Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
No one can sit near the pitch yo there and now you can’t even go to your derby on your own.
If this happened for the NLD wouldn’t bloody go
If this happened for the NLD wouldn’t bloody go
0
1
6
1,847
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Labour’s Lucy Powell, trying to explain why she was complicit on Ed Miliband interview with Brand in 2015, says a)it was before social media; and b) there was no easy way of checking on people in these days.
Which is strange since a) she’d been on social media since 2009 and by 2015 it was in full swing; and b) Google has been available since 2000.
Other than that her explanation is entirely credible.
Which is strange since a) she’d been on social media since 2009 and by 2015 it was in full swing; and b) Google has been available since 2000.
Other than that her explanation is entirely credible.
Russell Brand: The shameful truth about those who turned a blind eye
youtu.be/5hfFwqW_e9s?si… via @YouTube
143
776
3,339
62,980
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
And we all know the only way they get their issues fixed is if they unite (no pun intended) as a fanbase and make sacrifices that damage their owners' bottom line and make them more likely to sell. But they won't do that.
Past glory and division feed their souls and Glazers win.
Past glory and division feed their souls and Glazers win.
0
1
1
102
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
My takeaway from bantering United fans today is that they continue to be more obsessed with being superior in twitter debates than in fixing the issues at their football club.
That is excellent news. A lifeless United is a much easier league for us in the coming years.
That is excellent news. A lifeless United is a much easier league for us in the coming years.
1
1
1
117
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Look at Man United Goalkeeper, Zero intention to play the ball, completely focused on nudging the Aston Villa Goalkeeper
If this was Arsenal, it'll be shown on CNN🤷🏽♂️
If this was Arsenal, it'll be shown on CNN🤷🏽♂️
33
112
599
15,064
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Today is the day. David vs Goliath. Today we go to the High Court for our landmark judicial review against the Government. We have been shocked at the arguments being advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of its failure to implement key recommendations made by the Independent al Abuse (IICSA). These arguments include, that The Maggie Oliver Foundation does not have standing to bring this challenge on behalf of children, that the Government is under no obligation to implement child protection measures, and that the public at large cannot rely upon promises made by the Prime Minister and Ministers that are made in Parliament.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
The Government's legal defence raises fundamental questions about public trust, accountability and whether promises made to survivors following public inquiries mean anything at all.
At the centre of the judicial review are 20 key recommendations issued by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) proposed to better protect children across the UK from sexual abuse. These include properly collecting data relating to child abusers and victims of abuse and exploitation, ending the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques on children in custody and regulation of staff in children’s homes.
We are concerned that more effort and public money appears to be going into defending a challenge designed to ensure these critical improvements in child protection are made than into implementing them.
The simplest example of this is this – if the Government had implemented the first recommendation of the IICSA, there would have been no need for a further three-year, £65 million public Inquiry (The Statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs).
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ASK THE QUESTION?
The Secretary of State is a challenging whether The Maggie Oliver Foundation and our founder and Chair, @MaggieOliverUK , have standing to bring the case at all.
This raises a deeply troubling question.
If organisations representing survivors and working every day with the consequences of child sexual abuse are not entitled to ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who is?
The Government is trying to exclude from the debate the very people closest to the consequences of these failures.
For years survivors have been told to come forward. Speak up. Tell the truth. Many have done so at enormous personal cost, but now the Government says they, and those who represent them, cannot object to failures to protect children. Their voices must be silenced.
This challenge was never about politics. Governments of all stripes have let down children. It is astonishing that the Government's first argument in this judicial review is that victims can have no voice.
If organisations representing survivors, and survivors themselves, cannot ask why promised child protection measures have not been implemented, who can?
IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACT, WHAT IS THE POINT?
A central plank to the Government's defence is that ministers are under no legal obligation to implement recommendations made by public inquiries.
If that is right, why spend hundreds of millions of pounds on public inquiries if Government is just going to ignore what they find? We genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can think that is acceptable.
Millions are spent, years of hearings are had, victims pour out their hearts, findings and recommendations are made, promises are made by Government and then broke – but when someone has the temerity to ask why those promises haven't been kept, the Government's response is we never had to keep our promises.
If that is right, the Government must be open about it, and explain to the public why they hold expensive public inquiries at all.
IICSA took seven years, heard from more than 7,000 survivors, cost more than £200 million and made twenty recommendations intended to protect children. But the Government now says, we have no obligation to fulfil its promises to implement recommendations to protect children.
CAN POLITICIANS DENY THEIR PROMISES MATTER?
We are also challenging the Government's position regarding promises made by the Prime Minister and ministers following publication of IICSA's recommendations.
Repeated assurances that action would be taken have been made by senior politicians across successive governments.
The Government's defence includes arguments relating to parliamentary privilege. In effect the Government say that The Foundation cannot rely upon ministerial promises made in Parliament, and that such promises cannot give rise to expectations about future action.
If the public cannot rely on promises made in Parliament, what can they rely on?
Survivors and the public hear ministers make promises.
They hear repeated assurances that lessons have been learned and change will follow.
They build their expectations around those promises.
Many survivors have spent years believing ministers when they said action was coming.
To now be told that those promises cannot be relied upon is not just a legal argument, it is a fundamental betrayal of the trust survivors (and children across the UK) were asked to place in the process.
Trust works both ways.
Survivors are asked to trust public inquiries with the most painful experiences of their lives.
Governments should not then be able to argue that survivors cannot rely on the promises they receive in return.
