Well how about 10 years ago then ?
Green writing
1 Like
I think he might have been “on his best behaviour” at the Oxford Union, don’t you?
Sorry if I offended you by referring to him as an “idiot”. I either shouldn’t have said that, or should at least have qualified it by saying something like “compared with Farage, Tice, Braverman, Rees-Mogg and others who share many of his perspectives but not the behaviour that so clearly alienates thousands of people”.
1 Like
Enoch was our local MP for a time. He gained a reputation as a go to MP if a person needed help.
But your’e right - Enoch would never have travelled on an Irish passport, though fair play to Tommy as he is entitled to one.
3 Likes
Two tier Kiers world of virtue signalling and Policing;
'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n48kbxSPIhc&list=TLPQMDkwOTIwMjQHJiJiutwJZA&index=4
1 Like
British Pensioners learn from illegal Immigrants !
green writing for link
'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPH2g1-GtsY&list=TLPQMTIwOTIwMjSDq9eCriLreQ&index=7
2 Likes
It’s not just Keir or the chancellor - maybe it’s a thing with new, new labour.
Here in NI a man called Sean Brown was murdered by terrorists back some years.
Nothing unusual back then except that in this case there was much talk of ‘state collusion’ i.e. GB state players were involved.
6 months back a high court judge stopped the inquest into the murder & wrote to the then Conservative sos that a Public Inquiry was needed - likely that after objections from GB security services the 52 page report made available to the inquest & Brown family on the murder contained … 52 pages of blacked out words.
New,new labour today decided that there would be no public inquiry.
Likewise new. new labour have decided that if you are a pensioner who has worked hard, paid taxes, still working, have some savings - you cannot get winter payment.
New, new labour in action - that’s how to have 2 tiers.
And it’s not just “hundreds” either - more than tens of thousands ;
Link is green writing;
'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3brNP6abGU&list=TLPQMTUwOTIwMjSW6sDlC5EYpQ&index=2
at last a few are being prosecuted - 106 years between them - hardly sounds like enough really !
2 tier ? - no of course not !
They’ve had to wait about 22 years for justice !
Notice the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 News, Sky News - were NOT in attendance at the Court.
Apparently the Police were acting on "CPS Guidelines at the time " - minute 7
Hmmm - who was “Head of CPS” - 22 years ago - I wonder ?
1 Like
Growing demand for Starmer and his “Free Gear” Cabinet to be made to take IQ tests : (Link is Green writing )
'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5x_-Hp6shk&list=TLPQMjcwOTIwMjSk3H1ARwmmuA&index=11
We all know that this is what the Commies want - but to actually SAY IT !
Starmer tries to talk USA into letting Ukraine use long range missiles against Russia -
THANK GOD - EVEN Biden’s Puppetmeister refuses Starmer’s suicidal request !
1 Like
Last week Kommersant headline - “Putin draws his red line.”
In a nutshell he said that if Ukraine use long range then it’s nuclear retaliation - stated that nuclear armaments are the best defence/deterrent for any country.
1994 Ukraine was nuclear armed - world’s 3rd largest - then 3 countries persuaded Ukraine to give them up in exchange for a guarantee of Ukraine’s security & independence…
That guarantee is known as the Budapest Memorandum.
It’s headlined in the UN as follows
Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Who exactly are the 3 countries that have offered these so called ‘assurances’ to Ukraine?
.
2 Likes
The U.S.-Russia-Ukraine accord—which one of Clinton’s top aides called “the crowning achievement of the summit”—can be looked back at as a betrayal of Kyiv in one sense. Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine.
Later that year, at a conference in Budapest, the U.S., Russia, and Britain formalized those security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (the latter two former Soviet republics had also given up the nuclear weapons on their territory), in exchange for their signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Putin clearly violated this pledge when he annexed Crimea 20 years later, in 2014, and then invaded all of Ukraine eight years hence. The U.S. and Britain, while not legally obligated to come to Ukraine’s aid (other than to seek immediate assistance from the U.N. Security Council, as the Budapest Memorandum required), didn’t raise a huge stink about the incursions either. A case could be made that the relative passivity encouraged Putin to mount his all-out invasion, believing—incorrectly, it turned out—that the West would do little to stop him.
Deceit, Dread, and Disbelief: The Story of How Ukraine Lost Its Nuclear Arsenal
The House of Representatives, after three agonizing weeks, has a speaker in Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA). But the question remains: will Ukraine now get U.S. taxpayer dollars for its fight against Russia? A major contributor to the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the question remains at the heart of House Republican angst and is by no means settled, whatever President Joe Biden may say.
But while most in official Washington trumpet their support for Ukraine, never-before-released archival evidence dating back 30 years proves their forebears in office share blame for the current crisis. The documents show conclusively how two American administrations, senior Pentagon leadership, and NATO, all pressured Ukraine into giving up its only deterrent against Russian aggression—nuclear weapons—despite the credible risk of Russian invasion.
