I’m sure you’ll all fondly remember Darren “they’re mostly women and children” Jones. In a June 2025 Question Time programme, honest Mr Jones said (according to the BBC): “And when you see that the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women… you have got to take note.”
The actual figures at the time were (according to the BBC):
“In the first three months of 2025, there were 6,420 small boat arrivals where the age and sex of the person was recorded, according to Home Office figures. Of these, 81% (5,183) were adult men. In the same period, of the 531 child arrivals (aged 17 and under), 427 of them were male and 104 female. There is no further age breakdown, so we don’t know how many babies were amongst them.”
Of course, what the BBC didn’t mention was that many of the supposed under-17 children were actually men in their twenties just claiming to be children. So probably more than the BBC’s reported 81% were actually men?
So Mr Jones’s claim that “the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women” seems to be contradicted by the evidence.
Anyway, honest Mr Jones is in the news again today. Mr Jones apparently told MPs yesterday that a ‘leak inquiry” was underway to find out who told the Guardian newspaper that the Mandelcreature had failed security vetting.
I’m confused. I believe it was in September 2025 – over six months ago – that a journalist from The Independent newspaper sent this message to a contact in government:
This was followed by an article in The Independent about Mandelthing failing the security vetting.
So the Mandelmonster vetting failure was already in the public domain over half a year ago – over half a year before the Guardian ran the story.
Of course, it’s probable that the Independent article was based on rumour and in the last week or so someone leaked more details about the security vetting failure to the Guardian thus confirming what The Independent suspected.
So perhaps Monsieur Jones should have launched his leak inquiry six months ago into the leak to The Independent rather than waiting for last week’s Guardian article. It’s all very confusing.
Moreover, if The Independent knew about Mandelperson’s security vetting failure more than six months ago, it is (to use Starmer’s own word) “incredible” that Starmer now claims he only found out about this last week. Maybe Starmer’s claim of being left in the dark is even beyond “incredible”. Maybe Starmer’s claim to have only found out about the security vetting problem last week is unbelievable, inconceivable, unimaginable, implausible?
As for Mr Jones’s leak inquiry – that really seems to be a case of shooting the messenger.
As for Starmer, he really seems to have the ‘reverse Midas touch’: The opposite of the “Midas touch” (turning everything to gold/success) is the reverse Midas touch, also known as the Sadim touch (Midas spelled backward). This phrase describes someone who consistently turns valuable or successful ventures into failures, losses, or worthless situations:
I’m embarrassed to say that I watched (IMHO) slimey sleazeball Starmer’s weasel-worded squirming in the Commons yesterday over what he knew and (claimed) he didn’t know about the Mandelson security vetting debacle.
I hate to say it, but I thought (IMHO) Slimeball Starmer did a pretty good job. Let me briefly explain why.
There are many models of decision-making. A very basic one is that with any decision there is the process and the context. To give a stupid example: The captain of an oil tanker may decide to sail through the Strait of Hormuz and his ship gets sunk by the Americans or the Islamists. The captain could say that he followed the process – he sailed at the right speed, he stayed in the correct shipping lane and so on. However, the context was that there was a not insignificant war going on so it wasn’t so smart to sail there at that time.
What Starmer did brilliantly (IMHO) was bore MPs to tears with an excruciatingly detailed description of the process which was followed during the Mandelson appointment while totally avoiding the context. The process consisted of all the detailed discussions and letters and memos and suchlike. This bogged down his critics so that many MPs’ questions ended up being what the Finns call – “point fucking” – banging on and on about small details while totally missing the main issue.
The main issue was the context – namely Mandelson’s history of what some cynics might consider to be rather dodgy dealings:
being forced to resign twice from government
the extraordinary coincidence of the EU cutting tariffs on Russian aluminium at the same time as Mandelson was EU Trade Commissioner and friendly with a Russian aluminium billionaire
Petey Mandelson allegedly (but not proven) sharing confidential details of government policy with one or more of his banking chums
the main and possibly most lucrative clients of Mandelson’s advisory business being close to the Chinese Communist Party and jolly Mr Putin’s Russian regime
and, of course, Mandelson’s ‘friendship’ with billionaire that nice Mr Epstein
Pattern Recognition is a process in which we use multiple senses in order to make decisions. As we go through our day, our brain’s pattern recognition abilities help us recognise certain objects and situations. Without these abilities, it would be impossible to make progress, as we’d be living in a kind of Groundhog Day, where everything we encounter would appear completely new, over and over, and would therefore need to be learned and understood each time.
