London, England
Joined March 2018
- Tweets5K
- Following936
- Followers111
- Likes2.6K
Watched @piersmorgan Royals Uncensored panel on the Thomas Markle allegations and honestly the double standard is staggering.
I'll be fair first. Piers has a point on the timeline. Meghan's statement said 2018 when it was actually January 2019. For years they told us the rift with her dad was down to him colluding with the tabloids, and Harry said on Netflix "she'd still have a dad". Asking about that is legitimate, I'll give him that. But nobody on that panel bothered saying the obvious. You can't go public calling your father a paedophile on the back of an unproven letter, you'd get sued. Tom Sykes of @thedailybeast actually admitted that, then in the next breath called it "convenient" for them. You can't have it both ways mate.
Then Piers says over and over "I'm not blaming her" and spends the whole segment building a case on what she didn't do. And the evidence she did nothing? There isn't any. He just doesn't know what she did, and that's not the same thing. The lawyer on his own panel told him straight. In 34 years of representing victims, the most you ever get from police is "it's being investigated". And this was a man living in Mexico and then the Philippines, nothing to do with the Met. Piers just moved on. Didn't touch it.
Then @kinseyschofield
says Meghan should have warned "the firm" to brace for impact. The firm? Really? Let's talk about what the firm does when it's sitting on allegations.
Andrew Lownie spent years on Entitled and spoke to an enormous number of people around the royals. His conclusion is that the late Queen protected Andrew, put family ahead of the monarchy, and it was covered up. He compared it to the mafia, his words not mine. He says he handed material to the National Crime Agency and heard nothing back. Not one follow-up question. Andrew was eventually arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after years of the institution shielding him.
So apply Piers's own test. Who knew what and when? Meghan got a letter about a man in another country she had no power over whatsoever. The Queen was head of the institution that made Andrew a trade envoy, and according to Lownie she protected him and kept rewarding him while the allegations piled up. If "they had information and sat on it for six years" is a scandal for Meghan, what is it for Buckingham Palace? Where's the monologue demanding the Palace publish what it knew?
To be fair, Piers has gone after Andrew. He said the Epstein stuff could become an existential threat to the monarchy if they didn't deal with it. But going after Andrew once everyone's already dropped him is easy. I've not seen him put the late Queen and the household under the "who knew and did nothing" spotlight with half the energy he puts into Meghan. And I can't remember him ever giving Lownie a proper one-to-one. The man who actually did the digging, and the only time I recall him on, he was one voice on a panel.
Same with Fergie. The Epstein files show her calling him her "supreme friend" in private after slagging him off in public. They show her asking him for money, and her making plans to see him within a week of him getting out of jail. Where's the "accountability" segment on that? Nobody's accusing her of a crime, fine, but nobody's accusing Meghan of one either, and look at the airtime she gets.
Now the guy @JasonLee69652 defending Meghan. I'll be honest, he did her no favours. He had some good points. His own story of being abused and not being believed was powerful. And his sister only coming to terms with who their dad really was after he died was actually the best answer anyone gave all night to the "daddy's girl" thing. But he never landed it. He said she reported it, and she didn't. The letter came to her. Piers jumped on that and used it to rubbish everything else he said.
@JasonLee69652 @kinseyschofield
He threw out the presumption of innocence for her dad ("he quacks like a duck") and handed Piers the moral high ground on due process on a plate. He turned every criticism into race, when Harry's getting exactly the same treatment, so Piers just swatted it. Then he went down the Diana rabbit hole, mixed up Camilla and the Queen, and started on Kinsey's Botox. By the end Piers was cross-examining him on who killed Diana, and the actual question, what was Meghan supposed to do, got lost.
The frustrating bit is that even on Diana he wasn't totally wrong. The inquest verdict was unlawful killing, and it blamed the driver AND the paparazzi chasing the car. So Piers saying "they weren't there, end" isn't true either. But Jason couldn't make the argument, so Piers got away with it.
Funnily enough the best case for Meghan came from Jo Elvin, who's no Sussex fan. She said there's a long queue ahead of Meghan when it comes to accountability. The ex-wife who wrote to the Met and not the Mexican or US authorities. The Met for not passing it on. And maybe Meghan just wanted to be sure before throwing something that heinous out there. Calm, no race card, no Diana, and Piers had nothing to swing at.
