Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33445
James Slack is the immigration expert.
And by expert I mean the bellend who lies about it the most.

5cc has documented his antics in some length however I think he's worthy of his own thread here.


It's not often that I can (be arsed to) rip an entire article apart paragraph by paragraph, but Slacky here gives me that chance.

One in every four Poles in Britain plan to stay for life, says survey
(co-written by Allan Hall)
first paragraph wrote:One in every four Poles in Britain is planning to remain for life, a survey has revealed.
One in four eh. That's 25%.
Caption under first picture wrote:In the survey 23 per cent of immigrants said they would never go back to Poland
Hey, what's 2% between friends.
Second paragraph wrote:It followed an admission from Britain's consul in Warsaw that the current record levels of migration - which have seen more than 700,000 Poles arrive in only three years - may continue.
Immigration may continue SHOCKER.
Third paragraph wrote:Paul Fox said: "I think it is too soon to say whether this movement of people will continue at the same rate or what the impact will be. A large number of Poles will decide to settle in the UK. Already they are the 4th or 5th largest ethnic minority."
Paul Fox is Consul General for the British Embassy in Poland.
So he says that he doesn't know if immigration will continue at the same rate or not, and he doesn't know what the impact well be.

Cheers, really useful comment.
Fourth Paragraph wrote:These comments are in contrast to past statements by Government officials, who have predicted the number of new arrivals will begin to fall.
No they aren't.
Mr Fox says "Er I dunno". That's not a contradiction to the government predicting it'll fall. If he said "it'll rise", that would be a contradiction. Idiots.

What's more amusing about that paragraph though is they've portrayed Mr Fox as a liar. Which is amusing because they use him for a fair bit of the article.
'Here's our source. We'll call him a liar but we're using what he says'. Yes, this bypassed 2 people.
Fifth paragraph wrote:Received wisdom in Whitehall was also that, after the initial influx, the vast majority of Poles would return home.
Right? And.
Firstly, 77% is the majority.
Secondly, what has that got to do with anything? If 99% of the poles are deported or leave voluntarily is that not returning home?
Sixth paragraph wrote:Mr Fox pointed out it was a situation over which Britain does not have direct control. His comments reflect the fact that - since the former Communist country joined the EU in 2004 - its citizens have completely free access to the UK.
Yes, and?
What does "access" mean? They can visit here? Move here? That's such a vague quote that it doesn't say anything.
Seventh paragraph wrote:Other countries imposed controls - but Britain was one of only three existing EU members who opted to do nothing.
"Controls" over what? Immigration? Deportation? Visas. Again, too vague to be of any use.
Eighth paragraph wrote:Mr Fox was speaking after the results of a survey, headed by Warsaw University migration specialist Krystyna Iglicka. The survey, carried out by the Polish Centre for International Relations, questioned almost 700 Poles living in the UK.
23% of 700 = 161.
161 people out of 700 said they planned to stay. I'd have thought that was a good result for the Mail.
Ninth paragraph wrote:Some 23 per cent of respondents said they would never go back to Poland and a further 32 per cent said that if they ever went back it would not be for another five to ten years.
23 + 32 = 55.
Credit where it's due, the headline was almost accurate.
Tenth paragraph wrote:Based on estimates from the Home Office's worker registration scheme, that would mean more than 160,000 Poles and their families staying for good.
Okay if 160,000 is 55% then the other 45% is about 131,000.

And how does this worker registration scheme fit in? Serious question? Is it some sort of guide to something? What if a pole doesn't register, does that make the figure higher? Mail doesn't include that bit, don't want to confuse the natives.
Eleventh paragraph wrote:Krystyna Iglicka said: "I am not optimistic about Poles coming back. Looking at earlier emigrations it's usually been not the emigrants themselves, but their children that have returned."
Really? The children go back? Well, that's an interesting statement when you consider this story which hit the front page 2 months ago.
That story, btw, was also written by James Slack. So here he's printed a quote which pretty much nullifies that story.

