Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

British guys, how much trouble is starmer in?

Featured Replies

  • Replies 224
  • Views 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Show us how? I cant believe you ruined a good explanation with reflexive anti -americanism

  • johnnybangkok
    johnnybangkok

    Well for example Trump is mentioned 38,000 times in the Epstein files, he absolutely knew Epstein “liked them young” and has had so many accusations of impropriety with young girls (mostly to do with

  • Or much more discerning about what is propaganda. But continue with your anti Trump diatribes, its a British tradition to dislike your boss or your betters

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That is probably because you are incapable of thinking on your own!

Name your top 3 instead of trolling.

11 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Starmer is hopeless. Gone soon. Can't think of one decent UK leader ever.

Good reason for that. There was only 1. And it was a long time ago. Thatcher. Was the last time Britain was British and Brits were allowed to be proud of their country. All downhill from there as we know.

1 minute ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Good reason for that. There was only 1. And it was a long time ago. Thatcher. Was the last time Britain was British and Brits were allowed to be proud of their country. All downhill from there as we know.

More tough than all the blokes but high unemployment.

Her government's closure of coal mines in the 1980s led to mass unemployment and the decimation of industrial communities, drawing condemnation from unions and former miners.

9 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

you are a troll.

If you think that I or any other member is a "troll" then I suggest that you report me, along, with every other member you accuse of being a troll to the MODS!

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

If you think that I or any other member is a "troll" then I suggest that you report me, along, with every other member you accuse of being a troll to the MODS!

You keep ignoring the topic as per usual. I rate Starmer as terrible. You won't say. Just post your opinion on Starmer.

  • Popular Post
8 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

More tough than all the blokes but high unemployment.

Her government's closure of coal mines in the 1980s led to mass unemployment and the decimation of industrial communities, drawing condemnation from unions and former miners.

Ex miner friends praise her. They say if it werent for her they'd still be down there😅

Just now, SunnyinBangrak said:

Ex miner friends praise her. They say if it werent for her they'd still be down there😅

At least she had balls. The blokes are all awful. Imagine Starmer being a general on D day. He would run away. Eisenhower was a real man. Starmer reminds me of Kevin Rudd. He was the worst ever in Oz.

I think the UK tumbled after Maggie went

Shocking place now

A small country the size of one State in Australia and they overpopulated

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Good reason for that. There was only 1. And it was a long time ago. Thatcher. Was the last time Britain was British and Brits were allowed to be proud of their country. All downhill from there as we know.

Yes , unfortunately the Brits sold their country

They are not the brightest of people

  • Popular Post

Did Starmer ever know Epstein ? NO

Is Starmer in the Eptein files ? NO

Did Starmer go to Epstein island? NO

Get the hell out of town with this psycho Westminster nonsense. Starmer has been a poor PM (no conviction with his large majority, too many u-turns when faced with protest, and horrifically poor budgets). But he is decent guy with integrity compared to the rotten chore that came before him.

Remove him for incomptenence sure. But not because of misjudgement in hiring someone.

Sitting in America, people are laughing that our PM is in trouble when he didn't even meet Epstein. Compare to Trump !

First time in a while i believe the media are in their for some mischief making which is actually quite chilling. It's a non story.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Think about how you would have heard about things in the 70s and how you're getting informed today.

MSM, same.as.the 70s

2 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

Did Starmer ever know Epstein ? NO

Is Starmer in the Eptein files ? NO

Did Starmer go to Epstein island? NO

Get the hell out of town with this psycho Westminster nonsense. Starmer has been a poor PM (no conviction with his large majority, too many u-turns when faced with protest, and horrifically poor budgets). But he is decent guy with integrity compared to the rotten chore that came before him.

Remove him for incomptenence sure. But not because of misjudgement in hiring someone.

Sitting in America, people are laughing that our PM is in trouble when he didn't even meet Epstein. Compare to Trump !

First time in a while i believe the media are in their for some mischief making which is actually quite chilling. It's a non story.

He met Elton John.

Sir Mick Jagger appears in newly released Epstein files, with photos showing him alongside Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton at social events.

Keir Starmer has not met Jeffrey Epstein. Multiple sources confirm that Starmer never met Epstein and is not accused of any wrongdoing related to him. However, Starmer faces political fallout over his 2024 decision to appoint Peter Mandelson—a close associate of Epstein—as the UK’s ambassador to the United States

32 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

Did Starmer ever know Epstein ? NO

Is Starmer in the Eptein files ? NO

Did Starmer go to Epstein island? NO

Get the hell out of town with this psycho Westminster nonsense. Starmer has been a poor PM (no conviction with his large majority, too many u-turns when faced with protest, and horrifically poor budgets). But he is decent guy with integrity compared to the rotten chore that came before him.

Remove him for incomptenence sure. But not because of misjudgement in hiring someone.

Sitting in America, people are laughing that our PM is in trouble when he didn't even meet Epstein. Compare to Trump !

