UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs
2764.png


7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. And it turns out Birmingham council are lying. They're having to pinch pennies because of the eye watering cost of switching to Oracle for HR,which is the underlying cause of all this.

Plenty of videos on You Tube about this. I spat tea when I watched one,it's tens of millions of pounds. That and then doing really sketchy deals with taxi companies to get kids to school,would explain why they've got no fucking cash.
They’ve been bankrupt since the 70s. This is just another idiocy in a long, long conga line of idiotic decisions, ideas and deals. Yet somehow they still carry on, kids get failed, elderly and vulnerable people get failed, immigrants look after their own (and take our help too on top of that), while regular Steve and Lauren can get fucked (their kids quite literally).

Brum is a fucking pisstake.
 
I think this is worth locally hosting because... it's literally "muslamic raygunnah" guy but bLACK, this is are kultah being appropriated here!
Now that is a man who has perfectly integrated into British culture and society. Why, he's got an accent so thick I bet half his fellow English need a translator to understand him.
1776295160528.png

https://archive.ph/qEI5t
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-finally-start-answering-Kemis-questions.html
And in shocking news Kier Starmer displays actual emotion for once... after being admonished by the Speaker of Parliament to answer questions during PMQ, not berate the Opposition.
 
They're having to pinch pennies because of the eye watering cost of switching to Oracle for HR,which is the underlying cause of all this.
They already blew a fortune switching to SAP, too.
And in shocking news Kier Starmer displays actual emotion for once... after being admonished by the Speaker of Parliament to answer questions during PMQ, not berate the Opposition.
Oh, Hoyle finally found his spine, did he?
 
Last edited:
Yes. And it turns out Birmingham council are lying. They're having to pinch pennies because of the eye watering cost of switching to Oracle for HR,which is the underlying cause of all this.

Plenty of videos on You Tube about this. I spat tea when I watched one,it's tens of millions of pounds. That and then doing really sketchy deals with taxi companies to get kids to school,would explain why they've got no fucking cash.
They also had to pay wimminz the exact same as all the men, for different hours, at the same time as the Oracle swap. It was court ordered gender wage gap shit and IIRC they weren't given a payment plan; so the council decided to cut 1.2million pounds by firing some binmen safety role, leading to 33 million pounds lost in strikes lol.
 

Migrants making false domestic abuse claims to stay in UK, BBC investigation finds​


Migrants are falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in the country, a BBC investigation has discovered.

They are exploiting rules brought in by ministers to help genuine victims of abuse to secure permanent residence more quickly than through other routes, such as asylum.

Inadequate Home Office checks are allowing them to do so on the basis of little evidence, while their unsuspecting British partners have had their lives turned upside down by the false accusations, lawyers said.

The concerns about how these protections - known as the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession - are being exploited are the latest to be highlighted by a BBC investigation into the immigration system.
Today we reveal how some migrants, both male and female, are duping British partners into relationships and marriage and then making fake domestic abuse claims after moving to the UK.

Others are being encouraged to fabricate abuse allegations by legal advisers who advertise online.

A BBC undercover reporter met one adviser who encouraged him to make false allegations of domestic abuse.

The number of people claiming fast-track residency on the basis of domestic abuse has now reached more than 5,500 a year - a number which has risen by more than 50% in just three years.

In one case, a British mother who had left her male partner after reporting him for rape was subsequently accused by him of domestic abuse - a false allegation, she says, made so he could stay in the country.

The allegations were never proven but the partner has been able to use them to avoid having to return to Pakistan.

£900 to fabricate claims​

In a hotel lounge in London's St Pancras in late February, a young immigration adviser in a smart suit is meeting a client.

He has been contacted a few days earlier by a new customer, a recent immigrant from Pakistan.

The man explained that he had a problem - he wants to leave his British wife to live with his mistress. But his visa is linked to his marriage; if he separates, he would have to leave the country.

On the initial phone call, the adviser, Eli Ciswaka, had been quick to suggest a solution. Unprompted, he told the prospective client to pretend he was the victim of domestic abuse.