With the mistakes he makes I don't think he's that bright to be honest, but anyway.
Twelth paragraph wrote:The report also found the majority of Poles were not over-qualified for the jobs they are taking in the UK, amid reports of graduates working in factories or stacking shelves.
So now we've moved from what poles want, to their jobs. Okay then.
Thirteenth paragraph wrote:Some 65 per cent of respondents said they were working in jobs matching their qualifications.
Lovely.
Fourteenth paragraph wrote:The survey also suggested the majority of Poles in Britain were not well integrated in local communities, despite planning to stay in the country for the long term.
Define "majority"
Define "well integrated". I'm not "well integrated" with my neighbours, nevermind my "local community", because some of them are cunts and I just don't see the others that often - nobodies fault. It's a meaningless conclusion without details.
And "planning to stay" does not equal "have been here a while". Maybe this "majority" hasn't been here long enough to really integrate.
Fifthteenth paragraph wrote:The survey's author said: "Not one of the people who took part in the survey voted in local elections in Britain." They said they had not voted because their economic situation was too difficult, they had too much work or did not speak English well enough.
Nor did a great deal of Brits. So what?
Sixteenth paragraph wrote:Polish immigrants were also reluctant to make friends outside their own Polish communities. Only 59 per cent of women and 48 per cent of men said they had close contacts with British people outside work.
Oh now come on this is scraping it a bit.
How many Brits have "close contacts" with people outside work? How many people who have moved to France, Spain have "close contacts" with the French, Spanish?
Yet another context-less thing to say.
Seventeenth paragraph wrote:Mr Fox said the post-EU enlargement immigration in the UK was "one of the largest immigrations Britain has ever seen, in such a short time".
Well duh.
Eighteenth paragraph wrote:He said it was a "miracle" that since May 2004 Britain had absorbed so many new immigrants without more strain and friction.
Two things.
1. He's the "Consul General for the British Embassy in Poland", which suggests he lives in Poland. How would he know what strain and friction there was here?
2. The fact we've apparently absorbed this number without the country exploding in a fireball is a testiment to the fact that either we haven't taken in that many, or we can cope with the ones we have.

Bet Slacky didn't intend me to read it that way huh.
Ninteenth paragraph wrote:The length of time a migrant intends to stay is crucial to Government planning. Ministers insist that migrants make a positive contribution to the economy while working.
Of course. Most countries have such a policy.
Twentieth paragraph wrote:But critics say this picture changes if the migrants retire here – with four out of five becoming a net drain on the country's finances.
Based on what? Says who? We find out..
paragraphs 21-23 wrote:The amount a worker needs to earn to make a positive contribution over the course of their life is £27,000 a year.

This is the equivalent of paying £7,600 a year in income tax and other taxation and would cover the costs of healthcare and other public services into retirement.

Only 20 per cent of migrants fall into this category, according to Migrationwatch UK which made the calculations.
Ahh Migrationwatch.
You know if I was a blogger at this point I'd probably hop over and find out if that's what they really said, if they're basis was sound, and if their figures were all correct.
But it doesn't make any difference, because notice the wording. 20% of migrants, not 20% of immigrants or poles.
In this particular story, comparing different things makes those paragraphs useless, even if Migrationwatch is correct.
paragraph 24 wrote:A Home Office spokesman said: "We are clear on the benefits to the UK on migration from Eastern Europe to the UK since 2004, and we know migration contributed about £6 billion to our economy in 2006.

"But we have to ensure that migration is in the best interests of the UK, including our communities, which is why we have set up the Migration Impacts Forum to inform the Government on the wider impacts of migration."
Doesn't say anything in particular, but fair enough.
I notice Slacky doesn't dispute that 6bn this time.



So just to get this straight.
According to a survey of 700 poles undertaken by the Warsaw University (though we don't know who they asked - people over here?, people over there? people hoping to come here? deportees?), 55% planned to stay here for either 5 - 10 years, or forever.
The Mail calls Mr Fox a liar then uses him to back up their anti-immigrant bullshit. Slacky allows through a comment that's contrary to a previous story he wrote. There's something irrelevant about jobs. And there's some unrelated figures from Migrationwatch.

But overall, the entire story says "55% of poles plan to stay". And it took 2 people to write it.


