British Politics

https://fartsdirect.com/

please log in to view this image

 

No, don’t be silly. The ‘left’ groups who are given input into these companies ‘social policies’ are. See Stonewall for further evidence. Enjoy the Eton boys for the foreseeable.

 

The Left Bank isnt that large an area
"The Rive Gauche (French pronunciation: [ʁiv ɡoʃ], Left Bank) is the southern bank of the river Seine in Paris. Here the river flows roughly westward, cutting the city in two parts. ... The Latin Quarter is a Left Bank area in the 5th and 6th arrondissements in the vicinity of the University of Paris."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rive_...Latin Quarter is a,of the University of Paris.

 

****ed if I know then. That's my guess gone.

 

Special Report: Putin’s plan and its terrifying consequences for Europe
The West faces an ultimatum from Russia that could result in actual war. Yet we don’t seem to have noticed. Paris Sorbonne professor of international relations and Russia specialist FRANÇOISE THOM analyses the threat.

FRANÇOISE THOM

please log in to view this image

Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a rally and concert marking the anniversary of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea region, at Manezhnaya Square in central Moscow. Is Ukraine next? Photo: Getty.
On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry published two draft texts — a Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees and an Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and the Member States of NATO.

Moscow’s stated goal is to obtain “legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO.”

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said: “The two texts are not written according to the principle of a menu, where you can choose one or the other, they complement each other and should be considered as a whole.”

The second text, he said, is a kind of parallel guarantee because “the Russian Foreign Ministry is fully aware that the White House may not meet its obligations, and therefore there is a separate draft treaty for NATO countries.”

The Russian manoeuvre is to bind NATO through the United States, the United States through NATO. There is nothing to negotiate, you have to accept everything as a whole.

Russian media, such as the digital newspaper Vzglyad, are already jubilant: “The world before and the world after December 17, 2021 are completely different worlds. If until now the United States held the whole world at gunpoint, now it finds itself

under the threat of Russian military forces. A new era is opening, new heroes are coming, and a new Danila Bagrov (character of the patriotic mobster in the popular film Brat), raising his heavy fist and looking into the eyes of his interlocutor, asks softly again: “How strong are you, American?”

The Russian threat is explicit and directed at both the Americans and the Europeans. If the West does not accept the ultimatum, they will have to face “a military and technical alternative”, according to Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko: “The Europeans must also think about whether they want to avoid making their continent the scene of a military confrontation. They have a choice. Either they take seriously what is put on the table, or they face a military-technical alternative.”

After the publication of the draft treaty, the extraordinary possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets was cooly confirmed by former Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defense Andrei Kartapolov: “Our partners must understand that the longer they drag out the examination of our proposals and the adoption of real measures to create these guarantees, the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike.”

To underline matters, Russia fired a salvo of Zircon hypersonic missiles on December 24. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, commented on this event: “Well, I hope that the notes [referring to the ultimatum published the previous week] will be more convincing”.

please log in to view this image

Recent satellite images showing the build-up of Russian military forces on the Ukraine border.
Russian political analyst Vladimir Mozhegov is more explicit about the nature of the threat to the West. “What are our arguments? First and foremost, of course, our most reliable allies — the army and the navy. To be more precise, the hypersonic Zircon missile [nicknamed the “carrier killer”] which makes it absurd for the United States to have a fleet of aircraft carriers.

“The impact of the Zircon cracks a destroyer like a nut. Several Zircons will inevitably sink an aircraft carrier. The Zircon simply does its job: it methodically shoots huge, clumsy aircraft carriers like a gun at cans.” An article in the digital newspaper Svpressa is titled “Putin’s ultimatum: Russia will bury all of Europe and two-thirds of the United States in 30 minutes”.

“The Kremlin will have to prove its position with deeds. It is probably only possible to force the “partners” to sit at the negotiating table by coercion. Economically, the Russian Federation cannot compete with the West. There remains war.”

The impression in western media is that nothing is happening. The press do not seem to understand what is at stake, thinking that only the fate of Ukraine is being decided.

In French political thinking it normal that Russia should claim a sphere of influence. Yet they risk echoing those who, in 1939, believed that Hitler’s demands would be limited to Danzig. A simple examination of the texts proposed by Moscow make it clear the stakes are quite different.

