Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 BREAKING: DEFENCE SECRETARY MELTDOWN: HEALEY SHOULD RESIGN NOW This wasn’t an interview… it was a collapse in real time. Stumbling. Repeating himself. Unable to answer basic questions about the fleet he’s supposed to command. “How many ships do we have?” A simple question. And the man responsible for...

JimFergusonUK's profile picture

Jim Ferguson

445,690 subscribers

133,288 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 BREAKING 'This is a crisis for the Prime Minister.' Defence Secretary John Healey has resigned from the Government, citing Keir Starmer's failure to 'commit the resources the nation needs to defend this country at a time of rising threats'.
5:28

🚨 BREAKING 'This is a crisis for the Prime Minister.' Defence Secretary John Healey has resigned from the Government, citing Keir Starmer's failure to 'commit the resources the nation needs to defend this country at a time of rising threats'.

GB News

202,863 views • 2 months ago

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.
1:44

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 views • 17 days ago

🚨 POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE IN WESTMINSTER According to breaking reports, Defence Secretary John Healey has resigned from the Government in a devastating rebuke to Keir Starmer's leadership. The reported resignation letter allegedly accuses the Prime Minister and Treasury of failing to provide the resources needed to defend the country at a time of rising global threats. This marks the second Cabinet resignation in just 30 days. One message reportedly stands out above all others: Britain is being told it is investing in defence. The Defence Secretary appears to be saying otherwise. For any Prime Minister, losing a senior Cabinet minister is serious. Losing a Defence Secretary over national security and military funding is a full-blown political crisis. Developing.
5:28

🚨 POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE IN WESTMINSTER According to breaking reports, Defence Secretary John Healey has resigned from the Government in a devastating rebuke to Keir Starmer's leadership. The reported resignation letter allegedly accuses the Prime Minister and Treasury of failing to provide the resources needed to defend the country at a time of rising global threats. This marks the second Cabinet resignation in just 30 days. One message reportedly stands out above all others: Britain is being told it is investing in defence. The Defence Secretary appears to be saying otherwise. For any Prime Minister, losing a senior Cabinet minister is serious. Losing a Defence Secretary over national security and military funding is a full-blown political crisis. Developing.

Jim Ferguson

130,364 views • 2 months ago

🚨 BRITAIN’S DEFENCE EXPOSED: THREE WEEKS TOO LATE This interview wasn’t just uncomfortable… it was a warning. A nation once defined by naval power — reduced to excuses, deflection, and confusion. Three weeks. That’s how long it took to get ONE British warship into position. While allies moved faster. While tensions escalated. While the world watched. And when pressed for answers? He pivoted to planes. Dodged the question. Refused to address the reality. “I’m asking about ships… you’re answering about planes.” Because the truth is simple: There are not enough ships. Not enough readiness. Not enough leadership. This is the state of Britain’s armed forces under Starmer’s government. Underfunded. Overstretched. And dangerously unprepared. And on Iran? Confusion again. Israel warns missiles could reach Britain. The Defence Secretary says there’s “no such assessment.” So which is it? Because when the stakes are this high, uncertainty is not an option. This isn’t just political incompetence — it’s a national security risk. Britain deserves answers. Britain deserves leadership. Watch the interview. This is where we are.
2:48

🚨 BRITAIN’S DEFENCE EXPOSED: THREE WEEKS TOO LATE This interview wasn’t just uncomfortable… it was a warning. A nation once defined by naval power — reduced to excuses, deflection, and confusion. Three weeks. That’s how long it took to get ONE British warship into position. While allies moved faster. While tensions escalated. While the world watched. And when pressed for answers? He pivoted to planes. Dodged the question. Refused to address the reality. “I’m asking about ships… you’re answering about planes.” Because the truth is simple: There are not enough ships. Not enough readiness. Not enough leadership. This is the state of Britain’s armed forces under Starmer’s government. Underfunded. Overstretched. And dangerously unprepared. And on Iran? Confusion again. Israel warns missiles could reach Britain. The Defence Secretary says there’s “no such assessment.” So which is it? Because when the stakes are this high, uncertainty is not an option. This isn’t just political incompetence — it’s a national security risk. Britain deserves answers. Britain deserves leadership. Watch the interview. This is where we are.