I wonder what Mail readers made of it...
Simple to me, there's no such thing as no control, we just close the doors. Sorry our country is full and it is affecting the English people and the English way of life.

- Jacqui Weems, Southampton
Cheers Jacks.
Do you have any basis for that? In fact, do you have any basis for fucking anything you say, apart from "oh I read it in the mail"
Anyone with a shred of common sense would have told this useless government that this would happen. This is what happens when you have a government which is composed of ex student union 'radicals' and wide-eyed lefties, who think the world is a fluffy plaything that can be governed by kindness and naivety. There's no way back from this - New Labour have broken this country with their Utopianism.

- A. Howlett, Manchester
Told the government that what would happen? That some immigrants have a desire to stay here? Because THAT'S WHAT THE STORY IS ABOUT FUCKNUT.
Admits they've lost control? What a ridiculously purile statement to make! It implies they potentially had some control in the first place. The British government has no such control.

- Cllr Chris Cooke, Tamworth, UK
Control over what?
If it's immigration I'm quite sure Ama Sumani would disagree.


The other comments are the usual ones such as "We never lost control cos we never had it". yawn.


However, friday mods alert!
A bit at odds with the info that 177,000 have already returned to Poland. And it's very clear many Poles voted in local elections, and they are the most likely immigrants to vote Conservative in local elections too.

Many of the parents also help in our local school, and unlike many previous immigrants, almost all of them speak English, have jobs and pay taxes.

- Alan, London
I am pleased I have Polish people in my neighbourhood. They are much better behaved than the drunken English yobs that rampage around some towns.

- Sharon, Birmingham
Why are we picking on Polish immigration? From what I know and have seen the Poles are a noble, hard-working folk. When it comes to imigration the Poles are the least of this country's problems. I have no problem at all with them replacing some of the home-bred feral trash we have already.

- Stevep, Birmingham, England
Hopefully the Polish won't integrate too much. I certainly wouldn't want to see their children become drunken, ill-mannered, feral yobs.

- Maxine, Taipei, Taiwan
Last edited by bairy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
By Rob
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33461
Hehe, debunking the mail, it's what Saturday's were made for!
Simple to me, there's no such thing as no control, we just close the doors. Sorry our country is full and it is affecting the English people and the English way of life.

- Jacqui Weems, Southampton
What exactly is the English way of life then Jacqui? It's no wonder english people are afraid to express their identity when the have shouty assholes like that.

I realy fucking hate these immigration articles. All people have the right to seek a better life for themselves and travel the world in search of work. It is immigration policy which is forcing thousands into the hands of traffikers. The best way of stopping illegal immigration is to stop making immigration illegal!
 
By larrylargesse
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33605
yes he appears to be the hired help for nasty immigrant hate stories

a quickgoolet and there s a whole trunk of bile ...

One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Four out of five migrants 'take more from economy than they put back'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... daily+mail

scary....

probably a more unpleasant bloke than Petitknob
By Beaver
Membership Days Membership Days
#33624
One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide
"Ten in eleven British Muslims opposed to suicide bombings" doen't have the same ring to it, does it?
That figure is a bit concerning though, to be fair. (I'm guessing it will be exaggerated though, but I can't be arsed to read it.)
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33640
That figure is a bit concerning though, to be fair. (I'm guessing it will be exaggerated though, but I can't be arsed to read it.)
Before I read it I'm going to say that i'll give you a tenner if it's proven to be 1 in 11.

paragraph 1 wrote:As many as one in 11 British Muslims agree with and proactively support terrorism, a Government adviser has warned police.
"as many as". Very first paragraph and he disproves the headline.
paragraph 2 wrote:Haras Rafiq also told officers at Scotland Yard that up to 20 per cent of the Muslim population ' sympathise' with militants, while stopping short of being prepared to 'blow themselves up'.
One in 5 "sympathise"
paragraphs 4 and 5 wrote:Mr Rafiq, an adviser to the Government's preventing extremism taskforce, said: "A percentage of people actually agree and support proactively the people that are deciding to blow themselves up.