"Asked a Trump supporter how draining the swamp is going. Told me 30 RINOs are gone. Massie's out for forcing out the Epstein files, Paxton's in. Receipts below 🧵 @adammocklerr @RestPoliticsUS this is exactly the argument you take apart on your shows. Grateful UK listener
Three years ago today I woke up to the news coming out of southern Israel and I honestly couldn't take it in.
Around 1,200 people were killed that day. About 800 of them were civilians: people at a music festival, families asleep in their homes on kibbutzim, grandparents, kids. 36 children. Workers from Thailand and elsewhere who were there to earn a living. More than 250 people were dragged into Gaza as hostages. Women were raped and abused. And the men who did it filmed themselves doing it and sent the footage out, because they were proud of it.
People will argue about numbers, and some have. Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me if it was one person or a thousand. Going house to house killing whoever you find, and celebrating it on camera, is evil. There isn't a context that changes that.
What's stayed with me almost as much is what happened here afterwards. I watched people in Britain walk up to posters of kidnapped children and old people and tear them down. I saw people celebrating. Celebrating civilians being murdered. I didn't recognise that as the country I live in, and I still find it hard to get past.
This isn't a post about the war or the politics. You can hold whatever views you like about all of that. It's about the people who died that day, the families still grieving them, and refusing to look away from what was done to them.
Remember them. @mehdirhasan @piersmorgan @jconricus
You gave her such a softball interview @mehdirhasan
L’intervista completa di Francesca Albanese a OPEN – quella in cui dice di essere contro l’invio di armi all’Ucraina – è persino peggio della clip già uscita.
Mentana le fa notare che senza armi l’Ucraina capitola, la Russia vince e si crea un precedente pericoloso. Lei risponde che quel precedente «lo hanno già creato gli Stati Uniti».
Non è vero. Ma anche se lo fosse? Andrebbe bene lasciare che l’Ucraina capitoli??
Poi, quando le viene ricordato che gli Alleati armarono i partigiani italiani contro l’invasore, replica: «Allora diamo le armi ai palestinesi». Non ho davvero parole.
Infine insinua che le armi all’Ucraina non servano semplicemente a difenderla dalla Russia, ma che la guerra serva a destabilizzare l’Europa – ovviamente per mano di USA e NATO.
L’aggressore è russo. Ma alla fine la responsabilità torna sempre altrove. E tutto questo non mi sorprende. Basta guardare chi frequenta, e con loro cosa sta organizzando a livello «transnazionale». Queste posizioni diventeranno sempre più esplicite. Nei prossimi giorni vedremo perché.
Watching @DawnNeesom trying to play this a major news announcement on @GBNEWS. Risible
Ravin Anenden retweeted
🚨 BREAKING: After the defeat at Liverpool, the board has now drawn up a DREAM 5-man shortlist to replace De Zerbi at Spurs if he fails to beat Aston Villa at home on Saturday.
• 🇩🇪 Julian Nagelsmann
• 🇳🇱 Arne Slot
• 🏴 Gareth Southgate ….. love
🤖 Made with AI
Let me guess obviously self-hating antisemitic lies @JakeWSimons @TheBoyHotspur Netanyahu sacrificed his people.
Today’s @haaretzcom report is an earthquake for a number of reasons. 1 @shlomieldar literally wrote the book on Hamas and Israel and his sourcing is impeccable. 2. We’ve had several reports of Netanyahu being warned of an impending attack but this was specifically about Sinwar >
Absolute Guff and Waffle
SPURS WILL SIGN KROUPI & MGW 🔜
The club has done a really good job not only with players brought into the club
But also with the amount of dead wood we’ve been able to shift
I didn’t expect the only players that have no future at this club to be so few, so soon
With the imminent sale of Richarlison we now only have 2 or 3 players that’s it’s quite clear they are not the answer for different reasons
Davies will be coming to an in regards to his playing career so it’s harsh to have him on the list
However both Solanke & Gallagher will be sold in the next summer transfer window
Gallagher will perhaps leave in the January window if he doesn’t get any game time
So this leaves us in a really good position to sign both Alex Scott & Eli Junior Kroupi as soon as January, worst case scenario the summer window
Two players the squad could do with
Kroupi will slot in up front while Scott will join Tonali & Fernandes to set up a phenomenal 3 man midfield
I think it’s fair to say that both Kroupi & Alex Scott would absolutely love to play for us
An absolute assasination of Tramsfer window pods by tbe great Jason Mcgovern on @LastWordOnSpurs. I am sure I am in tbe minority in thinking he nailed it. @WeRTottenhamTV aanother one guilty of never mind the quality feel the width
And so the guff and nonsense begins again without missing a beat. @LastWordOnSpurs emergency pod led by @RickySacks incoming
🚨 EXCL: Notice the Spurs squad release today?