Jim Ferguson

16,097 views • 4 months ago

'That's pretty damning isn't it?' Business Secretary Peter Kyle was challenged on #BBCBreakfast over the resignations of John Healey as Defence Secretary and Al Carns as Armed Forces Minister with a warning that the upcoming defence investment plan "falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time"
2:03

'That's pretty damning isn't it?' Business Secretary Peter Kyle was challenged on #BBCBreakfast over the resignations of John Healey as Defence Secretary and Al Carns as Armed Forces Minister with a warning that the upcoming defence investment plan "falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time"

BBC Breakfast

29,561 views • 2 months ago

'Both John Healey and I have consistently argued that we need to invest more in our defence' On #BBCBreakfast Defence Secretary Wes Streeting was asked about comments by his predecessor John Healey - who is now the Chancellor - that unless a commitment was made to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, the country would not be safe
1:33

'Both John Healey and I have consistently argued that we need to invest more in our defence' On #BBCBreakfast Defence Secretary Wes Streeting was asked about comments by his predecessor John Healey - who is now the Chancellor - that unless a commitment was made to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, the country would not be safe

BBC Breakfast

20,125 views • 21 days ago

'John has effectively said I will not preside over the death of the Royal Navy' Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, a former Security Minister, spoke to #BBCBreakfast after John Healey resigned as Defence Secretary and told Keir Starmer the upcoming defence investment plan "falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time"
0:54

'John has effectively said I will not preside over the death of the Royal Navy' Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, a former Security Minister, spoke to #BBCBreakfast after John Healey resigned as Defence Secretary and told Keir Starmer the upcoming defence investment plan "falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time"

BBC Breakfast

35,718 views • 2 months ago

Oprah Winfrey said she called Meghan Markle in early 2018 asking for an interview and was told “it wasn’t the right time.” Now it’s being spun as if the palace blocked it. If Oprah was so interested in Meghan, what stopped her from interviewing her before Harry was even in the picture? Where was that interest when Meghan was just another working actress trying to make it? Where was the sit-down when she was deep in Suits, far from global headlines? No one needed palace permission back then. No one was “banned.” No palace. No restrictions. No “people in the room.” No one to “block” anything. You want to blame the palace as if it was some kind of silencing move, but you fail to understand that instead it exposes what this really is. Meghan Markle was simply not someone Oprah was prioritising for a major sit-down. Nor was Meghan Markle relevant enough for that level of attention. It’s also interesting how Meghan frames it as not being “allowed” to speak privately, with others present, as if that’s unusual. She was about to marry into one of the most scrutinised institutions in the world. Of course communications are structured. That’s not some shocking revelation, that’s standard. Then comes the key line. “Now we can speak freely.” “Now I can say yes.” So what changed? It only became “the right time” once she had the global platform, the title, and the leverage that came with the royal connection. You can’t rewrite this into a story about being silenced by the palace when the timeline shows something much simpler. The demand wasn’t there before Harry. The value wasn’t there before the royal family connection. And suddenly, after everything, we’re supposed to believe this was always about “not being allowed” rather than finally having something to sell. Let that sink it.
1:42

Oprah Winfrey said she called Meghan Markle in early 2018 asking for an interview and was told “it wasn’t the right time.” Now it’s being spun as if the palace blocked it. If Oprah was so interested in Meghan, what stopped her from interviewing her before Harry was even in the picture? Where was that interest when Meghan was just another working actress trying to make it? Where was the sit-down when she was deep in Suits, far from global headlines? No one needed palace permission back then. No one was “banned.” No palace. No restrictions. No “people in the room.” No one to “block” anything. You want to blame the palace as if it was some kind of silencing move, but you fail to understand that instead it exposes what this really is. Meghan Markle was simply not someone Oprah was prioritising for a major sit-down. Nor was Meghan Markle relevant enough for that level of attention. It’s also interesting how Meghan frames it as not being “allowed” to speak privately, with others present, as if that’s unusual. She was about to marry into one of the most scrutinised institutions in the world. Of course communications are structured. That’s not some shocking revelation, that’s standard. Then comes the key line. “Now we can speak freely.” “Now I can say yes.” So what changed? It only became “the right time” once she had the global platform, the title, and the leverage that came with the royal connection. You can’t rewrite this into a story about being silenced by the palace when the timeline shows something much simpler. The demand wasn’t there before Harry. The value wasn’t there before the royal family connection. And suddenly, after everything, we’re supposed to believe this was always about “not being allowed” rather than finally having something to sell. Let that sink it.