First time in a while i believe the media are in their for some mischief making which is actually quite chilling. It's a non story.

Reminds of the time a cult tried to hang a man they falsely claimed(without a shred of evidence) colluded with Russia to cheat in an election. Im sure the injustice and absurdity outraged you back then? Spolier alert, my hard copies show otherwise😅

Starmer is polling so bad there is no reason for him to stay on. He's a Rudd type. Time to step down. Pick another dud.

Tim Allan resigned 😊 😊 😊...Starmer be gone by end of week

18 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Tim Allan resigned 😊 😊 😊...Starmer be gone by end of week

Not Tim Allen the tool man?

Well, Starmer made it clear yesterday he is getting ready to step down by covering his tracks, he doesn't want blame for anything. So who will be in No 10 next. Some raging looney lefty no doubt which puts at stake the mandate that the 20,% of people voted for....even the staunchest labour voters can't honestly believe there will not be an election very soon

On 2/7/2026 at 1:38 PM, johnnybangkok said:

Well for example Trump is mentioned 38,000 times in the Epstein files, he absolutely knew Epstein “liked them young” and has had so many accusations of impropriety with young girls (mostly to do with his pageant) it’s hard to keep count. And obviously he was convicted of sexual assault, $hagged a porn star and is a convicted felon.

No British MP would have survived a fraction of those accusations/convictions and still be in office.

As I said, much higher standards.

Check your steering. You've veered off topic. Trumpitis hits again.

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

If the nation had felt the same way about The Tories as they do about Labour, they wouldn't have lasted 14 years.

Labour are so bad that their tyrannical leader is having to cancel local elections after less than 2 years in power to avoid the embarrassment of being annihilated at the ballot box.

They are a disgrace.

Give them a chance! While I doubt their majority at the next General Election will be as large as in 2024, I truly believe they will get an overall majority in 2028/9. It's unrealistic to see the protest votes for Reform in the opinion polls being translated into real votes, especially once Reform's policies are demonstrated to be unrealistic.

3 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Give them a chance! While I doubt their majority at the next General Election will be as large as in 2024, I truly believe they will get an overall majority in 2028/9. It's unrealistic to see the protest votes for Reform in the opinion polls being translated into real votes, especially once Reform's policies are demonstrated to be unrealistic.

You're dreaming. They will get absolutely smashed. Humiliated.

My sister visited me in Thailand last week and said even her left wing mates are sick to the back teeth of Labour. They are despised. The polls are not wrong, people are seething and whoever replaces Starmer will likely make an even bigger mess of it.

They're done, and I suspect you know it.

Just now, JonnyF said:

You're dreaming. They will get absolutely smashed. Humiliated.

My sister visited me in Thailand last week and said even her left wing mates are sick to the back teeth of Labour. They are despised. The polls are not wrong, people are seething and whoever replaces Starmer will likely make an even bigger mess of it.

They're done, and I suspect you know it.

Maybe, but the election is not being held now. A lot can happen in 3 years.

  • Popular Post

Social media and biased news sites often spread hyperbole by the minute, Sky News's Beth "Hyperbole" Rigby a prime example, GB Hyberbolx News another. They create the noise as it pays their salaries. Fact is no cabinet members have resigned, so expect the UK PM to stay in the job until the next General Election is due in 2029.

Just now, Hamus Yaigh said:

Fact is no cabinet members have resigned, so expect the UK PM to stay in the job until the next General Election is due in 2029.

This won't age well. 😄

9 hours ago, baansgr said:

MSM, same.as.the 70s

So you're ignorant of the spreading of news now compared to the 70s.

10 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Your dad is talking crap I suspect. Trying to act tough. Aussie troops smashed the Japs in PNG despite being outnumbered. British troops were known for being hopeless.

Your tank info timelines are also off.

Britain began supplying tanks to the Soviet Union in 1941, shortly after the German invasion of the USSR.

The first major shipment, known as Convoy PQ-1, departed on September 29, 1941, delivering 20 British Matilda II tanks to the Red Army. These tanks arrived in time to participate in the Battle of Moscow.

Over the course of the war, Britain and its Empire delivered a total of 5,218 tanks to the Soviet Union between October 1, 1941, and March 31, 1946, including models such as the Valentine, Matilda, Churchill, and Tetrarch.

These deliveries continued throughout the war, with significant shipments in 1942, 1943, and 1944, and were part of a broader Lend-Lease and military aid agreement.

Remember, this exchange started because you pointedly, and unprovoked, decided to insult the British, presumably for <deleted>s and giggles.

Your confusion between the word "Grandad" and "Dad" is a Freudian slip, betraying your age, at about 70-80 years old. I know you obviously live in a world of cads, hookers and thieves, with low personal standards, but my grandfather was an honourable man.

It is well documented how Australian troops, newly arrived, fled the lines in Singapore. When the Wavell report was declassified in 1993, naturally the Australian PM had to say something, but much of the content of the report was accurate. The units that were sent to directly to Singapore were trained in Australia with sticks, as they had no rifles, and lead by a poor general, Bennet. It was at the Australian government urging, that the AIF was sent and the British 18th Division was doverted from North Africa to Singapore.