Now he confirms what he's willing to do. For £900 he will fabricate the claim, creating a story to tell the Home Office in order to secure the client's status in the UK.
What he doesn't know is that his customer is really a BBC undercover reporter investigating how some lawyers and immigration advisers are helping migrants break the law by making up stories for them to gain indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Under Home Office rules, migrants who are the victims of domestic abuse and who are on temporary visas in the UK as the partners of British citizens can apply for a special concession.

Because these migrants are often reliant on their partners not just for their visa but for their food and accommodation, the concession provides support to those whose relationships have broken down because of violence or abuse.

If the application is successful, they are granted permission to stay in the UK for three months and can claim benefits.

During those three months, they can then apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK, when foreign nationals are given the right to live, work and study in the UK permanently with no time limit.

This is much faster than other routes to permanent residency, such as asylum.

Someone who lives and works in the UK on a visa would typically have to wait at least five years before an application for indefinite leave to remain can be made.

Experts told us they were concerned that these rules were open to abuse because of how quickly that status can be conferred.

So we decided to investigate.

Ciswaka, who uses the company name Corporate Immigration UK, regularly posts on social media about the domestic abuse concession and boasts about successes he's had on behalf of clients asking for help via this route.

During the meeting at the St Pancras hotel, he goes into more detail about how he will convince the Home Office.

"What evidence are you going to use because she doesn't hit me or anything so there's no domestic violence," our reporter asked.

"Orally," Ciswaka replied. "You two have been having an argument and she's been telling you things like: 'Remember, I'm the one who brought you here' - those kind of things."

Later on in the conversation he explained more about his plan.

He said that he would present the case as "psychological domestic abuse", like "when someone is playing with your mind".

He told our reporter not to worry, that he would create a story for him. He had experience from the other cases he had worked on.

"How many were successful?" the reporter asked.

"All of them," Ciswaka replied.

To prove it, he showed the reporter a Home Office letter sent to him on behalf of a client. It said their application had been successful, although it was not clear whether this case was based on genuine domestic abuse allegations.

Ciswaka is neither a registered solicitor nor a regulated immigration adviser, meaning it would be illegal for him to provide immigration advice or services.

But the letter showed that the Home Office had been sharing official correspondence with him about paying clients, seemingly without checking his credentials.

Ciswaka explained to our reporter what would happen next.

"Once we submit this one, you can go live with the girlfriend because you will get three months limited leave to remain," he said.

"During that three-months limited leave to remain, that's when you will have to apply for indefinite leave to remain."

He told the reporter not to worry about what the consequences might be for his wife when he accused her of abusing him, saying she would not be affected.

"She will not be questioned, she will not be called because there is no crime."

Ciswaka did not respond to a written request for comment, but during a phone call to tell him about our investigation he denied being willing to make up a story that the undercover reporter had been a victim of domestic abuse.

The Immigration Advice Authority, external, which regulates the industry, said it would "investigate and act decisively" to identify those involved in wrongdoing and "take robust enforcement action".

Immigration Services Commissioner Gaon Hart said: "Our message to the public is clear - only use registered advisers, anything else puts you at serious risk."

According to figures obtained by BBC News using the Freedom of Information Act, a total of 5,596 migrants made applications for indefinite leave to remain as the victims of domestic abuse in the 12 months up to September 2025, the most recent period for which there is data.

Around a quarter of applications - 1,424 of them - were made by men, a rise of 66% compared with the same period two years earlier, with the number being made by women increasing by 47%.

That has led some to worry the rules are being gamed by male and female migrants who make up allegations.

Victims of false allegations have complained that their partners made false reports to the police which resulted in a crime report which was then used as evidence to persuade the Home Office, even though the police investigation resulted in no action.

The Home Office says a crime reference number on its own is not treated as proof that domestic abuse has occurred.

Some victims have reported their abuse to domestic violence charities and used that as evidence, or sought a non-molestation court order against their partner which can be obtained "ex parte", meaning without their partner's notice.

More than a decade ago, in 2014, an internal Home Office assessment "identified the potential for abuse of the domestic violence route to settlement".

A year later, a report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, external found problems with checks being made by officials on domestic abuse claims and excessive weight being applied to "unverified evidence" such as letters from support agencies which just repeated an alleged victim's own account of what happened.

