Stephen Khoo retweeted
The UK government has, since April, spent no less than £61 billion - that’s £61,000,000,000 - on debt interest payments.
That’s equivalent to our entire annual defence budget - on just half a year’s worth of debt service costs, not paying back a penny of our national debt.
For £61bn you could build 40 state-of-the-art hospitals.
Or employ 100,000 nurses for a decade
Or fund free-at-the-point-of-use social care, across the entire UK, for three years.
Watch this short “When The Facts Change” video for more on the UK’s soaring debt interest bill - the biggest national scandal our mainstream media continues to ignore.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Official figures out this morning report that last month, the UK government borrowed £24.5 billion.
But the fineprint shows that almost £11 billion of that extra borrowing went on debt interest payments.
That's more than £400 per household on debt service costs, in September alone.
So far during this financial year, from April to September, the government's debt interest payments amount to £61 billion.
Now, this number will barely feature in UK newspapers and across our airwaves. It may be mentioned in passing in out-of-the-way business sections, or on the odd business bulletin.
But this huge debt interest bill won't register with the vast majority of our political and media class, or impact the national debate.
Let me explain why that's so wrong and so dangerous ...
£61 billion is a massive amount of money.
It's equivalent to the UK's entire annual defence budget – the money we're paying, increasingly to foreign creditors, simply to service our national debt for six months, not to pay any of it back.
£61 billion is equivalent to the money you'd raise over a year from adding a whopping 7 pence to the basic rate of income tax.
For £61 billion, you could build around 40 large, state-of-the-art hospitals, or employ more than 100 thousand extra nurses for ten years.
£61 billion would pay for free-at-the-point of use social care for everyone who needs it in the UK, for an entire year – three times over.
Again, this is the debt interest bill on Britain's spiralling national debt – now more than 3 trillion pounds – over the last six months alone.
The UK's public finances are close to meltdown – yet so many MPs and journalists continue blithely to view ever more public spending and borrowing as the answer to every problem.
Those who highlight the dangers post by our hugely precarious national accounts are dismissed as cranks, ideologues or worse.
But basic arithmetic has no ideology.
And there is nothing "progressive" or "kind" or "right-on" about driving the UK ever closer to the fiscal cliff edge, provoking a crisis that will make the "austerity" years of the 2010s feel like a picnic, a crisis in which poorer households will suffer the most.
Yes, Britain's national debt is lower than that of France. But because our borrowing has been rising so sharply, and because we're so prone to inflation, our debt service costs are much higher.
The UK is spending a disgraceful 3.6pc of GDP on public debt interest, while France spends less than 2.5pc.
Endless airtime and column inches are devoted to spurious conversations about a billion or two of additional "fiscal headroom" we may or may not have in three years' time.
And, of course, any "extra headroom" is immediately pledged in new spending – which means yet more borrowing.
These conversations are a waste of time – and, in fact, are deeply counterproductive. Three-year fiscal forecasts, even one- and two-year forecasts, routinely turn out to be askew by tens of billions of pounds.
I'm not saying we don't need fiscal rules - we do, but we need more immediate rules, which actually bite, acting as a meaningful constraint on out-of-control borrowing and spending.
Instead, political and media sages present the nation with spuriously precise discussions about fictional fiscal outcomes way into the future – using rules which are deliberately designed to kick arithmetic realities into the long grass ....
An increasingly expensive, over-bearing, out of control state is not the answer to Britain problems.
But unless we change course, it will certainly be our downfall.
Please like/share if you think what I'm saying is important – and if fiscal realities should feature more prominently in our national debate.
And for more sharp, plain-speaking economic analysis subscribe to:
"When The Facts Change - economic and politics in a fast-moving world, with Liam Halligan"
We were affected by the Google Cloud outage. @googlecloud
The database auto switched to the working zones, but there is no auto failover for virtual machines.
The problem is that you have to decide whether to delete your virtual machines in the affected zone and recreate them in a working one, or sit it out.
Switching carries a risk and you have to weigh that against a service that might only be out for half an hour.
So you wait it out and find out it is more like 6 hours - longer than any outage you’ve had for the last 25 years.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
You've probably seen the video. A young Frenchwoman in Paris, in tears, begging looters to stop. "Why are you doing this? That's not what we stand for."
Some accounts are mocking her. "She voted for it."
I won't. Because what you see on her face is not stupidity. It's a disease that has infected the entire West, and it has a name: suicidal empathy.
The term comes from Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University in Montreal. A man who fled the Lebanese civil war as a child, and who knows what it looks like when a society falls apart. His new book, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind, is the follow-up to The Parasitic Mind. Here is the thesis, and why it concerns every one of us.
