Priority Seats

When a fellow rider stepped up to give a pregnant woman a seat on the Tube, another passenger forcibly stole it, leaving the lady absolutely stunned.

The event happened on a Jubilee Line train travelling from Stanmore into London during morning rush hour.

An eight-month-pregnant woman who had just boarded the carriage was being entirely ignored by those in the priority seats, but a thoughtful commuter chose to stand up and offer his own seat to the pregnant woman. But as he stood up, a well-built man standing about two metres tall abruptly thrust in front of the pregnant woman to seize the space.

Both the woman and the helpful passenger immediately challenged the guy, telling him the seat was explicitly meant for an expectant mother.

The passenger stared them both in the eye, stayed obstinately seated, and didn’t say anything to defend himself. He then closed his eyes and feigned to fall asleep soon after to evade facing the enraged glares from the rest of the carriage.

Later, after noticing a logo on the man’s branded business shirt, the disgruntled traveller was able to identify the man’s employer.

In an odd turn of events, it turned out that the man really works for a company that specifically produces goods to assist those with health and mobility problems.

The pregnant woman later took to social media to share her disbelief, branding the passenger quite lazy and rude.

Luckily, someone else in the carriage ultimately got up to offer her a separate priority seat, saving her from having to stand the entire way.

The incident has sparked tremendous anger online, with hundreds of Londoners demanding the man be exposed to his employers for his conduct.

Had I been a passenger on the train and pregnant, I would have sat on his lap, and then said, ‘Oh no, my waters have broken.’ He would have been out of the seat in a flash.

Regardless of pregnancy, disability, et cetera, one should offer their seat; it’s just common courtesy, and don’t take a seat that was offered by another person; that’s just plain disgusting.

This doesn’t just happen on trains, though; it happens on buses as well. 1984, my son was about 3 months old. I was boarding a bus and was having a problem folding the pram up to sit down. I had my child under one arm, whilst attempting to fold a pram down. Nobody batted an eyelid. I promptly said, ‘Some help wouldn’t go amiss.’ Everyone on the bus acted like I was invisible.

Manners maketh the man. Well, you would think so, but evidently not.

If a seat is designated for a wheelchair or for someone disabled, even a pram, and it states that it is designated, then that is what it means. If you are fit and healthy, then you don’t need the seat; you can stand on your own two feet; it’s called courtesy.

A designated seat isn’t a suggestion, a polite hint, or something people can ignore because they’re tired or don’t feel like standing. It’s a requirement, rooted in accessibility law, safety, and basic human decency, and the fact that people still fight over them, or worse, decline to move, shows how badly courtesy has collapsed on public transport.

Undercover Underground

Mimi Yates tested the safety of women by going incognito on the Tube. Men followed her, groped her, and disregarded her cries to stop within hours. It was bone-chilling, according to her.

At around 2 am on the Piccadilly Line, the tube carriage was empty, apart from her and a man twice her age. She said his eyes never left me during the whole 40-minute journey.

She said he was potbellied with a menacing grin, and then he moved suddenly from the seat opposite, plonking himself down next to her, talking to her over the deafening noise of the train.

She got off before her stop because she was uncomfortable, but he followed her to another almost empty train that was travelling towards Stratford on the Jubilee Line. He kept trying to talk to her while licking his lips and looking at her.

She eventually managed to lose him somewhere between the platform and the escalators at North Greenwich station.

She’s on the platform at Green Park thirty minutes later when a different man calls out to her in an attempt to get her attention. Wearing stylish spectacles and a Barbour-style jacket, he invites her to take a seat next to him as they wait for the train.

‘Beauty needs a seat, now. Come sit down,’ he says. Mimi tentatively takes up a place with two seats between them. He tells her he has a daughter who is her age.

He keeps asking Mimi where she lives and, after failing to get an answer, starts threatening her. ‘I will find the pub or restaurant next door to you. I’m going to come to look for you, and I will find you.’

He doesn’t give up, repeatedly demanding her phone number. She tells him politely ‘no’ 20 times – she counted.

She boards the train she’s been waiting for. Laughing, he follows her into the same carriage, sitting down opposite me as he continues to ask for her number. It’s about 3 am now, and the carriage is busy, but that doesn’t deter him.