The Russian ultimatum demands “the renunciation of any enlargement of NATO, the cessation of military cooperation with post-Soviet countries, the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of NATO armed forces to the borders of 1997”.

Russia and the United States would then commit themselves not to deploy nuclear weapons abroad and to withdraw those already deployed.

Article 7 of the ultimatum specifies that “NATO shall refrain from conducting any military activities on the territory of Ukraine, as well as of the other states of eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia.” This includes the 14 Eastern European and Balkan states that became members of NATO in the last 24 years.

In short, “the Russian initiative could help the Americans to quietly leave Central and Eastern Europe,” according to the headline of an article posted by the very official think tank Russtrat.

And what is Russia offering in exchange for all the concessions demanded of the West? Does it propose to evacuate Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass, since it talks about returning to the situation in 1997? Nothing of the sort.

Its bargain, it says, is to be willing to commit itself not to threaten American security. One remembers the Cold War joke: “What is ours is ours, what is yours is negotiable”. In a word, Russia is demanding that NATO commit suicide, and the United States be reduced to the role of a regional power.

As a result, Russia will have the upper hand in Europe. The countries of western Europe are already taken for granted, with Moscow counting on the pool of influencers it has cultivated for years within the European ruling elites.

Deprived of American support, the “Russophobic” countries that crystallise the resistance to Moscow’s hegemony will have to bow to the inevitable.

According to Russtrat, “of course, Poland and the Baltic countries will be unhappy. But they will probably be the only ones to oppose the American withdrawal from Central and Eastern Europe. After all, the rest of the “Young Europeans” are guided by the position of the EU “core” countries, and they do not have stable anti-Russian complexes.”

Moscow is counting on the demoralizing effect on Europe of this Russian-American negotiation on its fate from which it is excluded, and on the weakness of the American side in the absence of the European allies.

The European Union wanted to participate. But Moscow has adamantly imposed the bilateral format with Washington. Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov explains why: In his view, European countries are trying to participate in the negotiations in order to sabotage them.

The Second World War RibbentropMolotov Pact, in which Stalin’s USSR was betrayed by Hitler’s Third Reich, is never far away in the minds of the Kremlin leaders.

It is also a question of status, and a reflection of Putin’s obsession with erasing the collapse of the USSR. Thus Nezavisimaya Gazeta emphasizes that “Russia has acted as the heir to the USSR, the second superpower, which considers itself entitled to negotiate with the West on an equal footing.”

By negotiating as an equal with the president of the United States, Putin demonstrates at the same time to the Russians that his position as the boss is recognized by the cursed Westerners.

The feeling of debasement the Russians experience in their hearts by submitting to despotism vanishes when they see the humiliation of the West: foreigners too are bowing down to Putin. The regime’s propaganda knows how to play these sensitive chords.

It is important to understand what motivated Putin to launch this challenge to Western countries. As always, Russian policy is dictated by a careful analysis of the “correlation of forces”, which, according to Kremlin experts, has just tipped in favour of the anti-Western revisionist powers.

After 20 year’s preparation for war, the Russian position is considered to be stronger than ever, according to the Russtrat think tank.

“In the next year and a half, Russia will considerably change the balance of global power. The explosion of planetary inflation is causing an energy crisis, which makes the Europeans much more accommodating and rules out a blockade of our energy supplies, whatever we do.”

Europe’s energy needs – in particular Germany’s dependency on Russian gas – are leverage.

If Russia and China coordinate their actions against Ukraine and Taiwan,” Russtrat says, “everything will become much easier for us. And for China too, from which we will divert attention, which will free our hands even more…” On the other side the United States is facing an unprecedented crisis, with galloping inflation, supply shortages, a weak president, a society more divided than ever. As a result, according to Irina Alksnis in RIA Novosti, “Russia as well as China and other powers working to transform the world system have a window of opportunity to accelerate the eviction of the United States from the global throne.”

Hence the approach of the Kremlin: “This is not a proposal for discussion, but an ultimatum — a demand for unconditional surrender,” Alksnis says.

“The West has no choice but to lose face — unless it stands proudly and goes to war with Russia. Judging by the way the West has begun to show disarray on the other side, they are well aware of this.”

