Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Andy Burnham and John Healey are happily playing in the sandpit while Mum Diane Abbott keeps watch. Trouble starts when Andy pinches John’s toy soldiers, insisting welfare comes before defence. Then Dad Lee Anderson arrives home with cobs for everyone. {satire}

Crewkerne Gazette

40,723 subscribers

58,187 просмотров • 18 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика Образование Юмор

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 6

Фото профиля Happyalways

Happyalways18 дней назад

Put it on the red box, it’s the only thing in there 🤣

Фото профиля Christopher Jones

Christopher Jones18 дней назад

The sad state of today’s politics,and look at the state of that lawn 😳😳😳

Фото профиля Donna Zurek

Donna Zurek18 дней назад

You’ve got to laugh haven’t you …..

Фото профиля Toni Mousley

Toni Mousley18 дней назад

Ha ha 🤣 lol 😜

Фото профиля joe-lincs

joe-lincs18 дней назад

@joe0603 When are you next attacking the Tory party ?.... me thinks you are a closet Tory ...

Фото профиля Marie 💙💙💙 save our NHS

Marie 💙💙💙 save our NHS18 дней назад

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 great job. 👏

Похожие видео

I must be psychic. I made a video about exactly this weeks or so ago and now it’s happened…who’d have guessed. To summarise. John Healey resigned as defence secretary because nasty Keir Starmer wouldn’t give him enough money for tanks and drones and shit. Andy Burnham comes to power and puts Healey in charge of the piggy bank as Chancellor. Psychic people like me say “hmmm that’s gonna be interesting for him when he comes to hading our sweeties to the defence department”. Lo and behold, Healey the man who resigned on a point of honour because it was a disgrace that our military was being underfunded, is now absolutely fine with underfunding them and said we won’t hit the 3% of GDP target by 2030. Is that hypocrisy on the biggest scale. “I quit because it was wrong, but now I’m doing it and in charge it’s no longer wrong”. And you wonder why nobody trusts these bastards!!! Laughable if it wasn’t so wrong!!!

I must be psychic. I made a video about exactly this weeks or so ago and now it’s happened…who’d have guessed. To summarise. John Healey resigned as defence secretary because nasty Keir Starmer wouldn’t give him enough money for tanks and drones and shit. Andy Burnham comes to power and puts Healey in charge of the piggy bank as Chancellor. Psychic people like me say “hmmm that’s gonna be interesting for him when he comes to hading our sweeties to the defence department”. Lo and behold, Healey the man who resigned on a point of honour because it was a disgrace that our military was being underfunded, is now absolutely fine with underfunding them and said we won’t hit the 3% of GDP target by 2030. Is that hypocrisy on the biggest scale. “I quit because it was wrong, but now I’m doing it and in charge it’s no longer wrong”. And you wonder why nobody trusts these bastards!!! Laughable if it wasn’t so wrong!!!

John Hannam

16,198 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨 ✅ Bridget Phillipson make a good point on Andy Burnham (responding to McSweeney’s claim Labour wasn’t ready to govern after 4 years): “Andy Burnham has been in Cabinet previously. He’s held a number of roles. He’s been an MP before. He actually has more experience of governing than many of us did when we entered government for the very first time as ministers in 2024.” Unlike Andy Burnham, who has real Cabinet and parliamentary experience, neither Starmer nor McSweeney had ever held office while Labour were in power. Starmer then sacked Sue Gray, the one senior figure who actually knew how government worked and their attempt to rule with iron fist failed spectacularly. The inexperience at the top has been glaring.

🚨 ✅ Bridget Phillipson make a good point on Andy Burnham (responding to McSweeney’s claim Labour wasn’t ready to govern after 4 years): “Andy Burnham has been in Cabinet previously. He’s held a number of roles. He’s been an MP before. He actually has more experience of governing than many of us did when we entered government for the very first time as ministers in 2024.” Unlike Andy Burnham, who has real Cabinet and parliamentary experience, neither Starmer nor McSweeney had ever held office while Labour were in power. Starmer then sacked Sue Gray, the one senior figure who actually knew how government worked and their attempt to rule with iron fist failed spectacularly. The inexperience at the top has been glaring.

Liz Webster

40,438 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Can Andy Burnham control public spending? That is the question markets are asking this week as UK government borrowing costs hit an 18 year high. It’s a global bond rout with a UK risk premium. It’s why I pressed government minister, Douglas Alexander, so hard on whether Labour has plans to cut the ballooning welfare bill - an issue that helped sink Keir Starmer. If Burnham can’t convince the markets, there’ll be less money for public services, mortgage rates will go up and we’ll get higher prices in the shops - the very opposite of giving everyone a little room to breathe. Crucially, however, it’ll be even harder to find money for defence at a time when tensions are increasing. Today Kemi set out a detailed plan that he could follow to cut welfare and fund our country's defence. Will Labour’s new Prime Minister follow it?

Can Andy Burnham control public spending? That is the question markets are asking this week as UK government borrowing costs hit an 18 year high. It’s a global bond rout with a UK risk premium. It’s why I pressed government minister, Douglas Alexander, so hard on whether Labour has plans to cut the ballooning welfare bill - an issue that helped sink Keir Starmer. If Burnham can’t convince the markets, there’ll be less money for public services, mortgage rates will go up and we’ll get higher prices in the shops - the very opposite of giving everyone a little room to breathe. Crucially, however, it’ll be even harder to find money for defence at a time when tensions are increasing. Today Kemi set out a detailed plan that he could follow to cut welfare and fund our country's defence. Will Labour’s new Prime Minister follow it?