‘You have to give me your number, you have to. I am asking for yours. You have to meet up with me.’

Then he reaches over and strokes my thigh. ‘Please don’t touch me,’ She hears herself say.

A girl and her partner see what’s happening but say and do nothing.

By the time Mimi gets home, it’s almost 5 am. She is badly shaken and films her reaction on her phone. ‘My heart is still beating quite fast. I just don’t think I expected it to be that bad.’

This wasn’t a normal night out. She had been working undercover for the Daily Mail’s investigative series, Underground UK.

Over two months this year, she trekked across London’s transport network at all hours of the day and night, secretly filming what happened to her and documenting how it felt to move around the capital as a young woman on her own.

What she experienced has changed the way she views the city she loves.

In March this year, a London Assembly report described ‘unacceptable’ levels of violence against women and girls across the capital’s public transport network.

In 2025, 4,593 sex-based offences against women and girls were recorded, yet only a small proportion, about 3 per cent, led to a charge or summons.

Some 58 per cent of cases identified no suspect at all, despite an expansive network of CCTV and ticketing data that can help trace journeys. 

Recent cases show why. In May, Salman Yousaf, 46, was imprisoned for eight sexual assaults and one count of outraging public decency on the Night Tube.

He preyed on lone ladies who had fallen asleep on the Central and Jubilee Lines, but it wasn’t until he was incarcerated for another crime that authorities linked him to the attacks.

In March, Craig Anderson, 38, was imprisoned after sexually assaulting four women and stalking another across the railway network. Prosecutors portrayed him as a man who ‘did not take no for an answer’.

If someone is staring at you, tell them to stop; if they don’t stop, yell at them. If they touch you, hit them. I know that won’t work in every case, but it will work, especially if there is a crowd. Everyone – we need to intervene and help others, and since the police are ineffective in these situations, some women have even begun carrying telescopic batons.

But this is nothing new; even 40-odd years ago it was like this, and it was depressingly normal to be sexually assaulted on crowded tube trains. I myself have had someone’s hand up my skirt on a crowded train, and there was nothing I could do about it, apart from scream out, ‘What pervert has got their hand up my skirt?’ Everybody on the train looked the other way, and quite frankly, tasers need to be legalised for women and girls to carry.

Of course, it’s not every man, but there are an unfortunate number of men who seem to believe they have the right to molest anyone who fits into their sexual imaginings, but really, they are sad, inadequate men, and nothing more.

This has nothing to do with politics. This is just an unacceptable age-old practice where men prey on women, but people still victim-blame, saying that women shouldn’t be out so late, but what actually needs to happen is that predatory men need to be held to account.

Helping Hands

It was all hands on deck for Prince William as he helped to furnish the last of 32 homes in Aberdeen as part of his flagship homeless initiative.

The heir to the throne was in the Granite City to mark three years of his Homewards campaign, which is working to end homelessness in the UK.

And William, known as the Duke of Rothesay when he is in Scotland, got straight to work by helping staff at Langstane Housing Association put together welcome packs with household goods for new tenants.

At one point he thought the CEO, Helen Gauld, said the items included ‘hairdryers’, to which he quipped ‘some of us don’t need hairdryers’, as he rubbed his bald patch. But Ms Gauld corrected him, saying: ‘I meant air fryers.’

The completion of houses supplied under Homeward’s flagship Aberdeen Innovative Housing Project (IHP), which focuses on aiding single individuals and young people facing relationship breakdown, was celebrated by his visit to Langstane, a Homeward delivery partner and registered social landlord.

He rolled up his sleeves to assist in moving furniture from the back of a delivery vehicle to an apartment after spending some time chatting with employees and one renter, Erin.

Before the new renter arrived, he was shown around the top-floor house after carrying the wooden IKEA chair up three flights of stairs.

Before he left, he joked: ‘The chair will hopefully stay in one piece.’

Aberdeen is the only Scottish location of six across the UK that has benefited from funding from The Royal Foundation as part of William’s ambitious scheme.

Other areas include Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, Lambeth, Newport, Northern Ireland, and Sheffield.