By threatening war, “Moscow is emphasizing that Russia is ready — morally, technically, and in every other sense of the word — for any turn of events. And the reputation it has earned in previous years confirms that the Russians will indeed be ready to use force if they deem it necessary. It is worth recalling the words of Vladimir Putin, who stated bluntly this summer that if Russia sank the British destroyer responsible for a provocation off the coast of Crimea, there would be no major consequences.”

The trigger for the Kremlin’s December ultimatum was the misguided policy of the White House which, after last year’s debacle in Afghanistan, multiplied the number of emissaries to Moscow this autumn, making the weakness of the United States even more obvious in Putin’s eyes.

On November 2, 2021, CIA Director William Burns met with Russian Federation Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev and, presumably, President Putin.

Burns is a favourite figure in the Kremlin: For three years, between 2005 and 2008, he was ambassador to Russia and found a common language with Putin. Sober and pragmatic, conspicuously devoid of any messiah complex characteristic of Americans, Burns has always advocated the refusal to expand NATO eastward.

Burns’ visit was interpreted in Moscow as an indication that the policy of appeasement has prevailed in Washington and encouragement to raise the stakes and “seize the strategic initiative”.

Within these events, exists a markedly Leninist substratum. The United States and its European allies were the haves of the international order, the main beneficiaries of the existing system, which brought them privileges disproportionate to their contribution. Thanks to the crisis, their hegemony is on the decline. The formerly “proletarian” states are prevailing, under Russian leadership. Here again Putin is replaying the Cold War, this time with a happy ending.

In the Kremlin’s view, everything it does not control can jeopardize the regime. This can be seen in Russian domestic politics, where the oases of freedom have been dried up one by one during the last decades. What Moscow fears in Ukraine is not a few NATO instructors, but freedom. It wants a disarmed Ukraine so that it can intimidate the Kiev rebels and set up a regime hated by its people, thus totally dependent on the Kremlin.

The term Cold War carries a pejorative connotation it does not deserve. The French Minister of Defense Florence Parly recently declared that Western countries must avoid escalation with Russia in order not to provoke a new Cold War.

please log in to view this image

The empire strikes back… Putin’s endgame is a return to the geographical reach and hegemony of the USSR in its prime.
As long as we remain within these conceptual frameworks, Russia will win. It should be remembered that the Cold War began in 1946, when the West stopped caving in to Stalin, after having abandoned the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to him. It was thanks to the Cold War that the countries of Western Europe retained their freedom.

The lessons of 1946-7 are still relevant today. The pioneers of the Cold War were the British, who formed a Western bloc around the Anglo-French core and persuaded isolationist Americans to stay in Europe. In the spring of 1947, the French, Italian and Belgian governments expelled Communist ministers, aware of the threat linked to Moscow’s fifth column in Europe.

This clear willingness to resist Stalin finally persuaded Washington to commit itself to European security. We could draw lessons from this experience today, but to do that, we have to learn to face the facts, to think in political terms, instead of drifting rudderless in media passions and polls.

In 1946-7 we knew that freedom was worth dying for, something that is obviously forgotten today. After Munich in 1938, the West was ashamed to have abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler’s clutches. Today we are cowardly letting down Ukraine, but we do not even realize our dishonour, nor the danger of giving in to an aggressor.

We are like the Byzantines who were discussing the sex of angels while the Ottoman forces were destroying the city walls.”

 