Richarlison missing and that #9 shirt left wide open?
Don’t let them tell you it’s an oversight.
Told this is entirely ORCHESTRATED by the club.
Spurs are finalizing a pre-agreement for Junior Kroupi—the #9 shirt is literally being held for him.
Done deal in waiting. ⌛️⚪️
#THFC #COYS
I wish @piersmorgan was facing Waqar Younis he would have been destroyed especially facing one of his Yorkers
This quoted post is unavailable.
Here's how this goes when you make an actual argument.
I pointed out something factual: settlements are built by the state on occupied land past the Green Line, then guarded by the army. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's a point about policy. It says nothing about anyone deserving to be harmed.
Watch what comes back. Not a counter-argument. A rape analogy. Then "why don't Muslims just not murder Jews," as if that was ever the thing I said. Then a #antisemite tag. Then a block, so I can't reply.
That's the whole move. Reframe your point as the worst possible version of itself, smear you, and pull up the drawbridge before you can answer.
I'll say this clearly because it matters: this isn't about Jewish people, and it isn't about anyone criticising my argument in good faith. A few have argued with me properly on this stuff and I've said so. This is about a specific kind of poster, often with no personal stake in it at all, who has swapped debate for accusation and the block button. You can see it for yourself. It's right there.
Let's be honest about that Tuchel interview — because I don't buy "great television," I buy a broadcaster who knew exactly what he was doing.
@gabrielclarke05 opened by putting "suffering" in Tuchel's mouth — words he didn't recognise. Then asked if it was a "mentality thing," seconds after England came from behind in extra time in a World Cup quarter-final. Mentality was the ONE thing that wasn't missing. Tuchel's point was quality, not character — and he was right to shut it down.
Then the real move: relaying "the manager's not happy" to the player who just won the game with two goals — with zero context. No mention Tuchel had called him world class in the same breath. So Bellingham hears only criticism and gives his "yeah, whatever." That's not journalism. That's manufacturing a manager-vs-player story, days before a semi against Messi's Argentina, around the one man carrying the team.
Here's what gets me. Thierry Henry — the outsider, no skin in the English media game — watched it live and said instantly he didn't understand the questions. He judged it on football logic and saw straight through it.
So why were @GNev2 and @henrywinter praising it? Because they're grading it as entertainment — reaction, drama, content. Henry graded it on substance. That split tells you everything: the interview was built for a spiky reaction, not to inform.
I'm a football fan. I want the interview to teach me something, not stir a rift for headlines. And the media STILL running the "fallout" today? Job done.
Experienced operators don't stumble into this. They know how it lands.
The "never" opening is the right call. That single word is what makes the motion indefensible and whoever wrote this knew it. You can't argue Israel never wanted peace across 80 years of history and expect that to hold. On that narrow point, vote it down.
But.
Camp David. The speech throws out 94-96% of the West Bank like it's settled history. It isn't. Robert Malley, who was actually in the room as part of the US delegation, wrote in the New York Review of Books that there was no formal Israeli offer at Camp David. Ideas. Parameters. Proposals. Dennis Ross's version, which is what this speech is built on, is directly contradicted by the Palestinian negotiators and other members of the US team. You're presenting one side of a genuinely contested historical moment as fact. A prepared opposition takes that apart in thirty seconds. That's a problem.
The Arabic language point. "Arabic is not even a native language to the Levant." I get what's being argued. But in that room it's going to land as Arabs don't belong here. Hand the opposition a gift why don't you. Leave it out.
And then we get to this. "Condemning generation after generation to never ending conflict because they have been indoctrinated with a sense of perpetual victimhood where everything is always someone else's fault."
Character assassination of an entire people dressed up as historical analysis. And the most intellectually dishonest paragraph in an otherwise serious speech.
Because that accusation has a history. It was used about Jewish people for generations. When Jews spoke about persecution and discrimination they were told they were oversensitive, playing the victim, seeing antisemitism where none existed. We know what that silence enabled.
So before we deploy the same device against Palestinians, answer me this. What does legitimate grievance actually look like in this framework? 75 years of occupation? Settlements expanding year after year? Children buried in rubble? If none of that qualifies, if all of that is just indoctrination and victimhood, then the bar for legitimate suffering has never actually existed. It's just a moving target used to dismiss whoever is inconvenient.