"It varies, it can be 7 per cent, 5 per cent, 9 per cent."
So we've gone from definitely 9% (1 in 11) to perhaps 7% or 5% (1 in 20). Notice the "can be", so it could be less (or more of course)
paragraph 6 wrote:With 1.6million Muslims living in the UK, nine per cent is the equivalent of 144,000 people supporting terrorism.
Yup it could be 9%, could be 7%, could be 5%. But we'll say that it's definitely 9 which means hey there's 144,000 people who definitely want to blow you up!
paragraph 7 wrote:'Proactively' supporting terrorism is understood to mean the people are vocal in their support for fanatics, rather than actively helping them to commit atrocities.
Oh. So we've gone from "9% backs suicide bombing" to "yeah somewhere around 5% - 9% ish might support the idea of suicide bombing".
paragraphs 8 to 10 wrote:Mr Rafiq, filmed by Channel 4's Dispatches, went on: "Next we can have a percentage of people that can actually sympathise.

"These people at this stage ... won't go out and be operational and won't decide to blow themselves up but can sympathise with the people that can blow themselves up.

"Again this can be in double digits. Then we have a percentage of the population that actually empathises with the people that blow themselves up. It could be 15 to 20 per cent.
And there's the kicker.
This isn't a poll backed assessment. It isn't based on anything other than what Mr Rafiq thinks. He is basically pulling wildly estimated figures out of his arse and the Mail are presenting them as absolute fact.
"It could be 15 to 20 per cent" is so vague that it's like me saying "oh I think about 20 or 25 per cent hate cheese". I'm guessing, he's guessing.


This is not only a total non story with no actual evidence to back anything up, but it's a non story that's twisted around to make things sound much worse than they are.
Last edited by bairy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33642
5cc has pulled apart another of Slack's stories today


Oh and the one in 5 taking more from the economy than they put in?
Only one in five is earning the £27,000 a year required to make a positive contribution over the course of their lifetime. It means that, if they settle here, they will cost the taxpayer money.

The report's author, Migrationwatch UK, said it proved the case for only highly-skilled economic migrants - such as doctors and engineers - to be allowed to settle in Britain.
Yeah that's really unbiased reporting by both the Mail and Migrationwatch.


I've only followed Slack for a few stories and already he's showing himself up as a right cunt.
 
By 5cc
Membership Days Membership Days
#33667
Cheers for the plug, bairy! I'd buy you a pint if I wasn't a miser.

That £27,000 stat bothered me but I didn't have enough time to look into it. I have now.

There are two reasons why bandying it about is rubbish. Here's the first, from MigrationWatch's own briefing paper that the stat comes from
(http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/Brie ... orkers.asp):

We calculate that a worker must earn about 27,000 a year to make, on average, a positive contribution to GDP per head and a positive fiscal contribution over their lifetime. This, as it happens, is the average salary for those in full time employment. Only about 20% of the working age migrant population are earning this amount.

A similar result would apply to the UK-born population
So, immigrants are just as likely to make a positive contribution as everyone else.

Here's the second. If an immigrant arrives here as an adult, then they need to make much less of a contribution than someone born in the UK, since they won't be taking education or healthcare or anything else in their childhood.
I've only followed Slack for a few stories and already he's showing himself up as a right cunt.
Keep following. You've only scratched the surface!
 
By Killer Whale
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33669
That 27000 figure is double bollocks anyway. It assumes that the only contribution a person can make is via earning money from employment, paying taxes and then receiving benefits of less value than taxes paid. But what about the contribution workers make to firms that they don't get back in wages? The figures would need to take into account the proportion of company taxes (including employers' NI contributions) that are due to foreign workers being employed.

In any case, it's all irrelevant. We live in a time when travel is easy and cheap. The same forces that allow middle class kids to work in a bar in New Zealand during their gap year, the same forces that are allowing British people to live and work in France, the same forces that are allowing Mail readers to retire to Spain are allowing people to move to Britain and improve their and their families lives. It ain't the 'fifties any more. Get over it.
 
By jonnyhead
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33677
5cc wrote:There are two reasons why bandying it about is rubbish. Here's the first, from MigrationWatch's own briefing paper that the stat comes from
(http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/Brie ... orkers.asp):

We calculate that a worker must earn about 27,000 a year to make, on average, a positive contribution to GDP per head and a positive fiscal contribution over their lifetime. This, as it happens, is the average salary for those in full time employment. Only about 20% of the working age migrant population are earning this amount.