Happy New Brexit Year… the worst is yet to come New rules and standards on EU trade will make the first set of Brexit measures pale into insignificance JONTY BLOOM Don't look now .. but the worst is yet to come from Brexit in 2022 Like the gift that keeps on giving, Brexit has only just started. Yes, it has been five years since the referendum and a full year since the UK left the European Union, but we are yet to feel the full effect. That’s not only because the economic and reputational hits are not going to stop but because the Brexit we have enjoyed so far is only the first wave. The UK government, despite having had five long years to prepare and insisting that the deal just had to be done, was strangely enough not ready for Brexit and so kicked many of its provisions down the road. But these are about to be introduced throughout 2022, meaning that all the damage of the first year will be just a taster for what’s to come. Three main types of new rules are being introduced on January 1. They are the imposition of checks that the EU levied on our exports from day one of Brexit but which the UK has so far avoided, new checks and red tape on all food and drink trade, and Rules of Origin regulations. Until now, UK border authorities have hardly bothered to check incoming goods from the EU; they haven’t had the facilities and they knew it would be very disruptive. So, goods and trucks have been waved through the UK’s borders, and firms have had months in which to fill in the forms and pay any tariffs or VAT. But from the start of 2022 all van and lorry operators, foreign and domestic, will have to register with the Goods Vehicle Movement Service for a goods movement reference number, without which it will be impossible to move through a UK port. Given that many haulage firms use foreign drivers and vehicles, it is not known how many will register or even if they know they have to. What they should also know is that they will also need a new international operating licence if they want their drivers to travel back and forth from the EU from May. Yours for just over £1,000. Then firms will have to have all the paperwork ready on the day their load crosses the border between the EU and the UK and pay any taxes or tariffs that are due. If the forms are not completed correctly and the money is not paid, the goods will, in most cases, not be allowed to leave the port. These rules were introduced on the EU side of the border at the beginning of 2021. Strangely enough, the failing and sclerotic behemoth managed to prepare for the new border in time. Lorries and heavy goods vehicles make their way into the Port of Dover on December 30, 2021 in Dover, England. Businesses importing products of animal origin, animal by-products and high risk foods not of animal origin (HRFNAO) must notify the UK authorities least four hours in advance of their arrival into Great Britain as from January 1, 2022 Lorries and heavy goods vehicles make their way into the Port of Dover on December 30, 2021 ahead of new Brexit trade rules being implemented. Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images But now the UK says it is finally ready to do the same. Many in the logistics sector have their doubts about that. British industry has long and painful memories of failed government computer systems and of red tape and checks with endless teething problems, and it is fully expecting the same this time. The potential problems won’t be helped by the lack of knowledge or preparedness of small firms in the UK, the ones most likely to throw in the towel and give up on international trade. At the beginning of December, the Federation of Small Businesses found 25% of its members weren’t ready for these new rules and one-third of them hadn’t even heard of them until asked in the survey. On top of those problems, the UK’s agriculture and food industries (the country’s largest manufacturing sector) face the full introduction of new measures on sanitary and phytosanitary standards. These cover agri-food products and will mean the pre-notification of agri-food imports from the start of 2022. Starting in July, they will also need export health certificates and there will be physical checks at border control posts. The costs to the food and drink industry will be huge, the previously unnecessary checks tiresome and the delays for time-sensitive produce irksome. That all comes on top of the hit the industry has already taken. The latest figures show that its exports to the EU have fallen by about a quarter since 2019, at a cost of £2.4bn, with smaller firms suffering the most. The figures for individual countries are even worse: exports of food and drink to Germany fell 44.5% while exports to Spain halved, and the industry expects these new rules to hit sales even harder. But the biggest problem for British industry will come with the introduction of tough new regulations on Rules of Origin. These are designed to make sure businesses cannot just import something into the UK, stick a Union Jack flag label on it and re-export it to the EU free of tariffs. Nor can, say, a Canadian axe maker get around tariffs on their products by exporting the heads and the handles to the UK and just putting the two together in a small UK factory. The Rules of Origin would show that not enough of the axe originated in the UK; it is, therefore, Canadian and would attract the appropriate tariffs. The UK has quite a few businesses that were attracted by its access to the single market and function as little more than final assembly plants; these are, therefore, likely to fall foul of Rules of Origin. The rules vary from industry to industry and product to product but the onus is on firms to prove that their products were mainly produced in the UK. Many firms will have to collect the data to prove they can export tariff-free, or they may collect it and suddenly discover they can no longer export to the EU without tariffs. It is hardly surprising that a third of all British firms say they are not at all ready for full Brexit customs checks. We can also see what is likely to happen as a result, because many of these rules have been