After speaking to the Royal, Erin, who told him she was ‘delighted’ with her new home, said: ‘I just assumed I’d be getting a blank flat with nothing, but then it was offered and shown to me about homewards and was all put into place.

‘I feel safe and secure and like I know I have somewhere to go that’s my own, and it’s the way I want it. Having somewhere to call my own makes such a difference to how I see everything.’

Ms Gauld said the prince was ‘very interested in the tenant and how she was doing’, which she said was ‘really nice to hear’.

She admitted it was ‘a bit surreal’ seeing the Royal lend a practical hand but added: ‘It was very gratifying for all the staff for him to come and recognise the work that they put in on a daily basis.’

William spent some time talking to a few other Langstane tenants who had come to visit him before departing.

I think Prince William is doing great. He listened to the people and tried to help as much as he could, which is a lot more than the politicians by giving homes to non-British citizens, but saying that, how many homeless people has he actually homed? Good PR op though.

My goodness! What’s next? Opening a car door by himself?

An actual royal carrying a chair, it should be breaking news, around the world. Whatever next?

Unfortunately, the continued attention they receive from the media and the way pieces about various family members are written may often work against them and make their situation worse. It then risks becoming an oversaturation and self-promotion, even if what they do is for a good cause, and for these homeless people, it’s going to transform their whole universe and future, and that can only be a good thing.

Taxpayer Money Bought Burnham’s London Flat

According to reports, Andy Burnham is so devoted to the north that he will stay there even once he is appointed prime minister, declining the Downing Street grace-and-favour apartment that comes with the position.

However, he has not always been so opposed to making his home in the capital at the public’s expense.

In his first stint as a Labour MP, he claimed on his Parliamentary expenses to rent a flat in a notorious luxury apartment complex close to Westminster.

When Dolphin Square – home to spies and prostitutes as well as politicians – was sold in 2005, its residents received tens of thousands of pounds each to give up their tenancy agreements and move out.

But while numerous MPs gave theirs to the Parliamentary authorities, Mr Burnham negotiated a unique deal that meant he was able to add almost all of his windfall of £18,200 to the already generous second home allowance. 

The arrangement allowed him and his wife Marie-France Van Heel to purchase and remodel a £215,000 flat in south London, which they still own using taxpayers’ money.

It emerged during the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009 that Mr Burnham submitted a single expenses claim for £16,644 to cover the acquisition of the property, covering their stamp duty and legal fees as well as a new kitchen.

By claiming the windfall as a parliamentary expense, Mr Burnham dodged having to pay thousands of pounds in capital gains tax – a levy that his allies want him to increase when he becomes Prime Minister.

He insisted at the time: ‘It is complete nonsense to suggest that I set out to avoid capital gains tax. My file shows I made arrangements to pay over this money in full to the fees office, and all arrangements were signed off by them. At no stage did I make any personal profit on this transaction.’

His relationship with the Commons Fees Office, which authorised MPs’ expenses for their second residences, was tense; however, several applications were either denied or postponed.

In one plaintive letter, dated December 2005, he wrote: ‘I would be very grateful if (the expenses) could be paid in the last round of the year on Friday. Otherwise, I might be in line for divorce!’

In a highly unusual development, his wife even joined in the correspondence with the authorities about their renovations, writing on one occasion: ‘I have endeavoured to include the bulk of the invoices, but invariably there are a few missing.’

When Mr Burnham filed a claim for the mortgage interest on both his north-west constituency house and the Lambeth apartment, which was permitted at the time, he was rejected.

He once submitted an ineligible claim for mortgage capital instead of interest.

He even had a £119 receipt from Ikea reduced after his claim for a £19.99 bath robe was rejected.

When the story broke, Mr Burnham, who was then Culture Secretary, insisted that he had actually claimed less than he could have done on his expenses.

‘I wish to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that I resent any suggestion that I have knowingly misused public funds as the public record shows that, in the last five years, I have under-claimed on my ACA (Additional Costs Allowance) by around £40,000,’ he said in a statement.

‘I believe this demonstrates quite clearly that I have always sought to work within the rules and the spirit of the parliamentary Green Book, and, during my time in Parliament, have not made claims for expenditure that is either extravagant or luxurious.’

