Voor alle Russische propagandisten en elke wappie die in Russische propaganda is getrapt: Aanschouw de Poolse Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken die bij de VN stap voor stap de hele Russische propagandamachine feitelijk ontmantelt.

Amazing speech! 👏👏👏

‘Effective immediate’ Trump wrote on ‘Truth Social’ at the weekend. ‘There is an energy ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides have agreed.’ Not a single word of that post is true. There is no energy ceasefire. It is not effective immediate. Ukraine has agreed in principle. But Trump’s pal Putin has not. Pal Putin refused when Trump last said there was an energy ceasefire (Sept 14 — bollocks then, bollocks now). Russia is still trying to cripple Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in advance of winter. There have been 196 Russian attacks on Ukrainian electricity in the past week. They continue. Over 20 attacks on Ukrainian oil and gas. They continue. And 153 Ukrainians, mainly civilians, killed in these and other attacks on residential areas. Yet Trump calls for Zelensky to be deposed, blames him for war continuing, high energy prices (NOT his failing war on Iran!). Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I used to truly despise Zelensky, I still don’t think he’s a great figure. That being said, I feel bad for the guy. He’s accepted every proposal for peace brokered between him and Russia by the U.S., only for Russia to violate it every time. Ukraine is winning this war but still trying just to survive. Russia started this. Putin is the bad guy, end of story. Trump saying we’ll buy Russian oil is one of the worst positions ever taken by not just the Trump administration, but any modern day administration.

RETWEET if you stand with President Zelensky against Donald Trump!

If the Great Train Robbery happened tomorrow, Farage would say that he’s been warning for years that illegal migrants would attack our mail system.

"So, why did your career in politics come to an end then, Mr Farage?" "Four scandals."

Oi, non-league boffins... If you take a club's last League, FA Cup and FA Trophy game, has anyone ever had a better combined score of @PonteCollsFC current 20-0 aggregate total? (8-0 + 7-0 + 5-0)

@JeffStelling can you give our boys a shoutout on @talkSPORT this morning, a 12-0 aggregate over our two games this weekend. Won 8-0 in the FA Cup the weekend before too 😅

My #FATrophy Q1 Rd review includes amongst others: @HanleyTown66 @hashtagutd @guistownfc @AscotUnitedFC @ManorFarmFC @Mickleover_FC @HertfordTownFC @Bootle_FC @hyufc_official @lowerbreck @HerneBayFC @SRFCofficial facupfactfile.wordpress.com/…

Congrats on your massive #FATrophy win today, Pontefract Collieries biggest margin of victory in the competition, and on equalling the club's best Trophy run last posted two years ago!

Zia Yusuf - who isn’t even an MP - calling a former captain in the Scots Guards who served in Northern Ireland and was mentioned in dispatches a “traitor to Britain” is, by any measure, completely nuts. huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b…

Chris, there are rare occasions when an author dismantles his own argument before the reader has progressed beyond the opening paragraphs. This is one of them. You readily concede that much of your reporting over recent months rested upon anonymous briefings, unnamed sources, private conversations and opinions offered only on condition that they could never be subjected to public scrutiny. You then ask your audience to accept that such material provides an accurate account of events. With respect, that is not evidence in any meaningful sense. It is an interpretation of events, constructed from assertions that the reader has no means of testing, verifying or challenging. No serious observer disputes that confidential sources have a legitimate place in political journalism. They always have, and they always will. But there is a profound distinction between using anonymous sources to illuminate established facts and using them to construct an entire political narrative over many months. The former is responsible journalism; the latter risks becoming an exercise in reinforcing assumptions until they acquire the appearance of fact simply through constant repetition. Indeed, your own article inadvertently exposes that very process. It repeatedly invites readers to accept what unnamed MPs supposedly believed, what unidentified advisers were allegedly saying, and what anonymous insiders privately thought. Such accounts may well have reflected genuine conversations, but they remain assertions rather than verifiable facts. There is an important distinction, and one that ought never to be blurred. More striking still is the omission at the heart of your analysis. You devote thousands of words to explaining how Westminster concluded that Sir Keir Starmer's premiership had become untenable, yet you devote scarcely a sentence to examining whether the relentless stream of anonymous briefings and speculative commentary from sections of the political media played any part in creating that very outcome. That question surely deserves examination. Nor do you grapple with the constitutional consequence of what follows. The British people elected a Government led by Sir Keir Starmer. Should he be replaced by another individual through internal parliamentary manoeuvring alone, the process may be constitutionally lawful, but that does not automatically confer political legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate. Those are two entirely different questions. Many of those now defending such a transition were previously among the most vocal critics of Rishi Sunak for assuming office without seeking his own mandate from the country. Constitutional principles cannot be invoked when politically convenient and quietly abandoned when they become inconvenient. History has a habit of punishing such inconsistency. If Andy Burnham were to become Prime Minister in these circumstances, I believe the pressure upon him to seek his own mandate from the British people would become irresistible. In my view, he would have little practical choice but to call a General Election within six to eight months. Whether Labour would survive such a contest is, of course, for the electorate to determine. My own judgement is that they would face a severe electoral reckoning, with the country returning either a Reform UK-led government or a hung Parliament. Journalism should chronicle events, not become so intertwined with Westminster's internal conversations that it begins to mistake the mood of the political class for the settled will of the British people. That, in my view, is the fundamental weakness running through your analysis. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg8…

That’s why no PM will last more than a couple of years. The back biting and slagging off makes the job impossible

I blame the likes of Chris Mason, Laura Kuenssberg, Robinson who have manipulated, twisted and given so much misinformation to bring the current political situation into what it is now. Shame on you.😡

A democratically elected British Prime Minister has been driven from office by a relentless campaign of propaganda and misinformation; funded, amplified and perpetuated by foreign billionaires and elites whose interests bear zero resemblance to those of ordinary working people. A noble gesture from an emotional Keir Starmer, entirely consistent with his conduct in office. A truly sad day for British democracy. His full resignation speech:

Steve Bray blasting Ode to Joy, ruining nationally historic moments like this for us and posterity, is a complete disgrace. A yob.

My response to reforms reaction at the Kirklees council meeting lastnight.. #council #reform #kirklees

Keir Starmer is "not Superman, we're not going to get Superman, we're going to get a person" Labour MP Dame Emily Thornberry tells #PoliticsLive it's "impossible" to be UK PM, adding "you cannot have someone who's perfect, and also someone who's human" bbc.in/4eY7l0i