With Mandelson even the most modest use of Pattern Recognition would have screamed that Mandelson was a wrong ‘un. The adorable Diane Abbott was the MP who came closest to asking how on earth Starmer could have seriously considered making someone with Mandelson’s back story Britain’s ambassador to the USA. But every time an MP got near to this issue, Starmer just batted it away by saying something like “I made the wrong decision and I apologise for that“. Unfortunately no MP tried to probe the question as to why Starmer even considered Mandelson and whether someone (Monsieur Blair, par exemple?) told Starmer to appoint Mandelson. This would have been a much more interesting line of questioning.
So, by taking on his enemies on ground where he was strongest – boring detail after detail after detail of the process followed, pedantic lawyer Starmer managed to drag his critics into a kind of ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’ kind of argument. Moreover, by claiming he had now changed the process of appointing and vetting ambassadors, Starmer had already disarmed most of his critics.
Conclusion: Britain’s worst ever prime minister lives on and, by focusing only on the details of the process rather than the context, has dumbfounded all those who claimed he would have to resign.
I imagine we’re all getting the popcorn in as we wait for Starmer to explain how:
he knew nothing about Mandelson failing the security vetting
furious he is that nobody told him Mandelson failed the security vetting
he intends to improve the security vetting process to ensure such a failure never happens again
etc etc blether blether etc etc
So many clever people have opined about the current scandal, that I would never presume to know more than them. So I just wanted to use this short blog to suggest a few weasel-worded excuses the (IMHO) slimeball, lying PoS Starmer and his sycophantic apologists will come up with.
Vetting process is confidential: One is likely to be that the vetting process is confidential and the department(s) doing the vetting is/are forbidden by confidentiality rules from sharing the details of the vetting with government ministers. It is true that the details of what is discovered during the vetting process is confidential. However, the result of the vetting process – whether the individual being vetted passed or failed – is not confidential and, for such an important position as Ambassador to the USA, should have been communicated to the relevant government ministers – then Foreign Secretary Calamity Lammy and, of course, (IMHO) lying slimeball Starmer.
No minister was told Mandelson had failed: This a good weasel-worded excuse. It may be true that no government minister was directly informed by the department doing the vetting that Mandelson had failed the security vetting. But more probably this information was passed on to people in Lammy’s and Starmer’s offices. Whether they then communicated this to their political masters we’ll never know. But I think we can guess.
There will be much more weasel-wording in Starmer’s ‘explanation’ about what actually happened when he speaks in the Commons on Monday. In fact, maybe we should all play “Starmer Weasel-Word Bingo”? This consists of writing down all the weasel-worded excuses we think Starmer and his apologists are likely to use and then the person who guesses the most weasel-worded excuses correctly wins a prize – a visit to an Arsenal football match with Sir Keir himself, tickets provided by Lord Alibaba.
To cheer us up, here’s another (IMHO) brilliant YouTube AI video:
There has been much noise and fury about the Mandelson appointment as UK ambassador to the USA. And now people are questioning whether Starmer lied to Parliament and to the British people about what he did or didn’t know.
I think I can answer that question quite simply with this very short YouTube video from a press conference Starmer gave several months before the latest Mandelson debacle.
In this news conference Starmer claims that Mandelson passed the security vetting process. So, what Starmer said in this short video clip is untrue. It is a lie. It is a very big lie. It is a Brobdingnaghanian-sized lie.
Having fallen from around 400,000 civil servants at the start of 2009 to about 390,000 by 2016, the number of civil servants has shot up to 554,000 by December 2025 according to some reports. That’s a massive 42% increase.
Let’s assume that the average civil servant costs us say £50,000 a year including salary, office costs, national insurance payments, generous expenses and other benefits. Note that I haven’t included pension costs. As far as I understand, the only public sector pension scheme where there is real money is the Local Government pension scheme. All other public-sector pensions will be paid through taxation. So, in addition to that actual cost of 164,000 extra civil servants, we face paying tens of billions in the future so our civil servants can enjoy comfortable, guaranteed, inflation-protected golden years. For civil servants, their golden years will really be golden due to our generosity.
Anyway, just taking my proposed figure of £50,000 per extra civil servant, that means we are now paying about £8.2 billion per year more for 164,000 more civil servants than we did nine years ago.
Yet, in spite of the massive increase in the number of civil servants and their cost, nothing in Britain seems to work. Our education system, our health service, our military, our state administration, our immigration controls and our government all seem to be collapsing.