Empathy is one of the best things about us. It evolved for a reason: to care for our children, our kin, our tribe. It was calibrated for a world where the people you felt for were the people around you, and where empathy always came paired with its counterweight: the instinct to protect your own and to recognize a threat.
Suicidal empathy is what happens when that mechanism misfires. When it fires at the wrong targets, in the wrong amounts, with no brake. When we feel more for the criminal than for his victim. More for the stranger who breaks the rules than for the citizen who follows them. More for how compassionate we look than for what our compassion actually produces.
Where does it come from? Four layers.
First, biology. Empathy is a spotlight, as the psychologist Paul Bloom put it. It lights up the one face in front of you and leaves everything else in the dark. The crying migrant on the boat is visible. The thousands of future victims of a broken system are statistics. A spotlight is a terrible tool for running a country.
Second, our own civilization. The West is the civilization that put the victim at the center of its morality. Christianity taught us to care for the stranger, the poor, the weak. It was one of the greatest moral revolutions in history. But cut off from its other half, justice, responsibility, the duty to protect your own, it turns into something else.
Third, ideology. In The Parasitic Mind, Saad described idea pathogens, ideas that hijack our reasoning. Suicidal empathy is the emotional counterpart: an ideology that hijacks our compassion. It sorts the world into oppressors and victims, then demands unlimited empathy for whoever ranks as the victim, whatever they do.
Fourth, status. In the age of social media, empathy has become a display. Posting "refugees welcome" costs nothing and earns applause. The bill goes to someone else: the working class, the suburbs, the women walking home at night.
The results are everywhere. Criminals treated as victims of society. Sexual assaults by migrants met with lenient sentences. Self-defense branded as aggression. Borders treated as cruelty. Saad's conclusion is simple: a society dies when it would rather display infinite tolerance than use its survival instinct.
Now the part I'll add myself, and that few people dare to say.
On average, women score higher than men on measures of empathy. It's one of the most consistent findings in psychology, across cultures, and it makes perfect evolutionary sense: for most of human history, the survival of children depended on it. It's a strength.
But it means an ideology that weaponizes empathy will hit women harder. And the data shows it: in country after country, young women have moved sharply to the left of young men, especially on immigration.
This is where men have a responsibility.
Not to mock. Not to lecture. Not to say "she deserved it." Empathy has always needed a counterweight, and that counterweight was the protective instinct: the one that draws lines, says no, and stands between the threat and the people it loves.
Men abandoned that role. They were told it was toxic, and many believed it. So they stayed silent at the dinner table, at work, with their partners, sisters, daughters and friends.
That has to end. Men have to have this conversation, honestly and with respect: compassion that cannot say no is not compassion. It's surrender. And the first to pay for it are women.
Many women already understand this better than anyone. Some of the bravest voices in this fight are women, precisely because they are the first to feel the danger in the street.
A civilization rests on a balance: compassion and strength, openness and borders, mercy and justice. When one side swallows the other, the foundations crack. What we are watching in Europe is what happens when empathy has no counterweight left.
Look at that young woman again. She isn't the enemy. She's what this ideology made of a generation that was told kindness would be enough.
Our job is to make sure she's the last generation that has to learn it this way.
She voted for it.
She welcomed them.
Faced with the encore, she begs them to stop. In her heart she knows they will not.
Everything she believed. That they were French like her, fighting for the same cause. That the ones who warned her were full of hate. That she would be safe.
It all falls apart in this moment. She is terrified of what comes next. In her heart she knows.
Only remigration can save her.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Every single sentence in your post is untrue.
Labour’s 2002 ‘deal’ had very little long-term impact on migrants trying to sneak into the UK by lorry/container/vehicles. It simply moved from Sangette to other routes.
Between 2014-2019 55,000 came in that way — an underestimate since many came in undetected and disappeared into society. Unlike boat people, nearly all of whom are counted.
So it’s an obvious nonsense to say people weren’t being sent back because nobody was arriving. Tens of thousands were arriving.
They switched to small boats when major advances in technology, perimeter defence of lorry/container parks and detection made lorries etc too risky to take.
That’s why, from 2018 onwards, the small boat numbers grew fast.
Nothing to do with EU, Brexit, Dublin rules, fairy dust etc. Why do you peddle such falsehoods?
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Reverend Ezekiel Dachomo cries as he has to bury another 7 Nigerian Christians murdered by Islamist Fulani militias.
International mainstream media wasn’t there for the funeral. Again…
Stephen Khoo retweeted
This is the co-leader of the Scottish Greens and a member of the Scottish Parliament. Watch this if you still have any doubts Holyrood should be closed down.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Will someone explain why most of the Labour cabinet are millionaires, when not one of them has ever run a business. 🤔
We have loads of apple kit, but this has definitely put me off buying one of these
Stephen Khoo retweeted
This was one of the most PAINFUL CAR CRASH interviews you’ll ever see with Labour foreign minister Stephen Doughty on @GMB about Andy Burnham saying Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum.