A similar result would apply to the UK-born population
So, immigrants are just as likely to make a positive contribution as everyone else.
So they could have reported the story as 'Any of you British-born Mail readers who are earning less than £27k a year are leeching scum, and society would be better off if you died'.

As someone who earns a fair bit less than £27k a year, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise to everyone earning more than that for being such a terrible burden. I hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me.
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#33679
^ You know I hadn't even thought of that.

Thinking about it seasonal immigrants are much better for the country than we are, since we don't have to fund their schooling. Nor do we have to supply a pension. And if they stay, say, a year, then they'll have contributed to the NHS but may never need to use it.

In fact if the worst bill britain incurrs is a council house for a year then I'd say we got off pretty lightly.

It's interesting how mail readers conviniently forget all this when bleeting on about how immigrants' taking £10 a week in benefits will bankrupt us all.
Last edited by bairy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
By JohnD
Membership Days Membership Days
#33691
Killer Whale wrote:
In any case, it's all irrelevant. We live in a time when travel is easy and cheap. The same forces that allow middle class kids to work in a bar in New Zealand during their gap year, the same forces that are allowing British people to live and work in France, the same forces that are allowing Mail readers to retire to Spain are allowing people to move to Britain and improve their and their families lives. It ain't the 'fifties any more. Get over it.
A very good point. And talking of ignorant Fail readers leaving for Spain, a special 11 page report in The Economist on migration states that there are currently 5.5 million Britons living outside the UK, making our tiny xenophobic nation as big an exporter of people as Mexico. In your quasi-fascist face, James Slack.
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#34106
5cc wrote:Here's the second. If an immigrant arrives here as an adult, then they need to make much less of a contribution than someone born in the UK, since they won't be taking education or healthcare or anything else in their childhood.
Just to say that I completely missed this comment first time round, I've only just noticed it :o. Further down in the thread I said what I've quoted here. I wasn't trying to steal it, just didn't see you say it :D


With that sorted...

You know I was just reading how muslims will kill us all, and realised I've not seen anything by James for a few days.

Then I clicked a "big brother state" story and lo and behold, there he is. So I've changed the thread title.

Big Brother tapping our phones and emails 1,000 times a day

Paragraph by paragraph commentry follows:

