.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Pee-ce treaty: Foreigners demand more loos after Phuket public urination uproar
By
snoop1130
in Phuket News
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Starmer’s Attempt to Block BBC Report on Sue Gray’s Salary Sparks Controversy
Sir Keir Starmer personally intervened to prevent the BBC from reporting that his chief of staff, Sue Gray, was earning more than him, enlisting the help of Britain’s most senior civil servant, Simon Case. The cabinet secretary contacted both the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, and political editor, Chris Mason, urging them to reconsider broadcasting details about Gray’s pay rise. The controversy arose when the BBC informed Downing Street that it was preparing to reveal that Gray had secured a salary increase to £170,000—£3,000 more than Starmer himself earns as prime minister. Starmer and his team were determined to keep this information from the public, believing it would set a dangerous precedent. They also rejected claims that Gray had orchestrated her own pay raise and viewed the report as a hostile and anonymous attack on a respected civil servant who had previously authored the partygate report. Case’s direct intervention was notable, as such high-level conversations between government officials and the BBC are typically reserved for matters of national security or situations that could endanger UK personnel. While he stopped short of explicitly telling the BBC not to run the story, he emphasized concerns over its wider implications. He argued that exposing Gray’s exact salary would cross a line and warned that excessive media scrutiny of public servants could deter talented individuals from taking on senior roles in government and broadcasting. Although government salaries for special advisers are published in pay bands annually, the precise disclosure of Gray’s earnings was unusual. Starmer’s aides were also growing increasingly frustrated with what they saw as sarcastic and aggressive anonymous briefings against Gray from within Downing Street, some of which were leaked to the BBC. One insider even mocked Gray’s role in preparing Labour for government, quipping, “If you ever see any evidence of our preparation for government, please let me know.” Despite these efforts, the BBC proceeded with the story on September 18. Mason later defended the corporation’s decision, citing the public interest in transparency and accountability. The fallout was swift, fueling accusations of dysfunction within Starmer’s administration. The controversy forced Starmer to insist that he remained "completely in control" of his government, but the damage was done. The situation became so toxic that Gray was absent from the Labour Party conference the following week. A little more than two weeks later, she was dismissed, marking a dramatic end to her tenure as Starmer’s chief of staff. The incident has raised serious questions about Labour’s internal cohesion and the prime minister’s ability to manage his top team in the early days of his administration. Based on a report by Sunday Times 2025-02-10 -
0
Labour Faces Fresh Crisis as Second MP Caught in Controversial WhatsApp Group
Labour is under increasing pressure to take action against a second MP linked to a controversial WhatsApp group that circulated sexist and racist messages. This comes after Andrew Gwynne was removed from his role as a health minister following the exposure of offensive online exchanges, including one message where he expressed hope that an elderly voter who didn’t support Labour would "die before the next election." "Housing Minister it’s ‘concerning’ Labour councillors didn’t call out antisemitic WhatsApp messages." One of the most shocking exchanges involved a 72-year-old woman who had contacted her local councillor regarding bin collections. After she mentioned that she hadn’t voted Labour but wanted to raise an issue, Gwynne allegedly wrote a suggested response: “Dear resident, F*** your bins. I’m re-elected and without your vote. Screw you. PS: Hopefully you’ll have croaked it by the all-outs.” The term "all-outs" refers to elections where all council seats are contested at once. The leaked messages, obtained by *The Mail on Sunday*, contained further offensive content. Gwynne was found to have written that someone "sounds too Jewish" and "too militaristic," seemingly based solely on their name. Other messages included racist remarks about veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott, mocking her historic achievement of becoming the first Black MP to speak at Prime Minister’s Questions. There were also sexist comments about Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and crude references to a local Labour leader. Discussing an upcoming Labour meeting, one group member referenced Marshall Rosenberg, a late American psychologist known for conflict resolution techniques. Gwynne responded: “No. He sounds too militaristic and too Jewish. Is he in Mossad?” The remark plays into an enduring anti-Semitic stereotype, according to Alex Hearn, co-director of Labour Against Anti-Semitism. Gwynne’s history with online controversy dates back to 2018 when it was revealed he was in a Facebook group called "Labour Supporters," where anti-Semitic messages