Susanna Reid grows increasingly frustrated as he refuses to answer her questions, and even Ed Balls eventually tears into him for the “embarrassing waffle”.
Doughty is asked again and again about the Prime Minister’s claims but he just keeps ignoring the questions and repeating the same empty line: that Russia has been attempting to interfere with our democratic processes for many years.
Susanna tries to force him onto the 2016 vote itself. She asks what Russia actually did, whether it influenced voters, and whether it affected the result. He refuses to give any specifics and just repeats the line.
When she asks “Why are you not getting into specifics when the Prime Minister has just got into the specifics?”, he claims Burnham was only speaking more broadly.
She keeps pressing. He keeps repeating the line like a robot. She asks if the Prime Minister was wrong.
Doughty: “The PM has been very clear about Russian attempts to interfere in our democratic processes.”
By now Susanna is openly angry and accuses him of “muddying the waters not clarifying them”.
He almost laughably says the same thing again. He isn’t listening. He might as well have come on just to read a statement.
Susanna points out that if the result of such a huge decision was influenced, the public deserves answers about what the interference actually was.
Doughty claims the PM only said “attempted to interfere”. Susanna cuts in immediately: “He doesn’t say ‘attempted to interfere!’”
They play Burnham’s actual comments. Doughty goes straight back to the identical line. Susanna tries one final time. Same response.
It is at this point that Ed Balls, clearly fed up, lays into him:
“This is EMBARRASSING. It’s really bad for politics when you just blatantly don’t answer the question on something so important and go back to a nonsensical line, which is contradicted by what the Prime Minister just said!”
He goes further: “Either answer Susanna’s question or just say I’m not going to. This waffle is embarrassing!”
Doughty: “It’s not waffle at all Ed!” Then repeats the line yet again.
It is waffle, and I never thought I’d say this but well done Ed Balls for bluntly calling him out. It was embarrassing.
Andy Burnham should never have said it. We’ve been through all this. Russia did not in any way, shape or form influence the outcome of that referendum. Dragging this nonsense back up is reckless and a disgrace.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
What was once called the “moron premium” - the excess of UK borrowing rates over other major economics, a reflection of confidence - has hit a new high this morning.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
It’s why I’m so anti socialism… I spent my youth travelling the eastern block (taking tights, make ups & magazines for my main Russia rivals who I made friends with). Socialism lies about what it delivers, it pulled everyone DOWN to the lowest dominator. Removing inspiration & aspiration. AND growth. Replacing it with the Stasi, the loss of free speech, & putting those in power who ultimately rule by fear. Look to countries that have gone down this route. And believe in history.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
The idea that Arabs and only Arabs have an exclusive right to the entire Land of Israel just because they started calling themselves Palestinians in 1967 is one of the funniest scams in modern history.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Andrew Neil’s Brexit reality check on BBC Question Time.
In a nutshell:
Rejoiners are ignoring the huge political wind of change sweeping Europe and the UK v Germany/ France/ Italy growth rates make a nonsense of their Mickey Mouse economic arguments too.
#bbcqt
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Andy Burnham has announced at the UN a new ‘National Centre for Information Defence’ to wage war against ‘untrue narratives’. He claims that “everything we hold dear” is under attack from so-called “misinformation”. This might be the most censorious thing a modern British Government has done.
We already have NSOIT, the Government Communication Service, the Media Monitoring Unit, RICU, the Defending Democracy Taskforce, the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit, the FCDO’s Information Threats and Influence Directorate, 77th Brigade, NCSC/GCHQ, the National Cyber Force and the Social Cohesion Taskforce.
Is that not enough? How do we know this new body won’t be weaponised to silence dissent and chill free speech?
Will it reprimand the Government itself? FSU Director of Policy and Research @DavidRoseUK's new briefing argues that the Government has itself been spreading misinformation about misinformation — exaggerating the scale of the threat it poses.
The Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, flounced off X, citing the spread of misinformation as a threat to democracy. If government ministers genuinely care about tackling mis- and disinformation, they should stay, debate and challenge falsehoods with more information — not less.
It is vital that the UK defends our democracy against hostile actors such as Russia. But safeguards are essential to prevent bodies established for that purpose from expanding their remit to domestic dissent and policing the social media posts of British citizens who criticise government policy.
We should remember that more than 62,000 people have reportedly been arrested for “speech offences” in Britain over the past five years — including social media posts.
Meanwhile, under its media green paper, Watch This Space, the Labour Government is already proposing measures intended to promote “trustworthy” news sources. The concern is that this could favour established outlets such as the BBC while disadvantaging more critical outlets such as GB News and independent journalism.