With this information coming to light as Putin himself threatens to deploy nuclear weapons on the battlefield, how willing might Ukraine skeptics in the House GOP be to listen to the foreign policy establishment urging more money and arms for ill-defined objectives?
In 1994, American officials browbeat Ukraine’s newly independent leaders into giving up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union—weapons which could have staved off future aggression from Moscow—in exchange for nebulous “security assurances,” declared as part of the so-called Budapest Memorandum.
These assurances ultimately proved meaningless, as Ukraine’s plight shows today. Yet, the Budapest Memorandum remains settled history for many in the foreign policy establishment: something that could not have unfolded any other way.
Drawn from archives in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United Nations, new never-before-published evidence flatly contradicts this idea. These documents are the grist of exhaustive searches and inquiries to the National Security Archive, two presidential libraries, and the Library of Congress.
These records cut sharply against the rationale for this historical resignation: that Ukraine was incapable of the technical means of operating nuclear weapons and that such weapons wouldn’t do much for its security even if it could. Moreover, their contents undermine the general belief that the effort—even if ultimately in error—was at least dedicated to the noble goal of reducing overall global stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
On the contrary, the evidence reveals President Bill Clinton’s future CIA director concluding that Ukraine did have the means to operate an arsenal. The unearthed papers show the USSR’s last foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, confirming that “just one nuclear missile” in Ukrainian hands would have been enough to safeguard its independence so far as Russian strategic planning was concerned. They also show top American officials—from both parties—fretting over Russia’s belligerent, irredentist behavior during the negotiations, including repeated concerns about a potential future Russian invasion of Ukraine even as they chided “whiners” in Kyiv for expressing the same anxieties.
The same “settled history” crowd contends the Budapest Agreement—even if ultimately in error—was at least dedicated to the noble goal of reducing overall global stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We now know it was nothing of the sort.
Historical materials also illuminate how American officials blocked serious attempts by Kyiv to trade its inherited arsenal for genuine security guarantees—even going so far as to lobby Europeans to keep Ukraine out of non-NATO security arrangements. Perhaps this was because, as the record now reveals, they were also backchanneling to Moscow respect for Russia’s “vital interests in its near abroad” and a willingness to “help in a variety of ways.”
Among the ways cited? The American-Russian-Ukrainian accord that preceded the high-level public declarations in the Budapest Memorandum.
Rather than a serious effort at global nuclear arms control, the actual imperative seems to have been a desire on the part of American officials to coax Russia into joining the Western democratic world. The Budapest Agreement, therefore, amounted to a diplomatic shell game—one where weapons were transferred from a weaker state to a stronger one with imperial pretensions, largely to soothe Russian insecurities about achieving “parity” in its nuclear stockpile vis-à-vis the United States.
That was an understandable and even laudable aim. Yet, it resulted in a doomed policy that required assuaging Russia at almost any cost, ignoring the Kremlin’s own words and actions, and ultimately leaving Ukraine to the perilous fate borne out today.
After all, the only reason Ukraine agreed to surrender its weapons is because Western powers linked that decision to “security assurances” that proved hollow. According to Yuri Kostenko, Kyiv’s former head envoy for disarmament, the outcome deprived his country of “the most powerful method of protecting the state.” It received nothing in return—except, perhaps, its worst fears fulfilled. Now, with forfeited Ukrainian missiles raining down on Ukrainian cities, it is time for Western policymakers to confront the past—their past—with the seriousness it dese
2 Likes
The notion that Ukraine is entirely to blame is absurd, as foreign actors have left Ukraine exposed, including the United States and some European countries, and now some people and parties in the U.S. are kissing Putin as-s to make sure he wins, what is a country to do when things were told behind closed doors, only they know what was told to Ukraine outside of any agreement, They are providing Ukraine with funding out of guilt.
It’s a total mess and we have no idea how deep this mess goes.
Wasn’t Russia’s claims they didn’t want to be surrounded by NATO and missiles on its borders? it was a security threat?
1 Like
Typical Russian logic! 
If it takes out Ukraine it’s certainly surrounded by NATO, plus Finland now.
2 Likes
WARNING - You could get a jail sentence for liking this 
2 Likes
UK PM Starmer today in Brussels for more talks.
Fish, migration & young ppl inter travel up for discussion.
Doesn’t affect us from NI but GB older ppl are more affected re the 90 day max rule - will be interesting if they tackle that.
2 Likes
Is it terrifying to contemplate that someone who has strong beliefs could be our leader? I think the current ministers are showing their lack of experience and inflated egos is more terrifying than anything Corbin could have concocted. I have no like or dislike for Corbin, but he was “not for turning”, as one of another party once famously announced.