Julia Lopez MP

50,822 просмотров • 25 дней назад

Why can’t politicians just answer simple questions about their job? Sophy Ridge asked Defence Secretary Wes Streeting a straightforward question he should have been ready for. You’d expect the person in charge of defence to have a clear position on the spending target for his own department, yet he repeatedly dodged it. She asked if he agreed with his predecessor John Healey, who said he was certain Britain should reach 3% of GDP on defence by 2030: “Are you also certain about 3% of GDP by 2030? Is that a target?” Streeting: “I endorsed John Healey’s resignation letter wholeheartedly at the time. What you will see from Andy Burnham and John Healey as prime minister and chancellor is a commitment to make sure the defence investment plan is fully funded.” That’s not an answer. Sophy cut in: “I’m going to have to come in again. You are the Defence Secretary, do you believe in the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030?” He again referred back to agreeing with Healey and then talked at length about setting out “what we will fund and how we will fund it.” Still no direct answer. Clearly frustrated, Sophy tried once more: “I’m not asking you to set out how you’re going to fund it. I’m asking, do you believe in the target that we should be spending 3% by 2030?” His reply? He wouldn’t answer because the next question would be about how to fund it. That is a ridiculous reason to refuse a basic question about your own brief. Just answer it. Absolutely pathetic.

Why can’t politicians just answer simple questions about their job? Sophy Ridge asked Defence Secretary Wes Streeting a straightforward question he should have been ready for. You’d expect the person in charge of defence to have a clear position on the spending target for his own department, yet he repeatedly dodged it. She asked if he agreed with his predecessor John Healey, who said he was certain Britain should reach 3% of GDP on defence by 2030: “Are you also certain about 3% of GDP by 2030? Is that a target?” Streeting: “I endorsed John Healey’s resignation letter wholeheartedly at the time. What you will see from Andy Burnham and John Healey as prime minister and chancellor is a commitment to make sure the defence investment plan is fully funded.” That’s not an answer. Sophy cut in: “I’m going to have to come in again. You are the Defence Secretary, do you believe in the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030?” He again referred back to agreeing with Healey and then talked at length about setting out “what we will fund and how we will fund it.” Still no direct answer. Clearly frustrated, Sophy tried once more: “I’m not asking you to set out how you’re going to fund it. I’m asking, do you believe in the target that we should be spending 3% by 2030?” His reply? He wouldn’t answer because the next question would be about how to fund it. That is a ridiculous reason to refuse a basic question about your own brief. Just answer it. Absolutely pathetic.

J Stewart

41,512 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: THE SILVER STORY THEY NEVER WANTED YOU TO HEAR I sat down with Andy Schectman, CEO of Miles Franklin, and what he revealed is staggering. According to Andy: • physical silver is being drained from the system •paper promises are massively outweighing real metal • major players are standing for delivery in record volumes • China is tightening control over refined silver exports • and the mainstream media is saying almost nothing This is not just a market story. It’s about wealth. It’s about control. It’s about what happens when ordinary people realise the game is rigged. If silver is now a critical mineral tied to national security, military production, AI, and digital infrastructure… Then ask yourself: Why are the biggest players quietly taking possession while the public is kept in the dark? This interview is explosive. Watch it before the crowd catches on. Miles Franklin Precious Metals Andy Schectman

🚨 BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: THE SILVER STORY THEY NEVER WANTED YOU TO HEAR I sat down with Andy Schectman, CEO of Miles Franklin, and what he revealed is staggering. According to Andy: • physical silver is being drained from the system •paper promises are massively outweighing real metal • major players are standing for delivery in record volumes • China is tightening control over refined silver exports • and the mainstream media is saying almost nothing This is not just a market story. It’s about wealth. It’s about control. It’s about what happens when ordinary people realise the game is rigged. If silver is now a critical mineral tied to national security, military production, AI, and digital infrastructure… Then ask yourself: Why are the biggest players quietly taking possession while the public is kept in the dark? This interview is explosive. Watch it before the crowd catches on. Miles Franklin Precious Metals Andy Schectman

Jim Ferguson

242,908 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The Free Speech Union has mixed feelings about Sir Keir Starmer’s departure as Prime Minister. On the one hand, he was no friend of free speech. On the other, he has been an outstanding recruiting sergeant for the FSU. Since he came to power in July 2024, the Free Speech Union’s membership has grown from 14,000 to 45,000. Unfortunately, we have little faith that Andy Burnham will be any better when it comes to free speech. Burnham has already called for greater restrictions on social media, and the Representation of the People Bill is likely to contain all kinds of threats to free speech. There is also no indication that he will abandon plans to ban “conversion therapy”, legislation that could see parents investigated or even prosecuted for conversations with their gender-confused children. It won’t be long before Sir Keir hands the authoritarian lanyard to Andy. The Free Speech Union will be watching closely. Watch Lord Young’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s resignation below 👇

The Free Speech Union has mixed feelings about Sir Keir Starmer’s departure as Prime Minister. On the one hand, he was no friend of free speech. On the other, he has been an outstanding recruiting sergeant for the FSU. Since he came to power in July 2024, the Free Speech Union’s membership has grown from 14,000 to 45,000. Unfortunately, we have little faith that Andy Burnham will be any better when it comes to free speech. Burnham has already called for greater restrictions on social media, and the Representation of the People Bill is likely to contain all kinds of threats to free speech. There is also no indication that he will abandon plans to ban “conversion therapy”, legislation that could see parents investigated or even prosecuted for conversations with their gender-confused children. It won’t be long before Sir Keir hands the authoritarian lanyard to Andy. The Free Speech Union will be watching closely. Watch Lord Young’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s resignation below 👇