in place on the EU side for a year. The Centre for European Reform (CER), which models UK imports and exports against similar countries to measure the Brexit effect, has found that the UK goods trade is already as much as 16% lower than it would have been without Brexit. The UK services sector figures are very similar. It has faced particular challenges post-Brexit and recent figures from the ONS show that services sector exports globally were down by about 14% in the second quarter of 2021, compared with the same quarter in 2019. The equivalent figure for EU exports over the same period is close to 30%. The difference between the two, which is very similar to the CER calculations, shows very clearly that Brexit has done even more harm to the UK economy than Covid. Much of that collapse in trade came about because many firms, especially small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), which happily traded across the EU before Brexit, decided they could no longer be bothered. If many firms thought the Brexit red tape introduced in 2021 was enough to stop them exporting, many more are going to find the same thing in 2022, not only with exports but also with imports. Finally, we know that many British firms decided during 2021 to just pay tariffs on their exports to the EU. Every single one of them was entitled to zero tariffs but had to fill out forms to claim that right, and so 10% just paid the tariffs. It was cheaper and easier for them to pay taxes than to fill out the forms. Much the same is likely to happen for EU firms now when they are exporting to the UK. But whether they pay the extra taxes or waste time and money filling in forms and preparing for checks at the border themselves, the end result will be the same. If they can be bothered to trade with the UK, they will just take the added costs and pass them on to their customers in Britain, pushing up prices and inflation. We can, therefore, expect further substantial hits to exports to and imports from the EU, even if the new systems work perfectly, while the supply chain could face real problems if they do not. Industry experts believe that if the border is under threat of grinding to a halt, the UK government will just back down and delay the introduction of the new rules and regulations yet again. But even if it does do that, much of the damage has already been done. Adam Posen, the American economist and formerly a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, has described Brexit as a trade war, but one that the UK has declared on itself. The UK is forcing self-inflicted defeats upon its exporters, service and manufacturing sectors and economy, time and time again, with no victories to offset the losses. The government is intent on putting red tape, costs, checks, taxes, rules and regulations in the way of British business. We have only seen the first tranche. More will come and the consequences are obvious and inevitable. Like the gift that keeps on giving, Brexit has only just started. Yes, it has been five years since the referendum and a full year since the UK left the EU, but we are yet to feel the full effect. That’s not only because the economic and reputational hits are not going to stop but because the Brexit we have enjoyed so far is only the first wave. The UK government, having had five long years to prepare and insisting that the deal just had to be done, was strangely enough not ready for Brexit and so kicked many of its provisions down the road. But they are about to be introduced throughout 2022, and so all the damage of the first year turns out to be just a taster for what’s to come. Three main types of new rules are being introduced on January 1. They are the imposing of the checks that the EU levied on our exports from day one of Brexit but which the UK has so far avoided, new checks and red tape on all food and drink trade, and Rules of Origin. Until now, the UK border authorities have hardly bothered to check incoming goods from the EU, they haven’t had the facilities and they knew that it would be very disruptive. So, goods and trucks have been waved through the UK’s borders, and firms have had months in which to fill in the forms and pay any tariffs or VAT. But from the start of 2022 all van and lorry operators, foreign and domestic, will have to register with the Goods Vehicle Movement Service for a goods movement reference number, without which it will be impossible to move through a UK port. Given that many haulage firms use foreign drivers and vehicles it is not known how many will register or even if they know they have to. What they should also know is that they will also need a new international operating licence if they want their drivers to travel back and forth from the EU from May. Yours for just over £1,000. Then firms will have to have all the paperwork ready on the day their load crosses the border between the EU and the UK and pay any taxes or tariffs that are due. If the forms are not completed correctly and the money is not paid, the goods will, in most cases, not be allowed to leave the port. These rules were introduced on the EU side of the border at the beginning of 2021. Strangely enough, the failing and sclerotic behemoth managed to prepare for the new border in time. But now the UK says it is finally ready to do the same. Many in the logistics sector have their doubts about that. British industry has long and painful memories of failed government computer systems and of red tape and checks with endless teething problems and it is fully expecting the same this time. The potential problems won’t be helped by the lack of knowledge or preparedness of small firms in the UK, the ones most likely to throw in the towel and give up on international trade. At the beginning of December, the Federation of Small Businesses found 25 per cent of its members weren’t ready for these new rules and one-third of them hadn’t even heard of them until asked in the survey. On top of those problems, the UK’s agriculture and food industries (the country’s largest manufacturing sector) face the full introduction of new measures on sanitary and phytosanitary