You’ll all have heard of “The Peter Principle”:
Hopefully, you’ll all also have heard of Parkinson’s Law:
Parkinson derived the dictum from his extensive experience in the British Civil Service. He gave, as examples, the growth in the size of the British Admiralty and Colonial Office even though the numbers of, respectively, their ships and colonies were declining. He expressed this as “The number of workers within public administration tends to grow regardless of the amount of work to be done”. And he suggested that any public sector organisation will increase by around 5% to 6% a year as managers build up their own local empires to justify ever-increasing budgets for their areas of responsibility.
Here’s a chart I produced for my 2009 book “Fleeced” based on Parkinson’s work studying the growth in bureaucrats at the Admiralty while the number of ships and sailors plumeted:
If we look at what happened in the British civil service in the nine years between 2016 and 2025, we see an increase in staffing of 42% – about 4.7% a year. That’s fairly close to Parkinson’s predicted 5% to 6% a year.
So why are ever more civil servants achieving ever less? The answer is, of course:
The Peter Principle where tens of thousands of civil servants are being automatically promoted to their level of incompetence
Parkinson’s Law which states that managers will always seek to expand their own little empires leading to growth of the organisation 5% to 6% a year regardless of the quantity of work (if any) to be done.
I suspect there is yet one more reason our public sector is so utterly useless – DIE (Diversity, Inclusion and Equality or Equity or whatever). Instead of hiring the best candidates, our civil service is hiring useless, lazy, incompetent and often utterly corrupt people based on their skin colour, sexual identity, religion and ethnicity. Many of these DIE hires will originate from countries where pointless bureaucracy and widespread corruption are a way of life. After all, if the RAF is turning away the best candidates to be pilots because they are white, heterosexual males, I shudder to think of the ‘quality’ and morality of those being hired by the civil service.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves used her spring statement in March 2025 to announce that Civil Service running costs would be reduced by 15% by the end of the decade.
However, at the same time ministers have committed to increasing the proportion of civil servants working in digital and data roles, supposedly “creating a workforce fit for the future”. The project delivery and digital, data and technology (DDaT) professions in our civil service, for example, have expanded by 224% and 199% respectively since 2010. Dear Rachel, increases of 224% and 199% do not constitute a reduction in civil service running costs.
Since Starmer’s Labour came to power, the number civil servants has increased by more than 8,000. So, if you’re expecting civil service numbers and costs to fall like Rachel promised, don’t hold your breath. Here, as in every other action it takes, the Labour government is doing precisely the opposite of what it claims to be doing:
Putting British interests first yet allowing a Third-World invasion of our country
Protecting free speech yet imprisoning people for social media posts
Prioritising economic growth yet raising taxes so much that they are driving Britain into recession
Giving Britain energy security yet blocking all development of North Sea oil and gas fields
Supporting working people yet putting up their taxes to pay for the uneducated and unemployable multi-cultural invaders and to increase benefits for the nine million or so who would rather stay at home watching Netflix or suchlike than go to work
etc etc etc
Here’s a lady who has sussed out how ‘wonderful’ the Starmer government actually is:
With the release of the 2-volume 730+ pages of the inquiry into the Southport murders, I don’t think you’ll have heard the word “Islamist” on the BBC or any other part of the mainstream media. In fact, our rulers have decided (as far as I understand) that the slaughter of the three beautiful, innocent, defenceless young girls was not in any way, absolutely not at all, clearly totally not and decidely not an ‘Islamist terror attack’. Instead, we’re being told that the murders seem to have been due to the choirboy’s autism. obsession with violence and longstanding desire to murder a few people.
The choirboy was charged with three counts of murder, ten counts of attempted murder, and possession of a bladed article. He was later separately charged under the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and Terrorism Sct 2000 in relation to the possession of ricin and a military study of an Al-Qaeda training manual. He pleaded guilty to all 16 charges on 20 January 2025, when his trial was due to begin, having initially entered a not-guilty plea. On 23 January 2025, the choirboy was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 52 years.
But here comes the good bit – no motive for the stabbings was identified. The prosecution suggested that the motivation could have been “the commission of mass murder as an end in itself” and we’re assured that no evidence of politically- or religiously-motivated terrorism was found.
So, in spite of the (IMHO) devil’s spawn owning some kind of Al-Qaeda manual – Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants – the al-Qaida Training Manual. The choirboy had been in possession of the document as early as 29 August 2021. And in spite of the fact that the choirboy pleaded guilty to terrorism, the great and the good have decided that there was no obvious motive for the choirboy’s terrorism.