Jess Phillips, the minister for safeguarding in the Home Office, said: "The unacceptable abuse of this route, which protects genuine victims from the devastation of domestic abuse, is utterly shameful. I have personally seen the deplorable impact of this type of underhanded tactic.

"Let me be clear: try to defraud the British people to remain in the UK and your application will be refused, and you will find yourself on a one-way flight out of Britain.

"Sham lawyers facilitating this advice abuse will be put behind bars and their dirty money seized will be reinvested to shut down the crime they once bankrolled."

This issue is close to Phillips' heart as she was warned about it by one of her own constituents.

Aisha, not her real name, met her ex-husband on a Muslim dating app during the pandemic and began a whirlwind romance.

"He was promising the world, proper love-bombing me. And he was buying things as well, trying to get me to fall in love very quickly with him," she says.

After an Islamic wedding, followed by a formal ceremony, Aisha says the relationship soured.

She says she discovered he did not have British citizenship, as he had claimed to her when they first met, and that he was actually reliant on her for his visa as a Pakistani national.

"He became fully controlling, very abusive. He started demanding that he wanted a baby in the country," she says.

"And I think his friends at the time were telling him, you should have a baby to secure yourself here. So he was trying very hard to get me pregnant. And that included, unfortunately, rape as well."

She left the marital home and reported what had happened both to the police and the Home Office.

That prompted officials to write to him to say his visa would expire without the support of his spouse.

"I think once he got that curtailment letter, he thought there's no way out, they're telling me to leave, I need to do something."

From victim to perpetrator​

She says his answer was to go to the police and tell them that he was the victim of domestic abuse, not her.

He told officers that she and her family had subjected him to coercive control, and that she had been physically violent as well.

"He told me just before he made the domestic abuse report: "Oh don't worry, I've multiple ways to stay here. I don't need you to stay in the country'," she says.

"I was being supported by the authorities and I was being supported by domestic abuse agencies, way before his allegation of domestic abuse. And for him to turn the narrative around and say I'm a perpetrator, it was heartbreaking."

Aisha says the police never took any action against her in relation to her ex-partner's allegations.

He also never faced rape charges, as she changed her mind about whether to support a prosecution.

But Aisha was awarded more than £17,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority meaning they judged that the sexual assault she had alleged was more likely than not to have occurred.

Aisha says her ex-husband's campaign against her did not end there.

In January 2023, she was arrested by the police after he made another allegation against her.

She says she spent a total of eight hours away from her baby who she was breastfeeding at the time because her daughter was allergic to formula milk.

"When I left, I went to breastfeed my baby and when I got home, I just wanted to end my life," she says.

Her MP, Jess Phillips, wrote to officers that day, saying "I do not believe she would have been arrested had they [police] been aware of the history between her and her ex-partner".

The Birmingham Yardley MP continued to apply pressure and, after becoming a Home Office minister, advised Aisha to forward any evidence to the Home Office, saying she would follow up on it.

"The Home Office is allowing this to happen," Aisha told us.

"They allowed him to continue this behaviour. I've suffered four years of hell because of the Home Office."

'Turned upside down'​

Jabran Hussain, a criminal lawyer based in Bradford, says Aisha is far from the only British national he has encountered who he thinks has been falsely accused of domestic abuse by their migrant partner for reasons to do with their visa.

He says he has seen some of his client's lives "turned upside down," while the person making the allegations "can still potentially get settlement because under the immigration rules, it's not necessary to get a conviction".

He said that while the requirements on migrant spouses to secure indefinite leave to remain are usually onerous, like passing English language tests and paying fees, those rules do not apply under the domestic abuse concession.
"This route was well-intended and it was there to protect some of the most vulnerable in society - victims of domestic violence," Hussain added.

"But I think there's certain people out there that see it OK to abuse that for their own gain or to get settlement here fast-track."

Concerns about how the rules are being exploited have also been raised in parliament.

In November 2024, the West Yorkshire Conservative MP Robbie Moore said he was seeing what he described as a "worrying" trend of spouses who had recently arrived in the UK making false allegations against their partners living in his Keighley constituency.