The Free Speech Union

36,407 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Here is a sum the Treasury never asks you to do. This year Britain spends £62.2 billion on defence. Within three years it will be £73.5 billion. At The Hague, every NATO government signed up to five per cent of GDP, demanded from a podium in Washington, agreed without a single parliamentary vote. Trump demanded it, Trump got it... And in the same breath, they tell the sick, the disabled and the young that the welfare state is unaffordable. Now Andy Burnham arrives with his plan. "Fair and lasting" welfare reform. An ally says he is "more welfare than warfare." Fine words. But Westminster has a long history of dressing up cuts as compassion. Support becomes conditionality. Help becomes surveillance. Reform becomes punishment. And the warning lights are already blinking. His own chief of staff has pushed for stripping bus passes and TV licences from pensioners. Taking PIP from the under-30s is called a "difficult sell." Not an outrage. A sell. Meanwhile the MOD sits on a £42.5 billion black hole and nobody sends an assessor round. Austerity, it turns out, is means-tested. It applies only to the poor. Welfare or warfare is not a slogan. It is an invoice, and somebody always pays it. For seventy years it has been us. So tell us. Do you trust #AndyBurnham's #welfare reform, or have we heard it all before?

Here is a sum the Treasury never asks you to do. This year Britain spends £62.2 billion on defence. Within three years it will be £73.5 billion. At The Hague, every NATO government signed up to five per cent of GDP, demanded from a podium in Washington, agreed without a single parliamentary vote. Trump demanded it, Trump got it... And in the same breath, they tell the sick, the disabled and the young that the welfare state is unaffordable. Now Andy Burnham arrives with his plan. "Fair and lasting" welfare reform. An ally says he is "more welfare than warfare." Fine words. But Westminster has a long history of dressing up cuts as compassion. Support becomes conditionality. Help becomes surveillance. Reform becomes punishment. And the warning lights are already blinking. His own chief of staff has pushed for stripping bus passes and TV licences from pensioners. Taking PIP from the under-30s is called a "difficult sell." Not an outrage. A sell. Meanwhile the MOD sits on a £42.5 billion black hole and nobody sends an assessor round. Austerity, it turns out, is means-tested. It applies only to the poor. Welfare or warfare is not a slogan. It is an invoice, and somebody always pays it. For seventy years it has been us. So tell us. Do you trust #AndyBurnham's #welfare reform, or have we heard it all before?

The Heartlands Tribune

13,336 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

And there we have it. Tomorrow Andy Burnham will become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, having blazed a singular trail to No. 10 that avoided ever having to defend, let alone stand on the Labour manifesto of the 2024 general election. Already, the total unfitness of the man for high office is beginning to be noticed, with a particularly striking online meme comparing his cringe-Dad antics to those of David Brent. Just how quickly his twee and cloying bonhomie falls apart on contact with the realities of political power we'll find out from next week. For my guest this week, Michael Murphy , Burnham is an even more dangerous figure to put in charge of the country than Sir Keir Starmer. The two represent either side of the same coin: while Starmer's dour legalism represented the underlying mechanics of the British state in all its brute force (the man was never more at home than when clamping down furiously on dissenting speech), Burnham is the smiling, matey facade that that state presents to the public; the tie-less, "call me Andy" school teacher who sits on a chair backwards to explain how he "gets it". But while Starmer included in his team some people who did recognise the priorities of the British working class, for example Morgan McSweeney, Burnham has swept to power on the back of the worst instincts of the already spectacularly inept Parliamentary Labour Party; a gang of charity-sector charlatans so clueless about the real world that they'd be more at home in a playschool. We must prepare for a very rough couple of years with this man at the helm. The world is rapidly becoming more dangerous, Britain is exposed and our enemies know it. The one possible silver lining we can take is that when Andy Burnham fails, perhaps the public will finally realise that that failure will not just be his own, but the failure of the entire Labour Party.

And there we have it. Tomorrow Andy Burnham will become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, having blazed a singular trail to No. 10 that avoided ever having to defend, let alone stand on the Labour manifesto of the 2024 general election. Already, the total unfitness of the man for high office is beginning to be noticed, with a particularly striking online meme comparing his cringe-Dad antics to those of David Brent. Just how quickly his twee and cloying bonhomie falls apart on contact with the realities of political power we'll find out from next week. For my guest this week, Michael Murphy , Burnham is an even more dangerous figure to put in charge of the country than Sir Keir Starmer. The two represent either side of the same coin: while Starmer's dour legalism represented the underlying mechanics of the British state in all its brute force (the man was never more at home than when clamping down furiously on dissenting speech), Burnham is the smiling, matey facade that that state presents to the public; the tie-less, "call me Andy" school teacher who sits on a chair backwards to explain how he "gets it". But while Starmer included in his team some people who did recognise the priorities of the British working class, for example Morgan McSweeney, Burnham has swept to power on the back of the worst instincts of the already spectacularly inept Parliamentary Labour Party; a gang of charity-sector charlatans so clueless about the real world that they'd be more at home in a playschool. We must prepare for a very rough couple of years with this man at the helm. The world is rapidly becoming more dangerous, Britain is exposed and our enemies know it. The one possible silver lining we can take is that when Andy Burnham fails, perhaps the public will finally realise that that failure will not just be his own, but the failure of the entire Labour Party.