WHILE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING ABUSED
Government figures show that approximately 2 million children have been sexually abused since IICSA published its recommendations in October 2022.
That astonishing number must not be lost amidst legal arguments and the Government’s technical defences. This case is about the protection of all British children.
What shocks us most is how much ingenuity and effort has gone into finding reasons not to act.
Imagine if half of the same energy had been invested in implementing child protection measures.
Imagine if the resources currently being spent defending this case had instead been spent protecting children.
How many children might already be safer?
While well paid Government lawyers argue, children are still being sexually abused.
That is the reality we cannot lose sight of.
This case was never about clever legal arguments.
It is about whether promises made to children and survivors mean anything at all.
The Maggie Oliver Foundation will not be silent on that question.
401
2,686
7,400
146,699
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Good grief
James Nelson-Joyce claims Jamie Carragher would WALK INTO Arsenal's defence ahead of William Saliba.
Host: "You've said previously that Jamie Carragher would walk into any team in the Premier League right now."
James: "One million percent."
Scholes: "Yeah, probably would. I think Arsenal would be a tough one for him."
James: "No, that back four ain't bad ... Where's he playing there?"
James: "Centre-half."
Scholes: "Instead of who?"
James: "Saliba." x.com/HKFinalThird/s…
5
16
91
5,484
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
With 10 Premier League games played, this is how many times each team failed to create 1 xG
Arsenal 1
Aston Villa 4
Bournemouth 2
Brentford 4
Brighton 1
Chelsea 5
Coventry 5
Crystal Palace 4
Everton 2
Fulham 4
Hull 5
Ipswich 2
Leeds 4
Liverpool 2
Man Utd 3
Man City 0
N.Forest 4
Newcastle 5
Sunderland 4
Tottenham 5
Arsenal 1
Aston Villa 4
Bournemouth 2
Brentford 4
Brighton 1
Chelsea 5
Coventry 5
Crystal Palace 4
Everton 2
Fulham 4
Hull 5
Ipswich 2
Leeds 4
Liverpool 2
Man Utd 3
Man City 0
N.Forest 4
Newcastle 5
Sunderland 4
Tottenham 5
11
22
154
13,257
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Funny how things work out
🆕 Swansea City are planning to end Jeremy Monga's loan spell from Manchester City early. The clubs are discussing a reduction in the loan fee. The 17-year-old has yet to make a single appearance for Swansea. #SwanceaCity #ManCity #JeremyMonga #Transfers
🔗EN: britball.net/apps/en/post/2…
🔗RU: britball.net/news/mancheste…
11
60
757
42,413
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Labour courted Brand *precisely* because it was the social media age. They thought his strong social media presence would help them. It was the main point Owen Jones made in his infamous column. Powell is actively lying.
Lucy Powell on the Ed Miliband Russell Brand interview
Sophy Ridge: In 2015, Ed Miliband was interviewed by Russell Brand. And he was invited over to his house to do it. It's been reported that you were the one who set up the interview. Is that true and do you regret it?
Lucy Powell: Look, I mean, it wasn't quite like that. It was a long time ago, obviously. And had I or Ed Miliband or anybody at the time had any sense at all that this was someone who was a sexual predator, who was involved in these sorts of crimes or any allegations that were known at the time, then, of course, that interview I'm sure would not have happened, history would have been very, very, different. Those things unfortunately, weren't known at the time. But I think, like anybody who paid to go to his show or watched him on TV, or who was his employer at the time, who had interactions with him, anybody, including those of us who were involved in that at the time,would look back and really regret that, knowing today what we now know
Sophy Ridge: You were campaign chief, did you set it up? Were you involved in the process?
Lucy Powell: Look, I mean, he approached the Labour Party, he approached the campaign team, and we’re in very different times now. We weren't in the social media age at the time - where you could maybe search things up and see allegations about somebody at the time. and as I say, if there was any suggestion at all, we were dealing with someone who was a known sexual predator at the time, then, of course, you know, no one would have done that. But as I say, he was a well known public figure. Lots of people from Hollywood to the BBC to many others gave this person a very, very powerful platform. And we didn't know at the time, unfortunately. It was a different era.
36
201
732
24,692
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
If you think Russell Brand was targeted because he was speaking up against "the establishment" then someone needs to cut your sandwiches into circles for you so that you don't hurt yourself on the corners.
370
833
6,483
90,680
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
So just in saying that he is confirming there is intelligence material confirming links to them, thick as mince are modern day politicians.
Speaker Mike Johnson claims the Epstein files can’t be released unredacted because they contain intelligence-agency material that falls under national security.
He says it’s dangerous to force the DOJ to declassify documents they didn’t create, especially when they involve other r NSA.
Johnson warns that releasing the Epstein files unredacted would put national security at risk.
1
2
3
225
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
This isn’t sustainable…
An important announcement from the Conservatives.
As Westminster debates welfare savings this week, our Welfare Sustainability Tracker shows London is the only major city in England and Wales where income tax and NI receipts exceed welfare spending. 👇
8
16
135
9,135
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
Sacking Ed Miliband must be worth at least 0.2% GDP growth by this point.
Cabinet locked in bitter row as Ed Miliband and key ally try to block £49billion plans for third runway at Heathrow trib.al/XsBR5aS
28
266
3,955
72,309
Captain Scarlet's Stubble retweeted
🤷♂️ The whole Chelsea squad wanted his shirt. Who can blame them?
You can get yours for 20% off: shorturl.at/rKwOn 🛍️
You can get yours for 20% off: shorturl.at/rKwOn 🛍️
1,202
3,156
25,266
803,847