standards. These cover agri-food products and will mean the pre-notification of agri-food imports from the start of 2022. Starting in July, they will also need export health certificates and there will be physical checks at border control posts. The costs to the food and drink industry will be huge, the previously unnecessary checks tiresome and the delays for time-sensitive produce irksome. That all comes on top of the hit that the industry has already taken. The latest figures show that its exports to the EU have fallen by about a quarter since 2019, at a cost of £2.4bn, with smaller firms suffering the most. The figures for individual countries are even worse: exports of food and drink to Germany fell 44.5% and exports to Spain halved, and the industry expects these new rules to hit sales even harder. But the biggest problem for British industry will come with the introduction of tough new regulations on Rules of Origin. These are designed to make sure businesses cannot just import something into the UK, stick a Union flag label on it and re-export it to the EU free of tariffs. Nor can, say, a Canadian axe maker get around tariffs on their products by exporting the heads and the handles to the UK and just putting the two together in a small UK factory. The Rules of Origin would show that not enough of the axe originated in the UK; it is, therefore, Canadian and would attract the appropriate tariffs. The UK has quite a few businesses that were attracted by its access to the single market and which are little more than final assembly plants and are, therefore, likely to fall foul of Rules of Origin. The rules vary from industry to industry and product to product but the onus is on firms to prove that their products were mainly produced in the UK. Many firms will have to collect the data to prove they can export tariff-free, or collect it and suddenly discover they can no longer export to the EU without tariffs. It is hardly surprising that a third of all British firms say they are not at all ready for full Brexit customs checks. We can also see what is likely to happen as a result, because many of these rules that the UK is about to introduce have been in place on the EU side for a year. The Centre for European Reform (CER), which models UK imports and exports against similar countries to measure the Brexit effect, has found that the UK goods trade is already as much as 16 per cent lower than it would have been without Brexit. The UK services sector figures are very similar. It has faced particular challenges post-Brexit. Recent figures from the ONS show that UK services exports globally were down by about 14 per cent in the second quarter of 2021 compared with the same quarter in 2019. The equivalent figure for EU exports over the same period is close to 30 per cent. The difference between the two, which is very similar to the CER calculations, shows very clearly that Brexit has done even more harm to the UK economy than Covid. Much of that collapse in trade came about because many firms, especially small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), which happily traded across the EU before Brexit, decided they could no longer be bothered. If many firms thought the Brexit red tape introduced in 2021 was enough to stop them exporting, many more are going to find the same thing in 2022, not only with exports but also with imports. Finally, we know that many British firms decided during 2021 to just pay tariffs on their exports to the EU. Every single one of them was entitled to zero tariffs but had to fill out the forms to claim that right, and so 10 per cent just paid the tariffs. It was cheaper and easier for them to pay taxes than to fill out the forms. Much the same is likely to happen for EU firms now when they are exporting to the UK. But whether they pay the extra taxes or waste time and money filling in forms and preparing for checks at the border themselves, the end result will be the same. If they can be bothered to trade with the UK, they will just take the added costs and pass them on to their customers in Britain, pushing up prices and inflation. We can, therefore, expect further substantial hits to exports to and imports from the EU, even if the new systems work perfectly, and real problems to the supply chain if they do not. Industry experts believe that if the border is at threat of grinding to a halt, the UK government will just back down and delay the introduction of the new rules and regulations yet again. But even if it does do that, much of the damage has already been done. Adam Posen, the American economist and formerly a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, has described Brexit as a trade war, but one that the UK has declared on itself. The UK is forcing self-inflicted defeats upon its exporters, service and manufacturing sectors and economy, time and time again, with no victories to offset the losses. The government is intent on putting red tape, costs, checks, taxes, rules and regulations in the way of British business. We have only seen the first tranche. More will come and the consequences are obvious and inevitable.

 

Meghan to receive £1 in damages after privacy case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59879079

 

Lord Ahmed: Former peer guilty of trying to rape girl
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-59607283

 

I wonder if these dudes do Zoom calls?

 

Hang the ****

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-59607283


Lord Ahmed: Former peer guilty of child sex offences

 

Little wonder the Lefty Loonies on here don't like mentioning muslim grooming gangs

Vote Lefty Loony Woke Labour xxxxx

 

Yet another Pakistani Muslim Labour MP caught bumming kids.

Sir Tony gave him a peerage in 1998 .

Utter scum


Vote Labour x

 

J7 and tranny Pompey will have a candle lit vigil for the scum bag

 

better still work hard in the country they were born in

 

They were safe in France

 

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/01/04/frances-macron-stuns-as-he-declares-un-vaxxed-not-citizens/

France’s Macron Stuns As He Declares Un-Vaxxed ‘Not Citizens’.