were shared. At the time, he distanced himself, saying: “I was added to this Facebook group without my knowledge or permission. I DO NOT support the posts and I ABHOR anti-Semitism. It has absolutely NO place in the Labour Party or in society. End of.” However, just months later, he was engaging in anti-Semitic banter in the WhatsApp group, even joking, “Geoffrey the Giraffe says don’t be nasty to the Jews,” referencing the mascot of the defunct Toys R Us chain. Gwynne also made offensive jokes about Diane Abbott’s role at Prime Minister’s Questions in October 2019. Abbott’s appearance was a historic moment as she became the first Black parliamentarian to represent her party in the weekly debate. When a group member questioned whether this moment was "a joke," Gwynne replied: "Because it’s Black History Month apparently." Another councillor suggested alternative Black MPs, both living and dead, saying: "Was David Lammy not available? I’d also take the corpse of Bernie Grant." Gwynne then added: "Or Desmond Swayne? Justin Trudeau??" This appeared to be a reference to the two politicians’ past controversies involving blackface caricatures. With Labour already reeling from the fallout of Gwynne’s removal, pressure is mounting for further disciplinary action. Whether others in the WhatsApp group will face consequences remains unclear, but the scandal has once again raised concerns about inappropriate behaviour within the party’s ranks. Based on a report by Daily Mail | Sky News 2025-02-10 -
0
Plans for Chinese Mega-Embassy in London Spark Protests, National Security Concerns
Thousands of demonstrators, including prominent politicians, gathered in east London on Saturday to protest against plans for a massive new Chinese embassy, which critics warn poses a serious threat to national security. China initially submitted its embassy plans in 2022, but Tower Hamlets borough council rejected the proposal. Speculation suggested that the Conservative government at the time would have supported the decision had China appealed. However, just weeks after the Labour Party’s general election victory, Beijing resubmitted its largely unchanged plans. Tom Tugendhat, the shadow security minister, echoed Jenrick’s concerns, arguing that the embassy represents an extension of China’s authoritarian influence. “This protest is not about bricks and mortar. This protest is not about our relationship with the Chinese people we’re proud to call friends,” he said. “This protest is about the CCP. It is about the spread of oppression and silence and fear. It is about the hatred that Xi Jinping and his Marxist nationalist ideology have spread in China. And we will not allow it to spread here in London.” The demonstration saw around 2,000 protesters chanting “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong” and “Mega embassy, mega no.” Many had traveled from across the UK, arriving on coaches from Scotland, Liverpool, Reading, and Manchester. Police clashed with masked demonstrators as tensions escalated, with officers forced to retreat as protesters linked arms and moved aggressively toward them. Several senior political figures joined the protest, including Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative Party leader, and Blair McDougall, Labour MP for East Renfrewshire. Despite the widespread opposition, Beijing has found support within the UK government. The embassy application was reportedly a topic of discussion between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during a recent phone call. Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appeared to back the project in a joint letter to the Planning Inspectorate last month. Crucially, they revealed that the Metropolitan Police had withdrawn its previous objections—greatly improving Beijing’s chances of securing planning approval. UK foreign secretary David Lammy and home secretary Yvette Cooper have intervened on China’s planning application for an enormous new London embassy, signalling their support while outlining conditions for the proposed site. In a joint letter to the Planning Inspectorate for England on Jan 14, Lammy and Cooper stressed the “importance of countries having functioning diplomatic premises in each other’s capitals”. While the final decision remains pending, the strong public backlash suggests that the battle over the proposed Chinese mega-embassy is far from over. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph | Financial Times 2025-02-10 -
0
Time to End "Pay to Slay" the Palestinian Authority’s Terror Funding Network