"Some of the claims of domestic abuse are now being made as early as a few weeks into the claimants' arrival in the UK, both by men and women," he told MPs.

"I fear that even in loving relationships, a claim of domestic abuse is being used by certain individuals to accelerate getting settled status or to avoid the costs that must be paid to apply for settled status or for visa extension."
 
Arrived to work this morning and discovered ANOTHER vape shop has opened up on my local high street.
Thats 2 brand new ones open within 48 hours of each other, less than 100 metres apart.

We are not even a busy town, we are classed as Rural/Semi Rural.

One of them is half Sweets, Half Vapes and is full of those bright hexagonal lights that you see in car places all over the ceiling and in the window.

Looks gaudy as hell.
 
Reform UK is investigating council candidate Saijad Raja, nominated for Moortown ward in Leeds, after he was filmed chanting “from the river to the sea” at a Workers Party of Britain protest. He is also known for protesting the Pakistani government in Jammu and Kashmir. Whoopsie!!!
Reform is investigating one of its council candidates after footage emerged of him chanting “from the river to the sea” at a Workers Party of Britain protest.

Sajjad Raja was nominated as the Reform UK candidate for the Moortown ward in Leeds in the run-up to the local elections on May 7. He was described by the regional party on Facebook as a “highly educated political and social activist”.

“Leeds is a very vibrant city but lacks social cohesion and communal harmony which I will prioritise to establish amongst all socio-politic [sic] communities,” Raja said. “I am a hard working practical man and is [sic] committed to bring about the much needed change in local services.”

Raja’s history of activism includes campaigning for the Workers Party of Britain, a fringe left-wing group founded by George Galloway, the former Labour MP. The socialist party is opposed to Nato and in favour of “a redistribution of wealth and power”.

Raja posted a 23-minute video on his TikTok account of him taking part in a demonstration against Israeli attacks on Gaza in June 2024, captioned: “I led a protest in Leeds today [in] solidarity with the people of Palestine.”

In the video, the Reform candidate is seen at the front of the march with a Workers Party sign reading: “For Britain, for Gaza”. Raja chanted slogans including “end apartheid”, “Israel is a terrorist state” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, has described “from the river to the sea” as a “hate slogan” which calls for “the abolition of the state of Israel and, frankly, the eradication of the Jewish people that live there as well”.

Robert Jenrick, Reform’s economics spokesman, has previously described the phrase as “genocidal”.

“Appeasement has only emboldened Islamists and their extreme left-wing allies,” Jenrick wrote in The Telegraph in February 2024. “There was no better metaphor for the strength of their movement and the weakness of the authorities than the failure to prevent the genocidal chant, ‘From the river to the sea’ being projected onto the Palace of Westminster while, inside, the Commons caved.”

Raja was approached for comment. Reform said it was looking into the allegations.

Raja campaigned for Reform in the Gorton & Denton by-election and has been photographed with party leader Nigel Farage.

Despite his selection by Reform, Raja is best known for campaigning against the Pakistani administration of parts of Jammu and Kashmir. He founded the National Equality Party, a campaign calling for the reunification and independence of Kashmir and the surrounding regions of Jammu, Gilgit-Baltistan and Ladakh.

In September, the party was among groups invited to No 10 to present a memorandum to Sir Keir Starmer.

Raja also spoke at the UN Human Rights Council in 2020 about alleged human rights violations in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and “seeking intervention in the repression and extrajudicial killings of our people”.

A year later, he appeared in front of the body again and said: “We do not belong to Pakistan and our flag is not its flag.”

Raja has criticised Islamabad for leaving Pakistani Kashmir with “neither any airport nor railway” and he has supported “an international campaign for this purpose”.


However, Reform politicians have previously criticised Labour figures for taking an interest in Kashmiri politics. Last March, Jenrick said Tahir Ali, the Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, should “focus on the UK” after heendorsed an airport in the region. “You’re an MP for Birmingham, not Mirpur,” Jenrick added.

In another post in March 2025, Raja said: “I am unable to understand why is Great Britain so actively siding with Ukraine against Russia? What is the danger Russia directly posing [sic] to us.”

Raja ran as a Conservative candidate in the 2023 local elections in a different ward in Leeds and came third.