After the Commons corruption investigator discovered that other MPs who resided in the building had violated the rules by pocketing their windfalls, he was under further pressure a year later to return his Dolphin Square windfall.

Four Lib Dems were told they had made ‘serious misjudgements’ and were ordered to pay back some of the money.

But a spokesman for Mr Burnham, who was not investigated by the Commissioner for Standards, claimed his use of the payout ‘enabled him to avoid making claims on expenses and saved thousands of pounds for the taxpayer’.

‘He believes any other course of action would have wasted public money … there was no personal gain to Mr Burnham,’ the spokesman said.

Figures published by the MPs’ pay body show that Mr Burnham claimed £10,700 in 2010-11 for accommodation, including £6,802 for mortgage interest before the rules were changed.

Under the revised scheme, he was reimbursed £14,499 for rent by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) the following year, along with £1,100 for council tax.

By 2017, when he stepped down, his rent had risen to £18,214.

Simon Danczuk, a former Labour MP who wrote a book about the notorious history of Dolphin Square, told the Daily Mail: ‘It’s surprising Burnham now wants to spend time in Manchester; for years he enjoyed living at the infamous Dolphin Square in SW1, home to a variety of politicians, spies, and prostitutes.

‘Indeed, when the apartment block was sold in 2005, Burnham, although his rent had been paid by the taxpayer, received a personal jackpot of £18,200 from the new landlord on agreeing to depart the complex. This only came to light when exposed in the 2009 expenses scandal.’

He went on: ‘By all accounts Burnham’s windfall became a bone of contention with the House of Parliament’s fees office, though after having had his claim rejected three times, over several months, they eventually relented.

‘The money went towards purchase and renovation of another London flat for Burnham. For all his recent reluctance to spend time in London, it’s not that long ago Burnham was living it up here and enjoying playing its property market.’

All of this makes Burnham quite the hypocrite. Look at his fellow northerners Rayner, Powell and Nandy; they all prattle on about helping the working people while robbing the public purse for their own gain.

In ten seconds, Trump resolved the majority of our problems. Ninety percent of the populace will support you if you control immigration and drill in the North Sea, but what do they do? They construct beautiful new homes for migrants and charge us exorbitant prices for “green energy,” which could or might not have any impact on the global population.

The idea that Labour represents the working class is only held by fools.

Ebola Patient In Scottish Hospital Tests Negative

A suspected Ebola patient who put a hospital in Scotland under lockdown has tested negative for the deadly illness.

Part of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow was closed off after the person presented at the Acute Receiving Unit at about 6 am on Tuesday.

After returning to the city from a country ravaged by Ebola, the patient allegedly sought medical assistance after experiencing concerning symptoms.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared a public health emergency of international concern due to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The QEUH unit was immediately closed to the public in order to reduce any possible harm to others. The patient was immediately confined for treatment and additional examination.

The alarm eventually subsided when tests for the extremely contagious illness came back negative.

A source told The National: ‘The person came to the Acute Receiving Unit, where people are sent by their GP or the health board’s 101 number to avoid having to present at accident and emergency. This was quickly shut down and sealed off from the rest of the hospital. 

‘The person was assessed there and then taken elsewhere in the hospital. I believe they were put into confinement while the tests to establish if they have Ebola or something else are carried out.’

Another hospital worker told the Glasgow Times: ‘The mere mention of the word Ebola strikes panic into people. You think of it as a disease that happens elsewhere.

‘The hospital has strict protocols and procedures to deal with these types of rare occurrences, and everything seemed to be followed to a tee, but it is still a worry for those who were on duty at the time.’

Central Africa is presently wrestling with an Ebola outbreak, with about 1,300 confirmed cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo and a handful in Uganda.

There has also been one confirmed case in France.

About 360 people are confirmed to have perished from the current outbreak, which is the third-largest in history.

If verified, this would have been the first Ebola case in the UK in almost ten years.

Ebola is transmitted through direct contact with blood or bodily fluids of symptomatic individuals or contaminated objects.

A spokesperson for Public Health Scotland said: ‘Public Health Scotland (PHS) is aware that an individual in Scotland was tested for Ebola as a precautionary measure. The test result has now been received and is negative.