With President Donald Trump’s inauguration, 2025 marks a critical opportunity for change in both the United States and the Middle East. One of the most pressing issues demanding immediate action is the financial pipeline that channels Western aid into the hands of terrorists, in direct violation of both U.S. and Israeli law. At the heart of this system are the Palestinian Authority’s Martyrs’ Fund and Prisoners’ Fund—programs that sustain and incentivize violence through direct payments. The numbers are staggering. In 2016 alone, the PA allocated $315 million—amounting to 8% of its budget—toward payments for terrorists and their families. These monthly stipends frequently surpass the average salary in the West Bank. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has openly declared, “If we are left with one penny, we will spend it on the families of prisoners and martyrs.” The financial incentives don’t stop with monthly payments; terrorists released from Israeli prisons receive additional benefits. Those who served between one and three years are given a $1,500 bonus, while prisoners incarcerated for 30 years or more receive $25,000. In addition to these payments, they are granted free health insurance, university tuition waivers, and guaranteed government jobs, with promotions linked to the length of their prison sentences. Those who served the longest are awarded ranks equivalent to senior government officials. The tragic case of Taylor Force, a 28-year-old West Point graduate, highlights the deadly consequences of these policies. In 2016, Force was brutally stabbed to death in a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv. Despite his senseless murder, the terrorist’s family continues to receive monthly payments from the PA. In response, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act in 2018, halting U.S. economic aid to the PA until these payments ceased. However, despite this legislation, the Biden administration did little to pressure the PA into ending its terror stipends. Recent events have only worsened the problem. The PA’s official newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, recently reported that 23,210 new “martyrs” and 3,550 new prisoners—including many Hamas members—became eligible for payments following the October 7, 2023, attacks. In addition, the 734 terrorists released as part of the January 26, 2025, prisoner exchange have already received nearly $142 million in compensation. One of them, Muhammad Al-Tous, has personally been awarded $631,394. The international community must recognize that the PA’s survival is dependent on foreign aid, much of which ends up funding terrorism. Yet, instead of taking responsibility, PA leaders frame any attempt to cut off these payments as “aggression against the Palestinian people.” Abbas has gone as far as to call these payments a “social responsibility,” even as his administration sought to gain control over Gaza—a move that would effectively hand governing power to an entity financing terror. The Trump administration now has a chance to reverse this dangerous reality. The PA must be held accountable for its role in sustaining terrorism, and international donors must be pressured to stop enabling a system that rewards violence. The time for action is now. Based on a report by USA Today | Washington Examiner 2025-02-10 Related Topics Legislation Reintroduced to Sanction Palestinian Leadership Over Terror Payments -
0
Europe’s Far-Right Leaders Rally Behind Trump, Call for a Conservative Revival
At a major gathering in Madrid, far-right political leaders from across Europe heaped praise on Donald Trump, expressing their desire to emulate his political success and bring a similar right-wing resurgence to the continent. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Italy’s deputy premier Matteo Salvini, French National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, and Dutch PVV founder Geert Wilders were among those in attendance at the event, organized by Spain’s far-right Vox party. Addressing a crowd of around 2,000 flag-waving supporters, the speakers condemned illegal immigration, leftist policies, migrant rescue NGOs, and what they described as the dangers of "wokeism." Orbán, a staunch Trump ally, celebrated what he called “the Trump tornado,” stating that the former US president’s victory in the upcoming November election would have global consequences. “Yesterday we were heretics, today we're mainstream,” he proclaimed, suggesting that Trump’s rise was shifting political dynamics worldwide. The audience cheered in agreement, with regular jeers directed at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Throughout the event, there were frequent calls for a new "Reconquista," a reference to the medieval Christian conquest of Muslim-controlled regions in Spain. This historical parallel was used to frame the fight against immigration and multiculturalism as a cultural and political battle. Despite concerns over Trump’s threats to impose heavy tariffs on European imports, Salvini and Vox president Santiago Abascal dismissed these fears, arguing that the European Union’s own policies—such as the Green Deal and economic regulations—posed a greater risk to European prosperity. One of the dominant themes of the conference was the need to fortify Europe’s borders against illegal immigration, even though statistics from the EU border control agency Frontex indicate that irregular border crossings dropped significantly in 2024. Nevertheless, speakers continued to highlight immigration as a central threat to European identity and security. Marine Le Pen emphasized the strategic importance of their political movement, boasting that their Patriots for Europe group, which holds 84 seats in the European Parliament, would be “the only ones that can talk with the new Trump administration.” This assertion underscored the belief among Europe’s far-right leaders that a second Trump presidency would provide a crucial opportunity to reshape transatlantic relations and strengthen nationalist movements across the continent. The gathering in Madrid signaled a coordinated effort among Europe's far-right parties to capitalize on Trump’s influence, presenting themselves as the true defenders of traditional values, national sovereignty, and economic freedom. With the U.S. election looming, their message was clear: a Trump-style political transformation in Europe is not just desirable, but inevitable. Based on a report by BBC 2025-02-10 -