David Starkey

208,876 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Zack Polanski, "Why does it seem that our government is incapable of standing up to a US president?" Jeremy Corbyn, "It's in the psychology of the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, a pro-US position" "There's this assumption that we will always be close to the US, whatever it does" "So when the US comes along with something utterly absurd and bizarre, like the bombing of Iran. For what?" "They can't actually give a rational reason for bombing Iran" "On one side they say to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons, when they knew full well that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons" "They then said we have to bomb Iran and the British government said they are not involved in this. Yet, at the same time allow US forces to use British bases" "More specifically, Trump goes onto Andy Burnham the day after he's become Prime Minister and says, can we use RAF bases for US planes to take off and bomb Iran, but don't worry its only defensive" "What was Burnham doing agreeing to that?"

Zack Polanski, "Why does it seem that our government is incapable of standing up to a US president?" Jeremy Corbyn, "It's in the psychology of the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, a pro-US position" "There's this assumption that we will always be close to the US, whatever it does" "So when the US comes along with something utterly absurd and bizarre, like the bombing of Iran. For what?" "They can't actually give a rational reason for bombing Iran" "On one side they say to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons, when they knew full well that Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons" "They then said we have to bomb Iran and the British government said they are not involved in this. Yet, at the same time allow US forces to use British bases" "More specifically, Trump goes onto Andy Burnham the day after he's become Prime Minister and says, can we use RAF bases for US planes to take off and bomb Iran, but don't worry its only defensive" "What was Burnham doing agreeing to that?"

Farrukh

18,862 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

This week's episode of our podcast The State of It with the brilliant Lara Spirit * Inside the bitter Cabinet splits over the defence investment plan - why nobody is happy * Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce a £13.5billion increase in defence spending - far less than previously considered * John Healey, the defence secretary, has warned that this will not be enough and that it risks undermining our credibility in Nato. Defence chiefs had originally asked for £28billion * The Treasury is also said to be pushing for a "planning assumption" that Britain will only meet its target of spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence up from current levels of 2.3 per cent in 2034/35. Healey is concerned that this is not soon enough, given the scale of the threat Britain faces, and has so far refused to sign it off * Talks are going down to the wire. The launch of the Defence Investment Plan was planned for Friday but it could easily be delayed yet again * The defence chiefs are deeply unhappy. They are concerned that the money on the table will not be enough to fund key projects. There's a feeling they have largely been kept in the dark * Reeves is deeply frustrated by the process - the fact she is having to effectively reopen the spending review process to find the money. Her intervention at an investor conference yesterday - warning of need for tax rises to fund defence - was particularly significant * Then there's the bigger political picture - what if Burnham wins Makerfield, becomes PM and takes a different view? By that stage you could have a new PM, a new chancellor and a new defence secretary. Worth remembering that there are significant cuts to DfT capital budgets and net zero projects to help fund the DIP * Latest from Makerfield: Burnham allies are increasingly confident he will win the by-election. They think Restore UK is a factor that will divide the vote on the right. Restore is targeting female voters in particular * The big question - if Burnham wins Makerfield when does he make his move? Allies suggesting he is likely to go sooner than later * The prospect of an orderly transition appears unlikely - Starmer said to think Burnham's manoeuvres are 'unforgivable' - there is mutual enmity between the two men which goes back for years * Will Starmer stand and fight? He insists he will. But we have seen this before with Boris Johnson and even Liz Truss insisting they would fight on and then going. But Starmer is a different character * If there is a leadership contest where does that leave Labour? It means we will have weeks of internal arguments and a 'battle of ideas' in the run-up to a hugely challenging cost of living crisis this winter...

This week's episode of our podcast The State of It with the brilliant Lara Spirit * Inside the bitter Cabinet splits over the defence investment plan - why nobody is happy * Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce a £13.5billion increase in defence spending - far less than previously considered * John Healey, the defence secretary, has warned that this will not be enough and that it risks undermining our credibility in Nato. Defence chiefs had originally asked for £28billion * The Treasury is also said to be pushing for a "planning assumption" that Britain will only meet its target of spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence up from current levels of 2.3 per cent in 2034/35. Healey is concerned that this is not soon enough, given the scale of the threat Britain faces, and has so far refused to sign it off * Talks are going down to the wire. The launch of the Defence Investment Plan was planned for Friday but it could easily be delayed yet again * The defence chiefs are deeply unhappy. They are concerned that the money on the table will not be enough to fund key projects. There's a feeling they have largely been kept in the dark * Reeves is deeply frustrated by the process - the fact she is having to effectively reopen the spending review process to find the money. Her intervention at an investor conference yesterday - warning of need for tax rises to fund defence - was particularly significant * Then there's the bigger political picture - what if Burnham wins Makerfield, becomes PM and takes a different view? By that stage you could have a new PM, a new chancellor and a new defence secretary. Worth remembering that there are significant cuts to DfT capital budgets and net zero projects to help fund the DIP * Latest from Makerfield: Burnham allies are increasingly confident he will win the by-election. They think Restore UK is a factor that will divide the vote on the right. Restore is targeting female voters in particular * The big question - if Burnham wins Makerfield when does he make his move? Allies suggesting he is likely to go sooner than later * The prospect of an orderly transition appears unlikely - Starmer said to think Burnham's manoeuvres are 'unforgivable' - there is mutual enmity between the two men which goes back for years * Will Starmer stand and fight? He insists he will. But we have seen this before with Boris Johnson and even Liz Truss insisting they would fight on and then going. But Starmer is a different character * If there is a leadership contest where does that leave Labour? It means we will have weeks of internal arguments and a 'battle of ideas' in the run-up to a hugely challenging cost of living crisis this winter...