And Warsaw. Nobody called the ghetto fighters perpetually aggrieved. Nobody said they'd been indoctrinated into a self destructive narrative. We understood what produced them. We understood what siege and occupation does to people over time. The question is why that framework applies to one people and not another.
The Jewish indigeneity argument is the strongest part of this speech and it deserved more room. The archaeological record, the linguistic record, the continuous presence through conquest and exile, that's legitimate and interesting and underused in this debate. Lean into that harder next time.
But here's the thing. You can argue Israel wanted peace AND acknowledge Netanyahu kept Hamas funded to destroy any chance of Palestinian unity. You can argue Israel wanted peace AND acknowledge Deir Yassin, Plan Dalet, the Nation-State Law, military courts for Palestinians while Jewish Israelis face civilian courts in the same territory. You can argue Israel wanted peace AND acknowledge that seven genocide scholars from six countries have used that word about Gaza.
None of that makes the motion true. Israel did want peace. Sometimes. Imperfectly. With enormous caveats. But a speech that pretends the other side of that ledger doesn't exist wins the people who already agree with it. It doesn't win the room.
The motion is weak. This speech is better than the motion deserves. But it's not as strong as the truth would allow it to be.
My full remarks at the Oxford Union debate over the motion: “This house believes Israel never truly wanted peace with Palestine”
Ladies and gentlemen,
Tonight’s motion is not merely wrong. It is intellectually unserious.
“This house believes that Israel never truly wanted peace with Palestine.”
Never.
That single word should immediately alarm anyone who values historical accuracy, nuance, or basic intellectual honesty.
Because “never” is not a casual word. It is absolute, total, and maximalist. To vote for this motion, you are not being asked to believe Israel sometimes undermined peace, or that Israel made mistakes.
You are not even being asked to believe Israel bears major responsibility for the conflict. No, you are being asked to believe that across nearly 80 years of modern history, across every Israeli government, negotiation, territorial concession, treaty, withdrawal, every diplomatic initiative – Israel, as a state, never really wanted peace. Not once.
Clearly, such a claim does not stand under the weight of history.
From the modern state’s inception – Israel accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan despite receiving non-arable land with almost no resources.
The Arab leadership rejected it and launched a war instead. In 1993 and 1995, Israel signed the Oslo Accords, and received an intifada in response.
At Camp David in 2000, Israel offered 94-96% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, and a divided Jerusalem.
In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert made another proposal for 94% of the West Bank plus an additional 5.8% more territory in the form of land swaps.
The Palestinian leadership said no to all of these offers.
In 2005, Israel withdrew every soldier and civilian from Gaza. The response?
Gazans elected Hamas, and Israel received over 25,000 missiles over the next two decades — plus multiple wars and the October 7th massacre.
You may argue that Israel’s offers were imperfect, or insufficient… but you cannot honestly argue that these are the actions of a state that never wanted peace.
The problem with this motion however goes even deeper. What exactly is meant by “peace”? Peace is not simply the absence of war, it requires two peoples accepting each other’s right to self determination and national existence.
For much of the conflict, major Palestinian factions and surrounding Arab states have and still do reject Jewish self determination outright. In fact, some if not all of the proposition debaters tonight are on record opposing a two state solution…and yet we as Israelis are being asked to prove that it is us who are serious about peace?
On the question of the partition plan, the Secretary-General of the Arab League at the time, Azzam Pasha, warned that the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to what he called “a war of extermination and momentous massacre” of the Jews.
Other Arab leaders and factions openly spoke about driving the Jews into the sea, including Haj Amin Al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who stated in 1948, “Arabs, rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion.”
This was never a dispute over borders… rather it was a rejection of Jewish sovereignty itself, even when their rejection ends up harming Palestinian society.
Today, we routinely hear slogans from the Palestinian movement globally, including this week at Oxford — such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” a phrase which by definition involves replacing Israel entirely with a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
At protests around the world, including outside Jewish institutions and synagogues, activists have openly declared “We don’t want two states, we want all of it.”
So again I ask: what exactly does “peace” mean when one side refuses to accept that the other has any legitimate right to exist at all?
1/3
This sums somes up the absolute ridiculousness of transfer window speculation podcasts the reaction of Jason at the end says it all. Like Jason I hold the word BOMBA! in absolute contempt @RickySacks @LastWordOnSpurs @patricktyrant
xitter.cf/i/status/2068434102705… this is what I mean Jason Mcgovern the voice of sanity