His involvement with Reform appears to have begun last May when he posted the party’s logo and the message: “It is not necessary to leave the politics of Jammu and Kashmir to play an active role in British politics. Britain allows dual citizenship, dual politics is not a problem.”

On March 13, he posted: “No Labelling. No Stereotyping. No Prejudice. I am a Muslim, I am a Brown man and I am a migrant myself. I support Reform UK because I want to fix the broken Britain and I stand with Nigel Farage because he is the only man who can clear up the mess now.”

Raja’s politics do not appear to fit neatly within any British party. “I have become a big fan of President Trump,” he posted last March. “Although I don’t appreciate his Middle Eastern policy, but still [sic] the role which he is playing to end the Russia Ukraine War must be supported.”
Whoever posted here that brown politicians seem to be backing multiple parties and will come together behind whoever gets in is right. If Green gets in, Reform muzzies will join; if Reform gets in, the Green muzzies will join.

There are concerns about alcohol shortages during the World Cup this summer if CO2 supply falls and breweries struggle to cope. Also may be shortages of chicken, pork, and salad.
Britain could face shortages of chicken, pork and other supermarket goods this summer if the war in Iran continues, a secret government analysis has found.

Officials have drawn up contingency plans for a “reasonable worst-case scenario” amid fears that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will lead to shortages of carbon dioxide, which is critical to the food industry.

Senior officials — including from No 10, the Treasury and Ministry of Defence — have secretly rehearsed scenarios looking at the potential impact on British industry in an event codenamed “Exercise Turnstone”.

The Transport Secretary has blamed the Lib-Dem Oxfordshire council for her car getting towed after she hit a pothole. Don't know who's in the wrong here, the woman driver or the libs.
 
What is Rupert Lowes deal, how exactly does his party differ from Reform?
Civnat* vs Ethnat. Lowe hasn't come out and declared 'I am an ethnonationalist', and many of his online followers keep wanting him to come out the ethnat closet; but at-a-glance, it's very obvious Reform/Farage think 'anyone who lives here and follows Our Culture can be a Brit,' while Lowe thinks 'only British people can be British and the British State should serve only them'. Lowe doesn't care about being accused of being a racist because 'racist' is not a word that holds power over him and his actions, because it gets thrown around a lot; Farage is constantly shrieking 'nooo I'm not a racisttttt I love browns!'
(I would like to hear both their opinions on the West Country black guy from yesterday. Would Rupert deport him? I hope not, but I understand if he would. He may not be British, but I think he's earned his place to stay and work and enjoy his Guinness without immigrants shitting up Swindon)

Personally, I don't think Farage cares for 'Britain' either and his goal is to be PM to get one over on all those mean bullies who didn't let him be Tory Party leader; I believe that Lowe is actually disgusted with the decline of the British state, or at least in Yarmouth, and wants to attempt to set things right.

I don't like this term nor do I think it can really work for any modern states. 1) The term exists to describe places like Austro-Hungary, which don't exist anymore. It may work for the Swiss and Cypriots who define themselves as 'a mix of different cultures but still Swiss/Cypriot' (Ie french, german, romansh, and italian; and greek and turkish), and Singapore who is 'multi-ethnic, not multi-cultural', but these places have totally different political cultures (ie excessive referendums, or autistic amounts of laws) to keep people in line. 2) 'Civnat' is also tied to ideas of equality and tolerance [for other cultures], which as we can see right now, are totally failing. 3) Many non-Western nations and academics criticise the term for allowing Western nations to 'get away with' nationalism and letting them pretend to be more democratic, conflict-free and peaceful than they actually are.
4) Civic Nationalism is dependant on a pre-existing ethnic conception; so it may work to bring together the English, Welsh, Northern Irish, Scottish, Manx, Jerriais, Sarkese, who are all 'British peoples' and pretty much share the same history, culture, etc, but not those who are not British peoples. Plaid and the SNP call themselves civic nationalist parties, and advocate for the independence and popular sovereignity of their nation's society, but what is a Welshman, or a Scotsman, then, and what is the motivation behind his freedom? If I move to Cardiff, does that make me a Welshman who's vote in the independence referendum counts just as much as Barb Jones, born and raised in Cardiff? Of course not.
Civnat is a cope from those too pussy to call themselves nationalists, mostly because no one knows what a nationalist, or a nation, even is. It's not a country, it's a peoples.
 