Steven Swinford

16,238 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

News🇬🇧⚡️: Streeting MUST RESIGN - Newly appointed Defence Minister Wes Streeting jokes about freeing every pedohile, rapists, illegal and terrorist in UK prisons with Home Secretary Mahmood and fellow Burnham Ministers. New Justice Secretary Alex Norris can be seen walking towards Streeting and Shabana Mahmood just before the disgusting sick joke spouted by Streeting which will have every victim of crime in the UK and their families in the highest levels of repulsion and distress. The new defence secretary, Streeting, can then be heard calling Norris "the enemy now" while the Mahmood responds "no he's not". Streeting goes on to say "he wants to let them all out" - appearing to reference the government's plans for early release for prisoners. The comments have been criticised by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch for making light of the scheme, which her party opposes. "While Andy Burnham's cabinet are joking about letting criminals out of prison early, Conservatives are listening to victims and will continue to fight this disgusting policy," the Conservative leader wrote on X. Disgraced Peter Mandelson's protégé Streeting is supposed to be the man to keep Britain safe from harm as Defence Minister. All he is capable of is laughing at the victims of the most sickening crimes committed against the most vulnerable in the UK. Wes Streeting you should resign immediately and apologise for this horrific sick joke and senseless of injustice.

News🇬🇧⚡️: Streeting MUST RESIGN - Newly appointed Defence Minister Wes Streeting jokes about freeing every pedohile, rapists, illegal and terrorist in UK prisons with Home Secretary Mahmood and fellow Burnham Ministers. New Justice Secretary Alex Norris can be seen walking towards Streeting and Shabana Mahmood just before the disgusting sick joke spouted by Streeting which will have every victim of crime in the UK and their families in the highest levels of repulsion and distress. The new defence secretary, Streeting, can then be heard calling Norris "the enemy now" while the Mahmood responds "no he's not". Streeting goes on to say "he wants to let them all out" - appearing to reference the government's plans for early release for prisoners. The comments have been criticised by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch for making light of the scheme, which her party opposes. "While Andy Burnham's cabinet are joking about letting criminals out of prison early, Conservatives are listening to victims and will continue to fight this disgusting policy," the Conservative leader wrote on X. Disgraced Peter Mandelson's protégé Streeting is supposed to be the man to keep Britain safe from harm as Defence Minister. All he is capable of is laughing at the victims of the most sickening crimes committed against the most vulnerable in the UK. Wes Streeting you should resign immediately and apologise for this horrific sick joke and senseless of injustice.

HIN News🇬🇧🇺🇸

97,513 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Exposing Andy Burnham The Mayor Who Betrayed Grooming Gang Survivors When it comes to protecting politicians reliant on the Muslim bloc vote that shielded Pakistani grooming gangs, one name sits near the top of the cover-up list. Greater Manchester Mayor and would-be Prime Minister - Andy Burnham. Burnham commissioned his so-called Assurance Review into Oldham knowing from the outset it was 'limited'. He then spent more than two years pretending otherwise, and nearly another two years defending its published whitewash. His whitewash. Andy Burnham led the public to believe that there had been NO COVER UP. We now know this was a lie and his Assurance Review was nothing more than a limited, toothless exercise that even failed to secure the testimony of a single grooming gang survivor. Ask Andy Burnham to dare deny this statistic. What Burnham commissioned was not incompetence. You don’t accidentally commission a review with built-in flaws, then accidentally ignore those flaws for years. What Burnham was responsible for was calculated. For years, ordinary people trusted Burnham’s review. They believed someone in power had finally looked properly at the issues that mattered. Even after we exposed his findings as a sham, Burnham kept the pretence alive. That wasn’t a mistake. That was a choice. Burnham only admitted his review was 'limited' after the cover up made world news. And even then, he called for a 'limited' national inquiry. He could have called for a National Inquiry at any point prior. He did not. Guess why? Knowing all of this, why are the legacy media running puff pieces on Andy Burnham as a future Prime Minister instead of investigating his role in covering up for grooming gangs? _________ They silenced victims. They erased evidence. They persecuted whistleblowers, discredited survivors, buried official reports, and protected predators. They thought no one would fight back and that they had got away with what they did. They were wrong My name is Raja Miah. I’m neither a Maggie Oliver or a Tommy Robinson. I’m a political campaigner. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists. My mission is clear: to expose the cover-up, explain the mechanics of corruption, educate the nation, and show people how to fight back. That’s why they tried to imprison me. They know how dangerous my voice is. This is why they spent 3 years fabricating evidence and trying to falsely prosecute me. And when they failed, the Labour Party tried and failed to sue me. Holding those responsible to account, including those who traded children for votes, won’t happen unless many more of you stand with me. Every day I can continue to campaign, more people learn the truth. I can’t do this alone. If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past. 🔴 Support the work. This fight is far from over. 👉 There are no paywalls to access any of my work. I share everything for free. I only ask those that can afford to do so to support me with just £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No sponsors. No parties. No institutions to lean on. Just numbers. Growing fast enough that covering this up becomes impossible. We don’t need everyone. We need you. – Raja Miah MBE