This is really convenient for our rulers. It allows our rulers to continue to gaslight us by claiming that ‘rightwing’ terrorism is just as much a threat as Islamist terrorism despite all the mountains of blindingly obvious evidence (2005 London bombings, 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, Westminster Bridge attack, Lee Rigby’s stabbing/beheading and many many more) to the contrary
Following the attack, the great and the good hurriedly put out messages of condolence to the parents of the murdered and injured girls. And Prime MInister, ‘Sir’ Keir Starmer, visited the site of the attack for what was reported to be somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds (though other reports suggested it might have been as much as a minute), before rushing back to London for a Downing Street drinks event.
Prime Minister Starmer also promised to overhaul terrorism laws to reflect the type of non-ideological killings characterised by individuals like the choirboy, stressing the threat from “acts of extreme violence perpetrated by loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom, accessing all manner of material online, desperate for notoriety, sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups, but fixated on that extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake”.
So there you have it folks. The possession of an Al-Qaeda manual – Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants – the al-Qaida Training Manual – in no way suggests that the choirboy’s terror attack was in any way linked to any Islamist ideology.
I thought I’d just write a short piece by quoting someone much smarter than myself. This person, an Iranian living in Britain, said “don’t take Trump literally, but do take him seriously”.
We should all know that The Donald has a more than minor problem in expressing himself. Moreover, a tendency to exaggerate is a criticism one could confidently make. However, when Trump says something, while he may express himself clumsily, unlike almost every politician in the world, Trump does what he says he will do:
He promised he would close down the southern US border, cut illegal immigration and deport thousands of illegal migrants. And he did it.
He said that the Anthropogenic Global Warming cult was a scam and he scrapped all Biden’s renewable energy schemes.
He said he would impose tariffs on countries he believed had been ripping America off and he did it.
He said he would force NATO countries to increase their defence spending and he did it.
But he often leaves himself open to attack by the way he expresses himself.
Most recently, he threatened he would destroy a whole civilisation in Iran. What he really intended to say, I believe, was that he would end the oppressive, murderous rule of the Islamist crazies. But I believe he just expressed himself poorly.
He said he would block the Strait of Hormuz. I think what he really meant was that the US would blockade all Iran’s ports while, at the same time, clearing any mines laid by the IRGC and open up a safe shipping route through the Strait.
But mainstream media journalists, most of whom suffer from a severe case of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), have a field day blasting Trump for the words he uses – “destroy a civilisation”, “blockade the Strait of Hormuz” – as that’s much easier than attacking his real intentions.
You’ll probably not believe what I’m about to tell you. But I will try to present evidence to convince you that it’s true.
We know that our favouritest religion has brought us many multiculturally-enriching customs and traditions which have hugely benefitted our country – oppression of women, first-cousin marriages, the cruel Halal slaughter and others that I probably can’t mention. But there’s one you may not be aware of – Iranian Shia temporary marriages called ‘Mut’ah‘ or ‘Sigheh‘.
Professor Google tells us:
Nikah mut’ah, or temporary marriage, is a contractual union in Twelver Shia Islam where a man and woman marry for a fixed, predetermined period—ranging from hours to years—and a specified dowry (mahr). It requires a verbal or written contract, is considered legally valid by Shias, and allows for intimacy.
The Professor goes on to tell us:
Key Aspects of Shia Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah):
Contractual Requirements: The contract must specify both the duration of the marriage and the amount of the dowry. If either is omitted, the contract is invalid.
Marriage Formula: The ceremony often involves the woman stating: “I give myself to you in marriage for the dowry of (x) for the time period (x),” followed by the man’s acceptance.
Waiting Period (Iddah): If intimacy has occurred, the woman must wait for a specified period (roughly 45 days or two menstrual cycles) after the contract ends before entering a new marriage, which is shorter than the iddah for permanent marriage.
In Iran, sex outside of marriage is forbidden. However, there are reports that many foreign fighters, drafted in from countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to kill any protesting Iranians, are being given Iranian virgins using Mut’ah. These Mut’ah supposed marriages can be anything from an hour to weeks or months or years. That’s stipulated in the marriage contract and depends on how long the man wants the Mut’ah and how much he is prepared to pay in Mahr. This practice is forbidden for Sunnis and seems to be mainly used in Shiite Iran.