Personally, I don't think Farage cares for 'Britain' either
He doesn't. He's a financebro who has openly declared he thinks jeets are better immigrants than poles, and who has made it clear that he isn't going to do shit about immigration once in power. He's never cared about this country, except as a place from which to extract wealth for himself and his buddies (like Zia, who is also a financebro), and has about as much emotional connection to it as Rishi Sunak did. Ben fucking Habib cares more about Britain than Farage. Probably why he was booted out.

If you look at all Farage's policies, such as even exist, it's clear that his view of the country is identical to Thatcher and Blair: an economic zone, centred on London finance, that only exists to keep the City fed and watered. Even his campaign to get out of the EU wasn't motivated by love of the country, but by a desire to deregulate the financial system and seek more pliable, cheaper labour sources.
 
What is Rupert Lowes deal, how exactly does his party differ from Reform?
Lowe has explicitly stated he wants non white people who have entered the country on false grounds removed on a massive scale. The words he used were along the lines of "if millions must go,then so be it".

Restore published a mini manifesto. I'm struggling to find it but their policy on immigration is great, in my opinion. https://www.restorebritain.org.uk/immigration_border_control

They're, on paper at least,harsher than reform and personally I think it's necessary. We've been a soft touch far too long
 
As an example, Farage is on record as defining a Welshman as 'anyone who has lived in Wales for 5 years' (a definition which would include the Southport animal and its parents).

Restore hold the view that this is obviously bollocks.

---------------------

Just in time for the locals, the Mandelson story slithers back into prominence. The Guardian reports that he failed the security vetting that occurred when he was nominated to be US Ambassador. This failure was overridden by the Foreign Office as Starmer had already announced the appointment.

Streeting is also back on manoeuvres, suggesting that the benefits bill should be cut to fund defence.

I remain confident in my prediction of an 8th May shanking of Starmer - once the local elections are hung around his neck, he can be disposed of.
 
Civnat* vs Ethnat. Lowe hasn't come out and declared 'I am an ethnonationalist', and many of his online followers keep wanting him to come out the ethnat closet; but at-a-glance, it's very obvious Reform/Farage think 'anyone who lives here and follows Our Culture can be a Brit,' while Lowe thinks 'only British people can be British and the British State should serve only them'. Lowe doesn't care about being accused of being a racist because 'racist' is not a word that holds power over him and his actions, because it gets thrown around a lot; Farage is constantly shrieking 'nooo I'm not a racisttttt I love browns!'
(I would like to hear both their opinions on the West Country black guy from yesterday. Would Rupert deport him? I hope not, but I understand if he would. He may not be British, but I think he's earned his place to stay and work and enjoy his Guinness without immigrants shitting up Swindon)
I don't think Rupert is a Ethnat in the way Steve Laws is, but from what i've read of him he seems to consider demographic security a key issue, unlike Tommy, where he's a complete civ-nat and couldn't care less if our future is browns in turbans wearing our people's symbols. Lowe policies look to reverse post-blair migration. I'm fine with that, if the native population returns to 90%+ and foreigners can't form demographics voting block and control the culture of our cities I think our long term survival will be fine. My issue is though, he hasn't said much to try and counter the left-wing control over our institutions. I know migration is the key issue, but I don't think the average voter knows how dangerous having a borderline religious worldview like progressivism controlling our media and uni's(and left-wing politicians by extenstion) is. If he wins, the second he leaves office you have to contend that the next left-wing gov will try to reverse everything he does. And the thing I hate about the right is that most politicians that supposedly represent us have zero convictions and would do nothing to being back his policies if they got into office again after the left. Migration is a massive issue, but the ideology that allowed it to happen is equally dangerous.
 
He's a financebro who has openly declared he thinks jeets are better immigrants than poles, and who has made it clear that he isn't going to do shit about immigration once in power.
Farage directly enabled the Boriswave, and I suspect the bulk of his support are disillusioned former Boris fans who need to touch the hot stove another three or four times before they can puzzle out what kind of consequences it might have.
 