Exposing Andy Burnham The Mayor Who Betrayed Grooming Gang Survivors When it comes to protecting politicians reliant on the Muslim bloc vote that shielded Pakistani grooming gangs, one name sits near the top of the cover-up list. Greater Manchester Mayor and would-be Prime Minister - Andy Burnham. Burnham commissioned his so-called Assurance Review into Oldham knowing from the outset it was 'limited'. He then spent more than two years pretending otherwise, and nearly another two years defending its published whitewash. His whitewash. Andy Burnham led the public to believe that there had been NO COVER UP. We now know this was a lie and his Assurance Review was nothing more than a limited, toothless exercise that even failed to secure the testimony of a single grooming gang survivor. Ask Andy Burnham to dare deny this statistic. What Burnham commissioned was not incompetence. You don’t accidentally commission a review with built-in flaws, then accidentally ignore those flaws for years. What Burnham was responsible for was calculated. For years, ordinary people trusted Burnham’s review. They believed someone in power had finally looked properly at the issues that mattered. Even after we exposed his findings as a sham, Burnham kept the pretence alive. That wasn’t a mistake. That was a choice. Burnham only admitted his review was 'limited' after the cover up made world news. And even then, he called for a 'limited' national inquiry. He could have called for a National Inquiry at any point prior. He did not. Guess why? Knowing all of this, why are the legacy media running puff pieces on Andy Burnham as a future Prime Minister instead of investigating his role in covering up for grooming gangs? _________ They silenced victims. They erased evidence. They persecuted whistleblowers, discredited survivors, buried official reports, and protected predators. They thought no one would fight back and that they had got away with what they did. They were wrong My name is Raja Miah. I’m neither a Maggie Oliver or a Tommy Robinson. I’m a political campaigner. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists. My mission is clear: to expose the cover-up, explain the mechanics of corruption, educate the nation, and show people how to fight back. That’s why they tried to imprison me. They know how dangerous my voice is. This is why they spent 3 years fabricating evidence and trying to falsely prosecute me. And when they failed, the Labour Party tried and failed to sue me. Holding those responsible to account, including those who traded children for votes, won’t happen unless many more of you stand with me. Every day I can continue to campaign, more people learn the truth. I can’t do this alone. If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past. 🔴 Support the work. This fight is far from over. 👉 There are no paywalls to access any of my work. I share everything for free. I only ask those that can afford to do so to support me with just £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going. 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No sponsors. No parties. No institutions to lean on. Just numbers. Growing fast enough that covering this up becomes impossible. We don’t need everyone. We need you. – Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

82,400 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

WATCH 👀 Karmelo Anthony body camera footage has officially been released‼️ Karmelo can be heard in the footage immediately playing the victim pleading with officers saying he was just protecting himself. Keep in mind that according to witness testimonies Karmelo was just under an opposing teams tent calling them pussies while challenging them to fight moments before crying and playing victim in this footage. He wasn’t just “protecting himself” he provoked a conflict knowing he had a knife and then murdered Austin Metcalf when Austin tried to get him to leave. Austin wasn’t the one looking for a conflict that day. Unlike Karmelo he was where he was supposed to be. Multiple witnesses said that Austin even told Karmelo that he didn’t want to fight him. Karmelo came looking to cause trouble. He then caused that trouble. And when the police showed up he immediately code switched into playing the “dindu nuffin” victim role.

WATCH 👀 Karmelo Anthony body camera footage has officially been released‼️ Karmelo can be heard in the footage immediately playing the victim pleading with officers saying he was just protecting himself. Keep in mind that according to witness testimonies Karmelo was just under an opposing teams tent calling them pussies while challenging them to fight moments before crying and playing victim in this footage. He wasn’t just “protecting himself” he provoked a conflict knowing he had a knife and then murdered Austin Metcalf when Austin tried to get him to leave. Austin wasn’t the one looking for a conflict that day. Unlike Karmelo he was where he was supposed to be. Multiple witnesses said that Austin even told Karmelo that he didn’t want to fight him. Karmelo came looking to cause trouble. He then caused that trouble. And when the police showed up he immediately code switched into playing the “dindu nuffin” victim role.

Cinema Shogun

24,957 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🫣 WATCH Rachel Reeves SQUIRM as BBC Breakfast puts her on the spot for abandoning Starmer and jumping straight into bed with Burnham! In a toe-curling moment, the Chancellor was directly challenged: “There were a few raised eyebrows in Westminster this week when you weren’t in Downing Street to see the prime minister’s resignation statement, but you were in Westminster a few hours later to have a selfie with Andy Burnham. Where were you watching the statement?” Reeves, visibly uncomfortable, completely ignores the question: “I don’t think anyone can doubt my commitment to the prime minister. I’ve been by his side for six years now as shadow chancellor and then as chancellor of the exchequer. I’ve been there every step of the way.” Oh Rachel… that’s exactly why people are questioning your “commitment”. In his worst moment as PM you abandoned him and you know it. It’s not just that you didn’t show up but the fact you jumped straight onto team Burnham! Another disingenuous Westminster snake who legs it the second the sh!t hits the fan.

🫣 WATCH Rachel Reeves SQUIRM as BBC Breakfast puts her on the spot for abandoning Starmer and jumping straight into bed with Burnham! In a toe-curling moment, the Chancellor was directly challenged: “There were a few raised eyebrows in Westminster this week when you weren’t in Downing Street to see the prime minister’s resignation statement, but you were in Westminster a few hours later to have a selfie with Andy Burnham. Where were you watching the statement?” Reeves, visibly uncomfortable, completely ignores the question: “I don’t think anyone can doubt my commitment to the prime minister. I’ve been by his side for six years now as shadow chancellor and then as chancellor of the exchequer. I’ve been there every step of the way.” Oh Rachel… that’s exactly why people are questioning your “commitment”. In his worst moment as PM you abandoned him and you know it. It’s not just that you didn’t show up but the fact you jumped straight onto team Burnham! Another disingenuous Westminster snake who legs it the second the sh!t hits the fan.

