Free speech is not the freedom to violate consent. Young women's images are not public property, and their safety is not up for debate.
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) January 15, 2026
I welcome that X is now acting to ensure full compliance with UK law – it must happen immediately.
If we need to strengthen existing laws…
I have sacked Robert Jenrick from the Shadow Cabinet, removed the whip and suspended his party membership with immediate effect.
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) January 15, 2026
I was presented with clear, irrefutable evidence that he was plotting in secret to defect in a way designed to be as damaging as possible to his… pic.twitter.com/zoSzFp0cKq
Oh, bless his cotton socks. Keir Starmer, the man who once promised us grown-up government, has thrown his toys out of the pram and stormed off Twitter like a sulky teenager who’s just been told he can’t have pudding before his veg.
Five whole days. Not a peep. Not a single sanctimonious thread, not one carefully curated photo of him looking statesmanlike in a hi-vis jacket, not even a retweet of some sycophantic local councillor praising his “vision”. The account sits there, still open, still blue-ticked, still collecting dust while the rest of the Labour circus carries on without him. The official @UKLabour account is merrily posting away, Angela Rayner is firing off memes like it’s 2019, Wes Streeting is tweeting about the NHS as if he’s personally invented penicillin. Everyone’s still at it. Everyone except the Prime Minister.
This isn’t strategy. This isn’t “digital detox”. This isn’t even a principled stand against the platform’s evils. This is the action of a petulant child who’s been told off one too many times in the replies and has decided the only way to win is to take his ball home and sulk in the corner.
What’s got his goat this time? The endless memes about the £22 billion black hole that wasn’t? The mockery of his winter fuel betrayal? The relentless pile-on over Hermer’s Guantanamo payout? Or perhaps it’s just the dawning realisation that the public aren’t buying the “tough choices” schtick when the only tough choice he’s making is between another tax rise and another U-turn. Whatever it is, he’s had enough. So instead of facing the music – or, heaven forfend, actually engaging – he’s gone full stroppy toddler: arms crossed, bottom lip out, no more tweets for you lot.
Meanwhile, the country burns, the bills rise, the queues lengthen, and the Prime Minister is playing hide-and-seek with his own social media profile. Statesmanlike? Hardly. It’s the behaviour of a man who can dish out lectures on leadership but can’t take the heat when the kitchen gets a bit toasty.
Five days, Keir. Five days of glorious silence from the man who told us he was here to lead. Perhaps he’ll come back when the replies have cooled down, or when someone tells him the optics are finally good enough. Until then, the rest of us will carry on without him – just like the Labour Party already is.
Yours in weary amusement,
Ken Palarse
P.S. If you’re enjoying the spectacle, share this far and wide. Every retweet is a reminder that even Prime Ministers can’t hide forever.
Let’s not sugarcoat it: Hermer was Zubaydah’s barrister before Starmer handed him the keys to the kingdom in July 2024. He led the charge against the UK government, suing the Foreign Office for alleged complicity in the Yank’s torture regime – a case that dragged on for years, painting MI6 as the villains while Zubaydah played the victim. The Tories fought it tooth and nail, but lo and behold, under Labour’s watch, the whole thing folds like a cheap suit. A “substantial” out-of-court settlement – we’re talking millions, folks – lands in Zubaydah’s lap, with Hermer now sitting pretty as the chief legal adviser who could have stopped it but didn’t. Robert Jenrick nailed it: this is a payout “engineered” by the claimant’s former counsel, now the bloke signing the cheque from Cabinet. Conflict of interest? It’s a bloody conspiracy of convenience.
And why, pray tell, is Hermer always – always – on the side of Britain’s enemies? This isn’t his first rodeo with the rogue’s gallery. He represented Rangzieb Ahmed, the convicted terrorist who tried to sue us for his Pakistani torture holiday. He fought for Mustafa al-Hawsawi, the Saudi al-Qaeda financier behind 9/11 logistics. He even tried to block the deportation of Abid Naseer, the al-Qaeda plotter eyeing up shopping centres for his bomb fantasies. Hermer’s CV reads like a who’s who of Whitehall’s worst nightmares: Guantanamo detainees, IRA sympathisers, grooming gang appeals – if there’s a case against the Crown, he’s there with bells on, billing by the hour. Is it principle? Or just a pathological urge to stick it to the establishment that now employs him? One thing’s clear: this man has made a career out of championing the very threats we spent blood and treasure fighting. Britain’s enemies must raise a toast every time his name pops up.
So why the devil is he still in government? Starmer could have picked any silk-suited drone for Attorney General, but no – he taps Hermer, his old chambers chum from Doughty Street, the human rights hotbed that’s more Amnesty International than Admiralty. It’s an unhealthy loyalty that reeks of cronyism: Starmer, the ex-DPP who once defended IRA types himself, sees a kindred spirit in Hermer’s anti-establishment shtick. But at what cost? While pensioners freeze and the NHS queues stretch to infinity, we’re forking out millions to a bloke the Yanks called a “high-value detainee.” Starmer’s blind faith in his mate has turned the Treasury into a terrorist tip jar. Resign? Hermer should be drummed out with a dishonourable discharge, and Starmer grilled on why he’s so wedded to a lawyer who’s spent decades undermining the very state he now advises.