Almost 800 public bodies have assumed powers to "snoop" on our phone records or private correspondence, it emerged yesterday.
Wow breaking news everyone. This just in. It emerged yesterday. We'll just gloss over the fact it came out fucking months ago.
The "surveillance state" powers have been handed to prison bosses, the police, Environment Agency, NHS Trusts, fire chiefs, Post Office and 474 local councils.
Let's plant that seed early on. We live in a "surveillance state". Just so you know. In fact, as I type this at 5am, someone is probably watching me <burp>
Local authorities made 1,700 requests to access mobile phone records and other private information in the last nine months of 2006 - using them to catch "criminals" such as fly-tippers.
Oh really? 1700 requests in 9 months.
1700 requests / 273 days = *gasp* 6.2 requests a day.
I also like the fact fly-tipping makes you a "criminal" rather than a criminal.
On average, there are 28,000 requests every month to access personal data, according to Interception of Communications Commissioner Sir Paul Kennedy.
Wait, what? 1700 requests in 9 months, 28000 requests a month?
Oh wait, this is a James Slack article. His speciality is throwing random bollocks out there that contradicts itself and confuses the reader.
In any case, 28,000 per month =/= 1,000 per day, unless it's February.
By the way, it doesn't say how many of those requests are successful.
Privacy groups said it was yet another march towards a "Big Brother" society in a country which already has the world's largest DNA database and greatest number of CCTV cameras.
Privacy groups said this eh? I'm shocked, SHOCKED. What else are they gonna say.
Phil Booth, of the NO2ID campaign, said: "Powers that were brought in for the most dramatic of reasons are now being used to pursue suspected fly-tippers.
Is Phil saying I'm complaining because they were bought in for heavy reasons but used for relatively light stuff?
I'd have thought he'd be glad.
"You have to apply to a court to tap an Al Qaeda terrorist, but a council worker can check your phone calls with a simple request. The potential for abuse is enormous."
Hang on how does that work? So they can tap anyone they like but they have to apply if it's an Al Qaeda terrorist? That makes no sense.
Sir Paul has responsibility for checking applications made by MI5, MI6, GCHQ, 52 police forces and the Serious Organised Crime Agency - which have the right to intercept telephone calls.
Oh it's Sir Paul. And that's his job. So his non-sense comments must be credible. Or something.
Others with intercept powers include HM Revenue and Customs, the Royal Military Police and the British Transport Police.
Yeah thanks, I read your graphic.
Other public bodies which can check phone records if it would help to trap a criminal include councils and bodies such as the Serious Fraud Office, ambulance services and fire authorities.
Really, I read your graphic.
Sir Paul also checks the country's 139 prisons. They have the power to intercept mail and telephone calls between inmates and members of the public - taking the total of those who can be granted authorisations to snoop to 792.
Sir Paul is a busy man.
In his annual report, Sir Paul said 122 councils took advantage of their powers in the last nine months of 2006, making 1,694 requests.
Right. So now we get some clarification on that 1,700 figure.
Local councils have made 1,700 requests in 9 months. MY GOD, SURVEILLANCE STATE!!
Sir Paul said they were mainly used to trap rogue traders, flytippers and fraudsters.
That's good isn't it?
The report said many public bodies were applying for the power to intercept correspondence without actually using them.
Ah ha, now we get to it. So 28,000 requests per month and "many public bodies" don't then use them.
Now this is the absolute key paragraph. The wording is very specific and I think deliberately confusing here.

Does it mean a public body is asking to be able to, e.g. intercept phonecalls, but then never do? Up top it suggests that they can automatically do anything they like - but down below it says they can't, so maybe.

Perhaps it means that they're making indivudual requests to tape Mr XYZs phone, but then don't bother. If that's the case, does the 28,000 figure include those requests? i.e. is it 28,000 actual tappings, or is it requests for tappings and thus less? If it's less then the title is even more inaccurate.

In a Slacky classic move, this paragraph is so vague that it's not just useless but confusing.
Sir Paul said: "If this state of affairs continues unexplained, then consideration must be given to removing the powers from them."
Yeah! You don't use em, you lose em!
The aim, I suspect, is to pressure for less to be applied for. The reality, I suspect, is they'll just increase the number they use.
Councils insisted they were making proper use of the power to ask for telephone subscriber and billing information when investigating or preventing a crime.
Apparently for all Sir Paul's wittering he hasn't provided, in this article anyway, evidence to contradict that.
Officials said the information can help confirm where a suspected criminal was at a certain time.
Yup
Councils cannot get details of the content of any phone calls or emails, although other public bodies such as the police and intelligence services can.
More unravelling.
Geoffrey Theobald, chairman of local council group LACORS, said: "Councils have systems in place to make sure these powers are only used where necessary and proportionate. Councils cannot tap people's phones."
More unravelling.


So to summarise.

Implication: Almost 800 organisations can and do make almost 1,000 requests per day
Reality: A few of the 800 make a combined 28,000 requests a month. How many of those requests are used is not properly specified.

Implication: These organisations have full power to read and hear everything about you
Reality: Except where they don't.

Implication: These organisations will use them to spy on you!
Reality: If you're suspected of doing something illegal.



Article verdict: James's role in life is to make everyone funded by the taxpayer look as bad as possible, even if it means lying and using selective wording. And yet even in an article meant to scare, the best he can find to quote is stuff that actually has the opposite effect.
Is he using clever psychology ("I write to scare but prove it's not that bad, I'm a good guy really"), or is he just a fucking idiot? I'll let you decide.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
Aaron Bastani

He's trying to win Uncle Seamus's approval. https[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

If we're honest we are really facing a "glove[…]

Climate change and "politics"

Well done to those kids who went on strike today. […]

The Trump Presidency

He has declared a national emergency on salad (veg[…]