Wavell issued a report, based on the recollections of officers and other troops, recounting how there was an effort to drive the Japanese who had landed on Singapore back into the sea. 3 Australian battalions were needed, but one of them had completely deserted, and were found drunk in town, some of them committing rape. Some British troops described the Australians as Daffodils, beautiful to look at, but yellow through and through. Not all the Australian troops; the ones that fought the rearguard down the Malay Penninsula did their bit. The ones arriving from Australia were the ones who turned and ran. General Percival went into captivity. General Bennet abandoned his troops and fled by boat, because he claimed Australia needed his unmatched knowledge of jungle fighting. The Australian Army never let him command in the field, again, so obviously his skill set was a bit overstated.

Wavell's full report is here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/99765968/Report-by-General-Wavell-on-Operations-in-Malaya-and-Singapore

Some choice quotes from the report presented to Cabinet

For the fall of Singapore (town) itself, the Australians are held responsible, while their presence in the town indisproportionately large numbers during the last days coupled with the the escape of large numbers on ships and in boats, caused great indignation

As the behaviour of at least some of the Australian troops in the area has been the occasion of strong comment and recrimination is likely to to have unfortunate repercussions.....it is necessary to set out plainly the facts of the case so far as they are known..... The AIF had displayed in North Jahore a refreshingly offensive spirit at a period when this was sorely needed to counter the effects on morale of constant withdrawal and defeat. They had brought off some highly successful ambushes over ground..... rapid decline must have set in because signs of a break in morale were noticeable even before the Japanese landed in their sector. Large numbers of AIF stragglers were seen in the town, many undoubtedly took the opportunity to desert in boats to Sumatra. Finally the events of the night 8th/9th February seem to have destroyed almost completely their discipline and morale

AIF units in the Western Sector (between the Sungei Jurong and Sungei Kranji) appeared to be taking little interest in the oppite shore, in spite of requests from Malaya Command that patrols be ferried over under cover of darkness . Inactivity in this sector is the more inexplicable in that sounds of hammering had been heard at night across the water

A counter attack had been staged for the morning of the 11th February to drive the enemy back from the line of the Sungei Jurong - Sungei Kranji. General Gordon Bennet (AIF COmmander) had issued his orders but the attack never materialised, though one Indian brigade, at the southern end of the line, reached their objective almost unopposed, but withdrew on finding themselves unsupported. This fiasco marked the beginning of the end. It was plain now that there were neither the numbers nor the will to throw the enemy back into the sea

An effort was made to drive the Japs back into the sea. Three battalions were to advance in line. But there was a battalion missing and the Japs walked through the gap. The missing battalion was an Australian battalion. It reappeared in Singapore town, preferring drink and rape to its duty.'

The rest of your plagiarised stolen content also indicates you lack comprehension, possibly lacking a basic education or you have some sort of learning difficulty. Why was Britain sending tanks to Russia in 1946? You posted that Britain was sending tanks in March 1946. Were you blindly or drunkenly copy pasting from Chat GPT/Gemini/Claud etc? You probably weren't taught the war ended in 1945, at your outback school for delinquents.

You further outed yourself as an idiot by declaring

your tank info timelines were off

and then, because you can't read so well , copy paste from your stolen source:

Britain began supplying tanks to the Soviet Union in 1941, shortly after the German invasion of the USSR.

The first major shipment, known as Convoy PQ-1, departed on September 29, 1941, delivering 20 British Matilda II tanks to the Red Army. These tanks arrived in time to participate in the Battle of Moscow.

in response to my statement which you thought was a timeline;

In the Battle of Moscow, half the tanks on the field were British tanks. If Moscow had fallen, the USSR would have been out of the war. American aid didn't reach Russia until late December 41, after British supplied tanks helped turn the Nazis back from Moscow.

September 1941 was before December 1941, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Have a read, take your time, its not a race, remember what your teachers told you:

https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/britains-world/telling-the-truth-how-britain-helped-the-soviets-win/

https://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans/

You're <deleted> at geography as well. I was talking about Singapore, but you've decided Papua New Guinea is in Singapore.

<deleted> me, no wonder we booted out your great great great grandaddy for nicking hankies. Your bloodline diluted the national IQ too much.

2 hours ago, baansgr said:

Well, Starmer made it clear yesterday he is getting ready to step down by covering his tracks, he doesn't want blame for anything. So who will be in No 10 next. Some raging looney lefty no doubt which puts at stake the mandate that the 20,% of people voted for....even the staunchest labour voters can't honestly believe there will not be an election very soon

The only ones who can call an election are labour. Please post one good reason, just one, why Labour would call an election soon.

12 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Maybe, but the election is not being held now. A lot can happen in 3 years.

I don't see anything improving in 3 years. In fact, it could get a lot worse.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.