This isn’t just bad optics; it’s a betrayal of every principle Labour pretends to hold. When did “for the many” become “funds for the fanatics”? The Tories are right to howl – this is a “disgraceful capitulation” that sticks two fingers up to victims of terror while rewarding their enablers.
So what now, as the January sleet lashes the windows and the headlines fade? Demand answers, you lot. Bombard your MP, flood the airwaves, make Hermer’s name synonymous with sell-out. Because if this quisling stays in post, it’s open season on Britain’s backbone – and Starmer’s loyalty will be the noose around our necks.
Yours in unbridled contempt,
Ken Palarse
P.S. If this has your blood boiling hotter than a midwinter fuel poverty heater, share it wide. Every retweet keeps the pressure on these charlatans.
Essential reads to fuel the fury:
Oh, Shabana Mahmood, you slippery eel in a pinstripe suit. The Home Secretary who once built a career on righteous indignation now stands revealed as the ultimate enabler of deceit, incompetence, and two-tier policing. Yesterday’s parliamentary fireworks over the West Midlands Maccabi ban weren’t just about Craig Guildford’s barefaced lies to MPs – they were about you, Madam Home Secretary, and your calculated decision to look the other way while a senior officer shredded the truth and the reputation of British policing.
Let’s recap the filth: Guildford banned Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the Villa game last November on the laughable pretext of “safety concerns” drawn from Amsterdam 2024. Except the Dutch police had already clarified that the Israelis were the victims of mob violence, not the perpetrators. West Midlands knew this. They had “high-confidence intelligence” about local threats – yet instead of arresting the would-be attackers, they punished the potential targets. Guildford then doubled down, lying under oath to the Home Affairs Select Committee about the intelligence picture, refusing to apologise, and clinging to his job like a limpet on a rock. Senior MPs from across the House are now calling for his head – Jewish groups have lost all faith, Birmingham’s name is mud, and the stench of appeasement hangs heavy.
And where was Shabana Mahmood through this carnival of cowardice? Eight days before the ban was slapped on, she was briefed. The leaks are unequivocal: the Home Office was in the loop, the intelligence shared, the decision flagged. Yet when the Commons got rowdy, Mahmood stood at the dispatch box with the solemnity of a vicar at a christening and swore blind she “wasn’t notified” in advance. Not a whisper, not a memo, not even a casual “by the way, we’re banning Jewish football fans to keep the peace.” Pure, distilled, parliamentary-grade bollocks.
This isn’t forgetfulness; it’s a deliberate lie to shield a failing chief constable and preserve the fiction that Labour’s policing is fair, firm, and free of community vetoes. Why the kid gloves? Because this whole sordid affair reeks of the quiet consultations that never make it to the public record. Mosques were involved in Guildford’s appointment process – whispers of “community leaders” having a say in who gets the top job. Mosques were consulted on the ban itself – “wider engagement” to “de-escalate tensions,” we’re told. Translation: better to appease the agitators than protect the threatened. Two-tier policing isn’t a bug; it’s the feature, and Mahmood is the architect who signed off on the blueprints.
She could have sacked Guildford the moment the lies surfaced. She could have launched an independent inquiry. She could have stood up and said, “This is unacceptable – the ban was wrong, the intelligence was twisted, and the chief must go.” Instead, she chose silence, deflection, and the slow drip of deniability. A Home Secretary who turns a blind eye to a chief lying to Parliament isn’t leading; she’s complicit. She’s the adult in the room who watched the child set fire to the curtains and then claimed she didn’t smell smoke.
This is the woman who lectures us about integrity, about restoring trust in institutions, about “tough on crime.” Yet when a senior officer lies to MPs, endangers public safety through cowardice, and drags British policing into the mud of appeasement, she does… nothing. Absolutely sod all.
Guildford is a man of no honour. Mahmood is worse – she’s the one with the power to stop him, and she chose not to. She chose the quiet life over justice, the party line over principle, the optics over the truth.
So what now? Demand her resignation alongside his. Bombard your MP, flood the select committee with evidence, make this scandal impossible to ignore. Because if Shabana Mahmood can lie about being briefed and shield a deceitful chief constable, then the rot isn’t just in West Midlands – it’s at the very heart of government.
Yours in incandescent disgust,
Ken Palarse
P.S. Share this far and wide. Every retweet is a brick in the wall of accountability these people so richly deserve.
Essential outrage fuel:
Maybe Starmer will sue the UAE for being Islamophobic?
At political cabinet today, Morgan McSweeney gave a presentation on “three Es” on how the government can connect with voters - emotion, empathy and evidence.
Seemingly they need more E's!