Just in time for the locals, the Mandelson story slithers back into prominence. The Guardian reports that he failed the security vetting that occurred when he was nominated to be US Ambassador. This failure was overridden by the Foreign Office as Starmer had already announced the appointment.
There's even more to it, given the Guardian is the source I have a feeling this is the Left of Labour striking in an effort to either get a kill or do damage in the upcoming elections to support the push for "we need to move more to the Left!"

Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.
According to multiple sources, Mandelson was initially denied clearance in late January 2025 after a developed vetting process, a highly confidential background check by security officials.

Keir Starmer had by then announced he would be making Mandelson the UK’s chief diplomat in Washington, posing a dilemma for officials at the Foreign Office, who decided to use a rarely used authority to override the recommendation from security officials.
Mandelson’s failure to secure vetting approval has not previously been publicly revealed, despite intense scrutiny over his appointment and the release by the government of 147 pages of documents supposed to shed light on the case.

On Thursday afternoon, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said that if the prime minister had misled the House of Commons over Mandelson’s vetting he “must take responsibility.” Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: “If Keir Starmer has misled Parliament and lied to the British people, he has to go.”
Further documents are due to be released. However, it can also be revealed that senior government officials have been considering whether to withhold from parliament documents that would reveal that Mandelson was not given vetting approval from security officials.

The decision, which rests with the Cabinet Office, has not yet been taken. Any attempt to withhold the documents from the intelligence and security committee could amount to a breach of a parliamentary motion to release “all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment”.
The revelation that the now former ambassador was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in appointing him.
Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.
It is not known whether the prime minister was made aware that his pick for Washington ambassador had not been granted approval by UKSV, which conveys its decision as a recommendation to government departments. Neither is it known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV.
Sir Olly Robbins, the current permanent secretary in the Foreign Office, was the department’s top civil servant in late January 2025 when the decision was made, having taken up the role earlier that month. The foreign secretary was David Lammy, who is now the deputy prime minister.

Starmer’s then chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who resigned in February over his role in appointing Mandelson, could also now be asked whether he had any involvement in, or knowledge or, the decision to overrule UKSV’s denial of clearance.
Friends of McSweeney told the Guardian that he had no knowledge of Mandelson’s developed vetting process or the outcome.
That decision was made weeks before Mandelson was due to take up his post in February 2025. Seven months later, he was sacked over his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Ministers and officials are now likely to be pressed over whether they have been fully transparent about the process that led to his appointment.
At a press conference in Hastings on 5 February, Starmer responded to a question from a journalist by saying there had been “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.” He added: “Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.”


Keir Starmer says independent security vetting gave Peter Mandelson 'clearance' for role – video
This appeared to partly put the blame for Mandelson’s appointment on the failure of a vetting process which, according to sources, his government had overruled.
As a result of Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador on 11 September 2025, after the extent of his relationship with Epstein came to light, parliamentary scrutiny mounted. On 16 September, Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, and Robbins, her top official, responded to questions over the vetting process with a letter to the foreign affairs select committee.

“Peter Mandelson’s security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy,” the letter said, explaining that the process had been undertaken by UKSV on behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).
Cooper and Robbins said the process had “concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February”.
What the letter failed to inform parliament was that UKSV had denied Mandelson’s clearance – a recommendation that threatened Starmer having to withdraw a high-profile appointment he had already made public.
UKSV’s vetting decisions are almost always enforced by government departments, but they technically have the authority to override the recommendations. The precise reason that UKSV recommended that Mandelson not receive clearance is now likely to be subject to intense speculation.
Looks like the civil servants were likely involved with hiding details
Senior government officials have been considering whether to withhold from parliament sensitive documents that show Peter Mandelson failed security vetting before he assumed the role of US ambassador, the Guardian can reveal.
Any such decision could amount to an extraordinary breach of a parliamentary vote that ordered the release of “all papers” relevant to Mandelson’s appointment.