Queen Esther

149,986 views • 3 months ago

Why was the Secret Service’s protective perimeter in Butler shorter than the range of an AR-15? It does not take 60 days to answer that question. The agency’s failure to publicly account for these questions and others from Congress is unacceptable. Dir. Cheatle should resign.
5:15

Why was the Secret Service’s protective perimeter in Butler shorter than the range of an AR-15? It does not take 60 days to answer that question. The agency’s failure to publicly account for these questions and others from Congress is unacceptable. Dir. Cheatle should resign.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

3,054,551 views • 2 years ago

Holy cow people the question wasn’t great, but just answer it man. It’s reactive in those scrums, everyone maneuvering for the mic, and candidly, it’s nervy asking questions close up to them. It kind of reminded me of this at the Players. I saw it happen and it left an impression. He was talking about testing other drivers on the range, but stuck with it on Thursday. The reporter followed up and asked him “Are you sticking with it?” I’m appreciative that this part of it is not something he asked for. To stand there, after a round that demanded full attention, and answer a few sub-par questions sucks. Tough part of the job. But the others guys job is follow him around the course all day and ask 1 question, and you don’t have to embarrass that guy either. I’m certain he’s not a jerk. He’s the best in the game, and a faith oriented family man and I love that. But this kind of stuff comes off with arrogance to me 🤷‍♂️
0:25

Holy cow people the question wasn’t great, but just answer it man. It’s reactive in those scrums, everyone maneuvering for the mic, and candidly, it’s nervy asking questions close up to them. It kind of reminded me of this at the Players. I saw it happen and it left an impression. He was talking about testing other drivers on the range, but stuck with it on Thursday. The reporter followed up and asked him “Are you sticking with it?” I’m appreciative that this part of it is not something he asked for. To stand there, after a round that demanded full attention, and answer a few sub-par questions sucks. Tough part of the job. But the others guys job is follow him around the course all day and ask 1 question, and you don’t have to embarrass that guy either. I’m certain he’s not a jerk. He’s the best in the game, and a faith oriented family man and I love that. But this kind of stuff comes off with arrogance to me 🤷‍♂️

Joe I

130,898 views • 4 months ago

This🔥 This video hit differently, and it's not because it’s about rap and the beef. But because of how the Librarian said it. In a country where Black men already carry heavy stereotypes, there are certain lines you don’t cross when it comes to each other, not for clicks, not for strategy, not for a win. And Kendrick? For many, he wasn’t just any rapper. He was supposed to be different. The one people pointed to as “principled”, representing something deeper for blacks. That’s why it hit harder, and many of us are now angry and stand against him on principle. For many of us, it’s not even about picking sides; at first, it’s about the standard. Because if Drake (my favorite rapper of all time) had said the same things about Kendrick, I’d feel the same way. No hesitation- I would have cut him off like I did Kendrick. Some accusations don’t stay in music; they follow real people, real lives. And putting that on a Black man, knowing how this country and most of the world already operate? That’s where many of us draw the line. So yeah- this video captures it perfectly. The frustration. The disappointment and the shift in many of us. Because when Kendrick, the one who was seen as “different”, moves like everyone else, you have to question if it was ever real at all. I have zero respect for Kendrick because what he did to the hip-hop culture and the betrayal of another Black man is unforgivable. Give it up for @ Librarian👏🏽👏🏽
6:03

This🔥 This video hit differently, and it's not because it’s about rap and the beef. But because of how the Librarian said it. In a country where Black men already carry heavy stereotypes, there are certain lines you don’t cross when it comes to each other, not for clicks, not for strategy, not for a win. And Kendrick? For many, he wasn’t just any rapper. He was supposed to be different. The one people pointed to as “principled”, representing something deeper for blacks. That’s why it hit harder, and many of us are now angry and stand against him on principle. For many of us, it’s not even about picking sides; at first, it’s about the standard. Because if Drake (my favorite rapper of all time) had said the same things about Kendrick, I’d feel the same way. No hesitation- I would have cut him off like I did Kendrick. Some accusations don’t stay in music; they follow real people, real lives. And putting that on a Black man, knowing how this country and most of the world already operate? That’s where many of us draw the line. So yeah- this video captures it perfectly. The frustration. The disappointment and the shift in many of us. Because when Kendrick, the one who was seen as “different”, moves like everyone else, you have to question if it was ever real at all. I have zero respect for Kendrick because what he did to the hip-hop culture and the betrayal of another Black man is unforgivable. Give it up for @ Librarian👏🏽👏🏽