J Stewart

182,462 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Oh my, the irony. Karen Read claims that “no one with any logic” would believe she killed John on purpose, left his body on another cop’s lawn and then simply went home to “sleep it off” before dealing with it or looking for him the next day. However, the very scenario she is dismissing as illogical is almost identical to the accusation she’s made against the Alberts and McCabes. She and her defense team claim they are guilty of killing John, leaving his body on another officer’s lawn and then going home and to bed to deal with the fallout the next day. She is quite literally dismissing this scenario as improbable and illogical when it involves her, while accusing others of doing precisely that and telling FKR it makes perfect sense. Denying and then simultaneously presenting the exact scenario she criticizes shows huge flaws in the reasoning behind the conspiracy.

Oh my, the irony. Karen Read claims that “no one with any logic” would believe she killed John on purpose, left his body on another cop’s lawn and then simply went home to “sleep it off” before dealing with it or looking for him the next day. However, the very scenario she is dismissing as illogical is almost identical to the accusation she’s made against the Alberts and McCabes. She and her defense team claim they are guilty of killing John, leaving his body on another officer’s lawn and then going home and to bed to deal with the fallout the next day. She is quite literally dismissing this scenario as improbable and illogical when it involves her, while accusing others of doing precisely that and telling FKR it makes perfect sense. Denying and then simultaneously presenting the exact scenario she criticizes shows huge flaws in the reasoning behind the conspiracy.

Jamz

32,178 просмотров • 1 год назад

AGAIN, I will never stop sharing this. And I’ll never understand why it wasn’t highlighted and played before the jury. The old man that walked around the confrontation, was in a conversation with John immediately before, then walked around it all and went outside and had a long conversation with BA, BH, NA and CA. He knows! Furthermore, this tied the whole thing together like the end of a movie. It was the missing piece. They all lied and never mentioned it. Why? JM was standing there talking to Karen. So… 11:32pm: BH texts KR “ummmmm…well?” 11:57pm - 11:58pm: BH gives John the middle finger, yells across the room at him, is held back by CA, gestures for JO to come outside. 12:11am: John walks out with the rocks glass and is seen for the last time alive as he heads to 34F. 12:20am: BH, despite saying he never talked to John, didn’t know John was going to 34F and didn’t talk to him as he left, he texts what’s now known as a challenge, not an invite, “are you coming???” 12:21am: John arrives at 34F and goes straight to the basement. 12:30am: KR pulls away from 34F. 12:32am: John’s phone stops moving. 12:36am: KR connected to John’s WiFi. 2:22am: BA “butt dials” BH which was immediately returned by another “butt dial” from BH and they have a :22 call. 2:27am: JM gets home and googles “hos long to die in cold?” 6:03am: John is found beaten and dead on the lawn of 34F. How is this not the most obvious thing ever? But I will also never understand why this wasn’t highlighted. These are some of the most brilliant litigators in the country, so I’m holding hope they had a very good reason why not. #karenread #freekarenread

AGAIN, I will never stop sharing this. And I’ll never understand why it wasn’t highlighted and played before the jury. The old man that walked around the confrontation, was in a conversation with John immediately before, then walked around it all and went outside and had a long conversation with BA, BH, NA and CA. He knows! Furthermore, this tied the whole thing together like the end of a movie. It was the missing piece. They all lied and never mentioned it. Why? JM was standing there talking to Karen. So… 11:32pm: BH texts KR “ummmmm…well?” 11:57pm - 11:58pm: BH gives John the middle finger, yells across the room at him, is held back by CA, gestures for JO to come outside. 12:11am: John walks out with the rocks glass and is seen for the last time alive as he heads to 34F. 12:20am: BH, despite saying he never talked to John, didn’t know John was going to 34F and didn’t talk to him as he left, he texts what’s now known as a challenge, not an invite, “are you coming???” 12:21am: John arrives at 34F and goes straight to the basement. 12:30am: KR pulls away from 34F. 12:32am: John’s phone stops moving. 12:36am: KR connected to John’s WiFi. 2:22am: BA “butt dials” BH which was immediately returned by another “butt dial” from BH and they have a :22 call. 2:27am: JM gets home and googles “hos long to die in cold?” 6:03am: John is found beaten and dead on the lawn of 34F. How is this not the most obvious thing ever? But I will also never understand why this wasn’t highlighted. These are some of the most brilliant litigators in the country, so I’m holding hope they had a very good reason why not. #karenread #freekarenread