You probably don’t believe this is actually happening and that I’m a mad Islamophobe. So, here’s a link to an article from The Arab Weekly newspaper about the practice of Mut’ah marriages spreading in Iraq:
Critics of the practice of Mut’ah have claimed that it’s just a form of prostitution. Given that most Iranian Shiite men will only marry a virgin, I can’t imagine what happens to the girls once the Mut’ah marriage ends and they are clearly no longer virgins. In the Arab Weekly article we are told that many girls enter into a whole succession of Mut’ah marriages in order to get Mahr to support their families and any children resulting from Mut’ah marriages. This does seem to support the criticism that many Mut’ah marriages are just a form of prostitution.
To further support my claim that Mut’ah marriages happen, here’s an article about Mut’ah marriages on the BBC website. Though, of course, the BBC is supportive of Mut’ah marriages and claims Mut’ah marriages are just a way for a girl and boy to get to know each other and don’t automatically mean the girl will have to submit to the man’s sexual desires:
In addition to media articles about Mut’ah marriages, there are are also many videos on YouTube about Iran’s Mut’ah (Sigheh) marriages. So it seems that many crazy, deranged Islamist murderers are getting their virgins while still alive and therefore there may be no need for them to die as martyrs to f*ck loads of young virgins.
Let us hope that this admirable and enlightened cultural practice soon comes to Britain (though it may already be here) as we turn into the Islamic Republic of Britanistan under Keir Al-Starmer’s great leadership:
Party political broadcasts by the party in power before local elections tend to feature lots of ‘ordinary people’ (or out-of-work actors who would do and say anything for a few quid pretending to be ordinary people) gushing about all the wonderful improvements the Government has made to schools, hospitals, roads etc etc etc.
I haven’t seen the Labour Party’s effort for this year’s May local elections. But I believe it features Starmer standing at a lectern with a couple of Union Jacks behind him blethering about his extraordinary achievements as a great international statesman standing up for Britain in a turbulent world.
This approach is unusual for local elections which should focus on local issues. Perhaps Labour couldn’t find any ‘ordinary people’ (or even out-of-work actors) prepared to say anything positive about the Starmer regime’s domestic achievements?
This is surprising in view of the many wonderful changes the Starmer regime has forced on us – two-tier policing, decriminalising shoplifting, over 70,000 illegal migrants crossing the Channel, scrapping jury trials, imprisoning critics of open-borders immigration, introducing digital ID and facial recognition cameras to better control us, suffocating free speech, massive increases in taxes on people who work in order to give more generous benefits to anybody who can’t be bothered to go to work, crushing businesses and households with Mad Red Ed Miliband’s highest energy prices in the world and giving away the Chagos Islands and £35 billion of our money to a vassal of the Chinese Communist Party. With so much to celebrate, it’s surprising that the Labour Party local election didn’t focus on these ‘successes’.
While the useless tool Starmer tries to play at being a great international statesman and bringer of peace on his trip around the Middle East and the British mainstream media tries to big up Starmer’s and Britain’s international importance, not everybody is as impressed with Starmer as the BBC and C4 News and Sky and others of their ilk seem to be. So I thought it worth mentioning something that the British mainstream media are unlikely to report – the former Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, seems to be less than impressed by Starmer’s peacemaking efforts. Here’s a statement from the former Shah’s son:
“The United Kingdom has endlessly appeased the criminal regime in Iran. The Prime Minister speaks of protecting the innocent civilians of Iran but failed to act to help stop the regime’s massacre of 40,000 innocent Iranians in January. Only an end to this regime – that brings terror to Britain’s own shores – will yield lasting peace and regional stability.”
“Keir Starmer should follow in the footsteps of Churchill, not Chamberlain. He should support the Iranian people’s fight for liberty. The Iranian people will remember who stood with them in their hour of need and who stood against them. There is still time for the Government to change course: prosecute the IRGC that slaughters innocents, expel the illegitimate regime’s ambassador, and act to support the people of Iran.”
I doubt you’ll see this rather critical message from the former Shah’s son mentioned in the grovellingly sycophantic British mainstream media.
Thank goodness Britain has that universally-respected international statesman – Keir ‘not-queer, never-here’ Starmer as our Prime Minister. It appears that Starmer was hugely influential in negotiating the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran.
What? Didn’t you know that Starmer played a crucial role in achieving the ceasefire? Our Prime Minister really makes Britain admired throughout the world for his statesmanship.
Here’s our great Prime Minister, possibly one of the greatest Prime Ministers Britain has ever had, explaining the crucial role he personally played in the ceasefire:
David Craig, on April 22nd, 2026