The Guardian has revealed that Mandelson did not receive vetting clearance from security officials, but that their decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post.
According to multiple sources, officials across government have been in dispute over whether to release documents that would reveal those facts, and other information about Mandelson’s security vetting, to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC).
The committee has been entrusted by parliament with the role of assessing the most sensitive papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment. Ministers have assured parliament that there will be no block on what the committee gets to see.

However, as of Thursday morning, a decision had not been made about whether the committee should have access to documents about Mandelson’s vetting by UK Security Vetting (UKSV) and the Foreign Office’s decision to override it.
The ultimate decision will rest with the Cabinet Office. But sources said officials were split over how to proceed, with some arguing the materials should be withheld, despite a parliamentary motion to release all relevant materials. One source said: “There is no consensus.”
Lord Beamish, chair of the ISC, noted the government’s role in providing documents to the committee. But he added: “The committee would take a very dim view if documents relating to the humble address are withheld from the committee, one which I think would be shared by parliament.”
Mandelson was sacked in September 2025 after the extent of his friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was revealed, in documents released to the public by the US department of justice.
A second tranche of DoJ documents released in late January 2026 suggested Mandelson had passed market-sensitive information and Downing Street emails to Epstein while serving in Gordon Brown’s government, prompting fresh parliamentary scrutiny of Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint him.

In February 2026, parliament voted for a rare motion brought by the Tories to compel the government to publicly release “all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment”. The language in the motion, called a humble address, made an exception for papers “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”, which it said should be provided to the ISC.
The committee comprises nine MPs and peers, including Jeremy Wright, a former attorney general, and Alan West, a retired Royal Navy admiral. Its members are sworn to secrecy under the Official Secrets Act and are given access to highly classified material. Tasked with overseeing the UK intelligence community on parliament’s behalf, they are now likely to demand answers over the precise basis for the UKSV decision.
During the debate on the humble address, Derek Twigg, a member of the ISC, asked a minister, Chris Ward, for assurances there would be “no block whatsoever” on the material provided to the committee. Ward said: “Yes, I can confirm that.”
According to an ISC press notice, the committee met top officials from the Cabinet Office after the humble address and it was agreed that to “fulfil the will of parliament”, it would be for the committee alone to assess material provided to it by the government and decide if it should be published.
However, sources have said officials have been considering a different approach, and wrestling with whether there could be grounds to withhold highly sensitive UKSV vetting documents from the committee entirely, despite the vote.
One source said officials were wary that disclosure of details of an individual’s vetting, even if access was restricted to a trusted group of parliamentarians, would be “unprecedented”. They pointed to strong concerns, including among the security services, about revealing documents.
A second source said officials were grappling with a “live tactical question” over the release, and searching for loopholes that might enable them to withhold documents from the ISC. They said top officials were “looking for ways to comply with the letter of the humble address while potentially bypassing its spirit”.
The second source said some in government were arguing that any disclosure of documents revealing Mandelon’s UKSV vetting had failed, only to be overruled by the Foreign Office, would “reflect poorly on the government’s overall integrity”. Others, they said, had been arguing that “precedent should be set aside” to comply with parliament’s wishes.
Another option under consideration would be to show the redacted documents to a select number of the nine-person committee.
The Guardian’s revelation that Mandelson had failed the developed vetting process is likely to put pressure on the government to release the documents to the public in full.

Details of an individual’s UKSV developed vetting results have never before been publicly disclosed, and some top officials have been arguing that doing so would jeopardise national security.
According to publicly available government documents, the vetting process includes a questionnaire and interviews requiring disclosure of highly private information, including about personal finances, business connections and sexual history. The security services are also consulted.
Regardless of the final decision by the Cabinet Office, the notion that officials have even contemplated whether to withhold the Mandelson vetting documents, in what would appear to be a breach of parliament’s wishes, could prove hugely controversial.
Such a move could raise a constitutional conflict, with officialdom and the security services challenging the supremacy of parliament. It would also raise questions about whether the government is adhering to its word.
In a letter on 6 February 2026 to the chair of the committee, Starmer said: “Above all else, the government wishes to engage constructively with the ISC, and to ensure that parliament’s instruction is met with the urgency and transparency it deserves.”
The Foreign Office, Downing Street and the Cabinet Office have been approached for comment.
 
Back
Top Bottom