Just Larry

298,674 просмотров • 2 лет назад

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE:🚨 SILVERGATE: THE PHYSICAL RUN HAS BEGUN — AND THE PUBLIC IS BEING KEPT IN THE DARK In my New Year interview with Andy Schectman of Miles Franklin Precious Metals (now $14 BILLION in sales), he laid out a picture that should stop every ordinary person in their tracks: This isn’t “market chatter.” This is strategic extraction. Andy says the LBMA in London and COMEX in the U.S. are showing tight physical supply — while the system is drowning in paper claims. He dropped the numbers that expose the entire game: • London: roughly 2 BILLION ounces of paper promises • Float behind it: about 140 MILLION ounces • In other words: the same bars sold again and again — rehypothecation • “Bernie Madoff… but with metal.” And then came the part the media won’t touch: For 13+ months, the biggest players on Earth have been doing what “never happens” in these markets. They’re not rolling paper. They’re not cash-settling. They’re not playing the usual game. They’re saying: “Give me the metal.” Andy described it as a quiet, coordinated drain: Central banks. Commercial banks. Sovereign wealth funds. The most well-funded and well-informed traders on the planet. And while that’s happening, the political layer snaps into place: He said China refines over 70% of the world’s silver — and is now moving to restrict exports so anything leaving China needs permission from Beijing. Why now? Because silver has been designated a critical mineral — a national security asset. That’s the line people need to understand: This isn’t about “profit.” This is about power. Silver isn’t just coins and jewellery. Andy says it’s embedded in: • high-tech weapons • AI infrastructure • solar farms powering server centres • the entire digital economy And when a commodity becomes strategic, the real question stops being “what’s the price?” It becomes: who controls the supply when the paper promises break? His warning was blunt: If a major institution fails delivery, it doesn’t stay in the metals market. It can spread into credit, equities, forex — systemic contagion. Then he put it in plain English: For decades, people believed paper claims were “as good as metal” because almost nobody stood for delivery. Now the largest money on Earth is doing it at scale — month after month — and the public is being told nothing. That’s not an accident. That’s a window. And windows close. If you watch the full interview with Andy Schectman of Miles Franklin, it’s one you’ll want to watch twice — because what he’s describing is not a normal cycle. It’s a run on reality. Miles Franklin Precious Metals Andy Schectman

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE:🚨 SILVERGATE: THE PHYSICAL RUN HAS BEGUN — AND THE PUBLIC IS BEING KEPT IN THE DARK In my New Year interview with Andy Schectman of Miles Franklin Precious Metals (now $14 BILLION in sales), he laid out a picture that should stop every ordinary person in their tracks: This isn’t “market chatter.” This is strategic extraction. Andy says the LBMA in London and COMEX in the U.S. are showing tight physical supply — while the system is drowning in paper claims. He dropped the numbers that expose the entire game: • London: roughly 2 BILLION ounces of paper promises • Float behind it: about 140 MILLION ounces • In other words: the same bars sold again and again — rehypothecation • “Bernie Madoff… but with metal.” And then came the part the media won’t touch: For 13+ months, the biggest players on Earth have been doing what “never happens” in these markets. They’re not rolling paper. They’re not cash-settling. They’re not playing the usual game. They’re saying: “Give me the metal.” Andy described it as a quiet, coordinated drain: Central banks. Commercial banks. Sovereign wealth funds. The most well-funded and well-informed traders on the planet. And while that’s happening, the political layer snaps into place: He said China refines over 70% of the world’s silver — and is now moving to restrict exports so anything leaving China needs permission from Beijing. Why now? Because silver has been designated a critical mineral — a national security asset. That’s the line people need to understand: This isn’t about “profit.” This is about power. Silver isn’t just coins and jewellery. Andy says it’s embedded in: • high-tech weapons • AI infrastructure • solar farms powering server centres • the entire digital economy And when a commodity becomes strategic, the real question stops being “what’s the price?” It becomes: who controls the supply when the paper promises break? His warning was blunt: If a major institution fails delivery, it doesn’t stay in the metals market. It can spread into credit, equities, forex — systemic contagion. Then he put it in plain English: For decades, people believed paper claims were “as good as metal” because almost nobody stood for delivery. Now the largest money on Earth is doing it at scale — month after month — and the public is being told nothing. That’s not an accident. That’s a window. And windows close. If you watch the full interview with Andy Schectman of Miles Franklin, it’s one you’ll want to watch twice — because what he’s describing is not a normal cycle. It’s a run on reality. Miles Franklin Precious Metals Andy Schectman

Jim Ferguson

932,542 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🚨 THE SHAKEOUT COMES BEFORE THE BREAKOUT Everyone's positioned for liftoff. The structure says one more move comes first. The FLUSH! We saw this exact setup in 2024. Before the real run, Bitcoin has to sweep the downside, take out the support everyone thinks will hold, and shake out the weak hands. It never goes straight up. It clears the board first. Here's my roadmap: $80K → FLUSH → $55K Sweep → $85K Reclaim → New ATH That $55K sweep is the trap nobody wants to sit through. It's the level where the crowd panics, "the bull run is dead" starts trending, and the last leveraged longs get wiped. And that's exactly the point where the real move begins. I'm not chasing this pump higher. Not yet. I want the shakeout first. Once the weak hands are gone and the leverage is flushed, that's when Bitcoin starts printing new highs, and the people who sold the bottom watch it leave without them. Down first. Then up. Same as every cycle. Turn notifications on. I'll post the entry when the sweep confirms.

🚨 THE SHAKEOUT COMES BEFORE THE BREAKOUT Everyone's positioned for liftoff. The structure says one more move comes first. The FLUSH! We saw this exact setup in 2024. Before the real run, Bitcoin has to sweep the downside, take out the support everyone thinks will hold, and shake out the weak hands. It never goes straight up. It clears the board first. Here's my roadmap: $80K → FLUSH → $55K Sweep → $85K Reclaim → New ATH That $55K sweep is the trap nobody wants to sit through. It's the level where the crowd panics, "the bull run is dead" starts trending, and the last leveraged longs get wiped. And that's exactly the point where the real move begins. I'm not chasing this pump higher. Not yet. I want the shakeout first. Once the weak hands are gone and the leverage is flushed, that's when Bitcoin starts printing new highs, and the people who sold the bottom watch it leave without them. Down first. Then up. Same as every cycle. Turn notifications on. I'll post the entry when the sweep confirms.

Qmo

263,725 просмотров • 21 дней назад