industrypolitics

14,757 views • 4 months ago

🚨BREAKING🚨 UFC and PRIDE legend Rampage Jackson built his name as one of the toughest fighters in the world — but now his own son is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. During a livestream on YouTube, Rampage Jackson’s son Raja viciously attacked an older American soldier, slamming him to the ground and unleashing punches that nearly killed him. Viewers were left in shock as the brutal assault played out live. This wasn’t a fight between two athletes in the octagon. This was a young man using his strength and aggression against a veteran who served our country. It was disgusting, disrespectful, and shameful to watch. The soldier was left unconscious, and many feared for his life right there on the stream. How could someone think this is entertainment? How could anyone excuse this kind of violence? This wasn’t a “show” — it was a crime, plain and simple. No matter who his father is, nobody should get a free pass for nearly killing another person on camera. If anything, being the son of a world-famous fighter makes it worse, because he should know better. Someone needs to step in, take responsibility, and make sure justice is served. This young man deserves to face real consequences — and that means jail time.
0:23

🚨BREAKING🚨 UFC and PRIDE legend Rampage Jackson built his name as one of the toughest fighters in the world — but now his own son is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. During a livestream on YouTube, Rampage Jackson’s son Raja viciously attacked an older American soldier, slamming him to the ground and unleashing punches that nearly killed him. Viewers were left in shock as the brutal assault played out live. This wasn’t a fight between two athletes in the octagon. This was a young man using his strength and aggression against a veteran who served our country. It was disgusting, disrespectful, and shameful to watch. The soldier was left unconscious, and many feared for his life right there on the stream. How could someone think this is entertainment? How could anyone excuse this kind of violence? This wasn’t a “show” — it was a crime, plain and simple. No matter who his father is, nobody should get a free pass for nearly killing another person on camera. If anything, being the son of a world-famous fighter makes it worse, because he should know better. Someone needs to step in, take responsibility, and make sure justice is served. This young man deserves to face real consequences — and that means jail time.

ⁿᵉʷˢ Trump doctrine

228,585 views • 11 months ago

Kayla McBride on the StudBudz impact “When I first came into the league people weren’t even out or anything like that yet… it wasn’t something you just talked about outwardly and now you see couples and everybody being their own selves, that’s just kind of where the world is now and it’s a beautiful thing. That’s how it always should have been. But them being able to do it on this level and the ability to allow others to do it, young, old, you see all different walks of life… I think that’s the most beautiful part about it, it’s in the human level”
0:49

Kayla McBride on the StudBudz impact “When I first came into the league people weren’t even out or anything like that yet… it wasn’t something you just talked about outwardly and now you see couples and everybody being their own selves, that’s just kind of where the world is now and it’s a beautiful thing. That’s how it always should have been. But them being able to do it on this level and the ability to allow others to do it, young, old, you see all different walks of life… I think that’s the most beautiful part about it, it’s in the human level”

Andrew Dukowitz

103,457 views • 11 months ago

When it is the right thing to do, I will say so. On this occasion, I agree with the Home Secretary. The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police should resign and if he does not, the Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands should now dismiss him. The decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters was politically motivated. It was not about public safety. It was about appeasement, and that is unacceptable.
0:32

When it is the right thing to do, I will say so. On this occasion, I agree with the Home Secretary. The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police should resign and if he does not, the Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands should now dismiss him. The decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters was politically motivated. It was not about public safety. It was about appeasement, and that is unacceptable.