The Government needs to explain exactly what powers this new Centre will have, who decides what constitutes an “untrue narrative”, and what safeguards will prevent it from becoming a tool for policing lawful dissent.
2026 Britain is turning more into 1984 by the day. We literally now have a Ministry of Truth.
Stephen Khoo retweeted
Absolutely incredible…
TRUMP: "It’s deeply ironic that the UN has an entire institution devoted to protecting cultural heritage, yet they promote mass migration and are actively destroying the greatest cultures and most extraordinary heritage."
Stephen Khoo retweeted
The Church of England has plenty to say about the slave trade, which Britain banned about 200 years ago.
But this, apparently, is fine... 🤷♀️
Stephen Khoo retweeted
I prosecuted illegal migrants for sexual offences all across London. More than I care to remember.
What struck me most was how many were already subject to deportation orders that were meaningless in practice.
Nobody from Immigration would even turn up to court and once they left court, these men would become virtually untraceable and had over 100 aliases. But the hoops the system would go through to accommodate these men were extraordinary.
I had one case where a man, from Eritrea, was accused of following a woman while masturbating. His publicly funded barrister actually argued that he had a skin condition which required him to have his penis out. Miraculously he recovered that day and has it neatly tucked in.
We waited all day for an interpreter and then the hearing was postponed because he wasn’t ready. Excuse after excuse.
Meanwhile, the victim had arrived on time. She waited patiently all day, absolutely petrified, while the system seemed to revolve around accommodating the man accused of sexually abusing her.
She felt justice wasn’t on her side. And sitting there as the prosecutor, I could see exactly why.
What I saw wasn’t justice, it was a betrayal of women and it’s one of the reasons I’m running: because I have seen the consequences when those in charge fail to protect us.
Eritrean illegal migrant raped woman on night out after being freed from jail after previous sex attack instead of being kicked out of the country trib.al/g2205Yu
Stephen Khoo retweeted
THIS is what should be on the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square if you ask me.
It was meant for a figure on a horse, so what better place is there to commemorate our greatest Monarch! 🇬🇧
Stephen Khoo retweeted
In case you ever believed 911 was an "inside job," watch this...
I find these World Trade Center simulations by Kostack Studio fascinating because they remove the smoke and let you see the collapse much more clearly.
In the real footage, so much is hidden by fire, dust, debris, distance, and chaos that many people come away with the impression that the towers simply dropped straight down into their own footprints.
But that is not really what happened.
These simulations make it much easier to see that the collapse begins in the heavily damaged and fire-weakened region, the upper section starts moving and tilting, and the destruction then propagates downward through the structure.
The towers do not simply disappear vertically into their own footprints. Large portions of the upper structure and exterior are moving outward and to the side as the collapse develops. Much of that motion is simply obscured in the real videos once the enormous debris cloud forms.
And this is also why I find these simulations useful when people describe the collapses as looking like “controlled demolition.”
Strip away the smoke and dust and the resemblance becomes much less convincing.
What you see is a highly asymmetric structural failure beginning around the aircraft-damaged and fire-affected floors, followed by an enormous moving mass progressively overwhelming the structure beneath it. There is tilting, rotation, exterior columns peeling away, debris being thrown far outside the building footprint, and structural failure occurring chaotically as the collapse moves downward.
That is very different from the neat mental image usually implied by “controlled demolition,” where structural supports are deliberately severed in a carefully timed sequence to produce a predetermined collapse.
And importantly, we already know what preceded these collapses.
Both towers suffered massive aircraft-impact damage. Fireproofing was stripped from portions of the structure. Large, uncontrolled fires then burned across multiple floors - for about 56 minutes in the South Tower and about 102 minutes in the North Tower - heating and weakening structural components until collapse initiated.
Once that upper mass began moving, the loads imposed on the floors and structure beneath became vastly greater than anything they had been designed to carry.
The result was progressive collapse.
No, an animation is not proof simply because it looks convincing, and these are not official NIST simulations. They are visualizations built under particular assumptions.
But as visualizations, I think they are extremely useful.
They let you see something the original footage often cannot show clearly: beneath that enormous cloud of smoke and debris was a complicated, violent, asymmetric structural failure - not two buildings neatly dropping straight down into their own footprints.
A note on the simulation: this is not intended to reproduce the collapse down to the exact motion of every beam, floor panel, and fragment of debris. No practical simulation could do that. Its value is in modeling the large-scale structural behavior - how the major sections deform, move, tilt, separate, and progressively fail. Think of it as a visualization of the mechanics and overall collapse behavior, not a frame-by-frame reconstruction of where every piece of steel ultimately landed.





