0
Labour’s Attack on Academies Will Harm the Future of Education
The growth of academy schools in England has been the most significant educational success story in a generation. While other areas of the school system struggle with teacher strikes and deteriorating infrastructure, academies have been quietly transforming education standards, thanks in large part to the contributions of philanthropists and entrepreneurs. By allowing private enterprise to establish and manage academies, successive governments from both major parties have enabled these schools to flourish. With the freedom to pay teachers more, tailor curricula to students' needs, and set their own term times, academies have driven up educational achievements. However, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson appears determined to reverse this progress. Her policies threaten to dismantle the very freedoms that have made academies successful. A key element of her Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is to ban academies from employing unqualified teachers in the future. While at first glance this may seem like a measure to improve standards, it ignores the fact that many of the most dedicated and effective teachers come to the profession from other careers, bringing valuable real-world experience into the classroom. In some of the highest-performing academies, nearly one in ten teachers are classified as "unqualified." At the technology academy I founded in Putney, South-West London, several teachers followed non-traditional paths into education. One maths teacher began teaching soon after graduating from the very same school, and another started as a teaching assistant before progressing to a full-time teaching role. One particularly inspiring case is a former art technician with a deep passion for pottery. Although he initially taught for two years without formal qualifications, he later became fully certified and now teaches a full timetable. "The youngsters love him," and his journey highlights the importance of flexibility in recruiting passionate educators. This adaptability has helped Ashcroft Technology Academy (ATA) achieve remarkable results. ATA is ranked as the 15th top-performing school in the country, boasts a 98% attendance rate—one of the highest in the UK—and has been recognized as the best state school for the International Baccalaureate. Such achievements would not be possible under the rigid constraints of a local authority-run school. Phillipson seems unaware that the teaching profession is not overflowing with eager recruits. Schools cannot afford to turn away talented individuals simply because their entry into teaching does not follow a traditional path. Academies address this issue by offering competitive salaries—often higher than those in local authority schools—not because they receive more funding, but because they manage their finances efficiently. However, Phillipson wants to strip academies of this financial independence by forcing them to adhere to rigid national pay scales negotiated by the Government and unions. Another freedom at risk is the ability of academies to diverge from the national curriculum. This flexibility has allowed them to implement innovative teaching methods tailored to students' specific needs. Additionally, the autonomy to set their own term times has contributed to their success. Yet, Phillipson’s policies threaten to eliminate these advantages. Despite her claims of supporting academies, Phillipson’s actions suggest otherwise. She "wants to wallow in their success while undermining what has made them so successful." Rather than learning from the achievements of these schools, she seeks to impose restrictions that will stifle their ability to excel. The involvement of businesses and philanthropists in education has eased the burden on government budgets. However, by removing the incentives that encourage private sector investment in schools, Phillipson is discouraging future contributions. Sadly, too many Labour MPs are content to support a vision of universal mediocrity rather than embrace centers of excellence. This approach embodies what has been described as "the soft bigotry of low expectations," where policymakers refuse to believe that students from disadvantaged backgrounds can outperform their peers. The same misguided thinking underpins the Government’s punitive VAT raid on private schools. A more forward-thinking politician would study the success of academies and seek to replicate their best practices rather than limit their potential. Unfortunately, Phillipson’s policies will not only weaken academies but will also deprive millions of children of the high-quality education they deserve. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-02-10
-
-
Popular in The Pub
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now