that with a view that by doing so they would continue to receive support then I would say that is a risky approach and proven to be so as funding was indeed withdrawn.

I haven’t made any definitive conclusions as I am not privy to the facts other than that 9 out of 12 accused were fired quickly. That normally means there was cause.

Can we agree that “normally” or “normal without cause” doesn’t describe the current situation? I’m not sure why you would use that lens when so many other aspects of the current situation are not normal and accepted as such.

Is there a bigger thug than Moggy?

https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1754877980642296245?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on this specific matter was never based on Israel’s case that they put forward for obvious bias. It was purely based on the fact that they sacked people, which you cannot say is normal without cause.

If you think that they’ve done that with a view that by doing so they would continue to receive support then I would say that is a risky approach and proven to be so as funding was indeed withdrawn.

I haven’t made any definitive conclusions as I am not privy to the facts other than that 9 out of 12 accused were fired quickly. That normally means there was cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say it is a risky approach. As a qualified an accredited enterprise risk professional, I have to say I think that’s a poor interpretation of the riskiness of different strategies. Let’s look at the alternative.

Keeping the people employed or suspended.

Now presumably we can both agree that situation increases the likelihood of greater volume of funding being withdrawn.

So, with that established, we then look at what the downside risk would be. Well of course, a key downside risk is employment tribunal etc at some point in future. But liquidity and cash flow today is a much higher priority than a possible case brought to court in several years time. The UNRWA itself has called the current situation in Gaza the most significant challenge it has faced. Other downside risks; there is reputational risk in parts of the Arab world if the UNRWA is being seen to be “siding” with Israel. However, established credibility for humanitarian support to Palestinians over 70 years is not going to be undone by this one instance, so that feels low. Additionally, funding levels of UNRWA are heavily reliant on non-Arab countries.

What the decision taken by some western countries in pausing financial support to UNRWA shows is that in spite of reasonable risk management, the reaction by those countries was outside their realm of control, that is all it shows.

The Houthi movement in Yemen says it has fired missiles at two ships in the Red Sea, apparently undeterred by US and UK strikes on the group.

The group's leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi warned that his group would "further escalate" if the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza did not end.


Great work by Western foreign policy this.

Lol Arab do you really blame the west for the houthi rebels

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
Lol Arab do you really blame the west for the houthi rebels
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who supplied the arms the Saudis have used to reduce their rocks to dust?

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 10 minutes ago
Lol Arab do you really blame the west for the houthi rebels
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit of a stupid question that given the West are supplying arms to their enemies

comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on this specific matter was never based on Israel’s case that they put forward for obvious bias. It was purely based on the fact that they sacked people, which you cannot say is normal without cause.

If you think that they’ve done that with a view that by doing so they would continue to receive support then I would say that is a risky approach and proven to be so as funding was indeed withdrawn.

I haven’t made any definitive conclusions as I am not privy to the facts other than that 9 out of 12 accused were fired quickly. That normally means there was cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say it is a risky approach. As a qualified an accredited enterprise risk professional, I have to say I think that’s a poor interpretation of the riskiness of different strategies. Let’s look at the alternative.

Keeping the people employed or suspended.

Now presumably we can both agree that situation increases the likelihood of greater volume of funding being withdrawn.

So, with that established, we then look at what the downside risk would be. Well of course, a key downside risk is employment tribunal etc at some point in future. But liquidity and cash flow today is a much higher priority than a possible case brought to court in several years time. The UNRWA itself has called the current situation in Gaza the most significant challenge it has faced. Other downside risks; there is reputational risk in parts of the Arab world if the UNRWA is being seen to be “siding” with Israel. However, established credibility for humanitarian support to Palestinians over 70 years is not going to be undone by this one instance, so that feels low. Additionally, funding levels of UNRWA are heavily reliant on non-Arab countries.

What the decision taken by some western countries in pausing financial support to UNRWA shows is that in spite of reasonable risk management, the reaction by those countries was outside their realm of control, that is all it shows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be forgetting that funds were withdrawn mate. If you believe that they sacked 9 people with no cause whatsoever in order to protect their cause then that’s fine. I find that harder to believe but I haven’t had time to watch the programme you encouraged me to watch, which I will do later that may or may not change my mind on the probabilities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NxNQquuRkA

comment by Lucious Lyon (U11781)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 10 minutes ago
Lol Arab do you really blame the west for the houthi rebels
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit of a stupid question that given the West are supplying arms to their enemies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their enemies are mainly other countries on the Arabian Peninsula.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 37 minutes ago
Bit ranty and talking sheet SoQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read your own rantings since 7th October. Do you remember?
BTW Have you condemned the IDF? Zionists? Netanyahoo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what I have written thank you and not once have I ever said anything like people deserving the suffering we knew would come and has come.

Stop taking sheeet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably quiet now, aren’t you SoQ?