Sarah Pochin MP

44,251 views • 7 months ago

The demand to ban Ranveer Singh simply doesn’t add up. The film was signed in May 2023 and was committed through December 2025. That’s two and a half years. Ranveer delivered a blockbuster, so wanting better pay for his next project is completely reasonable. But the real question nobody is addressing is why a film with two and a half years on the clock couldn’t get made in time. That’s on both sides, not just one. What makes this worse is how one-sided the outrage is. Other celebrities have had their share of disputes too, yet no one calls for bans on them. If this is about professionalism, it should apply equally to everyone. The moment it only targets one person, it stops being about principle entirely.
1:28

The demand to ban Ranveer Singh simply doesn’t add up. The film was signed in May 2023 and was committed through December 2025. That’s two and a half years. Ranveer delivered a blockbuster, so wanting better pay for his next project is completely reasonable. But the real question nobody is addressing is why a film with two and a half years on the clock couldn’t get made in time. That’s on both sides, not just one. What makes this worse is how one-sided the outrage is. Other celebrities have had their share of disputes too, yet no one calls for bans on them. If this is about professionalism, it should apply equally to everyone. The moment it only targets one person, it stops being about principle entirely.

Ojas Bhandari

35,169 views • 2 months ago

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.
6:07

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

21,983 views • 3 months ago

Marco Rubio just got HEATED after Democrat Rep. Sara Jacobs tried to bait him into answering a question about the 2020 election. Rubio didn’t fall for it — instead he made Jacobs look foolish by reminding her of the actual role of the Secretary of State and the very committee she sits on. JACOBS: “One last question for you. Mr. Secretary, who won the 2020 presidential election?” RUBIO: “I’m not here to answer that. Talking about 2020...this is a foreign affairs committee!” JACOBS: “Okay great. You can’t answer the question, even though we all know that President Biden won...” RUBIO: “No! I don’t answer the question because as Secretary of State, I do not participate in domestic political issues.” JACOBS: “This is not about Domestic political issues, this is about our democracy.” RUBIO: “It most certainly is! You’re asking me to opine. Just like I don’t do campaign rallies, because as Secretary of State we’re not supposed to.” “That’s been the long tradition of the department. And YOU should know that if you’ve been on this committee for any period of time.”
1:31

Marco Rubio just got HEATED after Democrat Rep. Sara Jacobs tried to bait him into answering a question about the 2020 election. Rubio didn’t fall for it — instead he made Jacobs look foolish by reminding her of the actual role of the Secretary of State and the very committee she sits on. JACOBS: “One last question for you. Mr. Secretary, who won the 2020 presidential election?” RUBIO: “I’m not here to answer that. Talking about 2020...this is a foreign affairs committee!” JACOBS: “Okay great. You can’t answer the question, even though we all know that President Biden won...” RUBIO: “No! I don’t answer the question because as Secretary of State, I do not participate in domestic political issues.” JACOBS: “This is not about Domestic political issues, this is about our democracy.” RUBIO: “It most certainly is! You’re asking me to opine. Just like I don’t do campaign rallies, because as Secretary of State we’re not supposed to.” “That’s been the long tradition of the department. And YOU should know that if you’ve been on this committee for any period of time.”

Overton

86,163 views • 2 months ago

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)
2:17

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)

ANI

613,907 views • 9 months ago

JUSTIN HERBERT HATE IS CRAZY. Weird criticism for Herbert for not wanting to do the on-field interview: He was injured and has no idea it was the MNF interview. This is a video compilation of every time Herbert has spent being kind to reporters and fans.
0:59

JUSTIN HERBERT HATE IS CRAZY. Weird criticism for Herbert for not wanting to do the on-field interview: He was injured and has no idea it was the MNF interview. This is a video compilation of every time Herbert has spent being kind to reporters and fans.

MLFootball

151,030 views • 8 months ago

This is exactly why this country of Great Britain is in the early stages of a political transformation. This officer is arresting this man for being a Jew in public. Not interested that the mob of people are being Jew haters. Instead villonising the Jewish man. The police and politicians have normalised rhetoric and action that is anti-Jew, leading to the murder of two Jewish men yesterday by an Islamic terrorist. We need change, and it is coming!
0:29

This is exactly why this country of Great Britain is in the early stages of a political transformation. This officer is arresting this man for being a Jew in public. Not interested that the mob of people are being Jew haters. Instead villonising the Jewish man. The police and politicians have normalised rhetoric and action that is anti-Jew, leading to the murder of two Jewish men yesterday by an Islamic terrorist. We need change, and it is coming!

Rikki Doolan

231,314 views • 10 months ago