‘PHS and NHS boards across Scotland have well-established protocols for assessing and testing travellers arriving in the UK from areas affected by Ebola where necessary. 

‘Where required, contact tracing will occur, and contacts may undergo clinical assessment and precautionary testing.

‘It is rare for Ebola cases to occur in returning travellers, but NHS Scotland has safe procedures in place for detecting and managing any such cases. 

‘As such, the risk to the general public remains low.

‘The UKHSA Returning Workers Scheme (RWS), which aims to protect and monitor the health of those who may travel from the UK to affected areas for their work, has been activated. 

‘Organisations deploying workers to affected areas where they may be exposed to Ebola through their work should register those workers with the scheme.

‘There are currently no confirmed cases of Ebola in Scotland.’

France confirmed its first case of Ebola last week after a doctor tested positive.

Health officials said the medic had returned from a humanitarian mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The patient in mainland France was said to be in a stable condition but has been isolated to prevent the disease from spreading.

According to officials, there is little danger to the whole European population. In an attempt to find everybody who could have been exposed through contact with the doctor, contact tracing investigations are still in progress.

What they should be doing is preventing people from travelling from countries that have an epidemic.

This is madness; you can’t bring a plant into the UK from certain places because it could spread disease, but we let in people who have been to these places that have Ebola outbreaks without any checks.

If you attempt to bring a Rabbit into the UK, it has to be quarantined for 4 months, but humans are good to go and spread their diseases.

A month-long quarantine is required for anyone entering our nation from an Ebola-affected location, and this has just topped my day off nicely because it’s only a matter of time before every disease that has been eradicated, or was never in the UK, will soon become rampant.

And what about the others they were travelling with, in addition to the one who contracts the illness? Although it’s not the most contagious virus, there is still a chance of it spreading, and since viruses are frequently fatal, we shouldn’t be too complacent about them.

Malaria, TB, dengue, typhoid, and other infectious illnesses are brought back to the UK by people from high-risk nations, and they frequently enter packed waiting rooms while exhibiting symptoms. But the reason this happens isn’t “because the UK is too soft” or “because human rights stop us from screening people.” It’s because the system is designed in a way that makes this inevitable, and A&E ends up carrying the whole burden.

Our government is not blocking the channel hoppers, and not checking lorries that got them here, and it seems we are the only people in the world who have no human rights.

Migrant Jumps From Lorry At Dover Port

This is the moment a migrant was caught trying to smuggle himself out of Britain in the back of a lorry, pleading with police: ‘I just want to go back to France!’

At the Port of Dover ferry port in Kent, the man was seen leaping out of a truck as it was being checked by police, then sprinting in the direction of the exit.

The footage features in the latest episode of Channel 4 documentary Dover 24/7: Britain’s Busiest Port, which follows the site’s police force and airs at 8 pm today.

Officers patrolling the port were filmed chasing after the migrant in their police van, then grabbing him and forcing him up against a concrete barrier near the taxi rank.

One officer says that ‘we’ve got a prisoner’ as others arrive to stop him escaping again, but the man tells them: ‘Why prisoner? I just want to go back to France!’

Officers Neil and Ian are seen working at the port in the video that was sent to the Daily Mail after they detained a guy who had neglected to show up for court in a different matter.

While heading to a local police station, they get an urgent call about the migrant, saying: ‘There’s a male making off down the buffer zone, away from Securitas.’

The officers perform a U-turn and head to the exit to catch the man, who is described to them as ‘Asian-looking, grey hooded jacket, black jogging bottoms’.

As they drive towards the taxi rank, the man is spotted, and one of them yells: ‘There he is, there he is, get ready.’ They pull up in the van and shout ‘Stop!’

The officers jump out of the van, and another says: ‘Stay where you are.’ One officer grabs hold of the man before a colleague helps and puts him up against a wall.

A third officer then also arrives to assist. One says: ‘We’ve got a prisoner. You get the van.’ They tell the man: ‘Stay there, we’ve got time.’

But the migrant says to them: ‘Why prisoner? I just want to go back to France!’

The officer then says: ‘But I don’t know what you’ve done. The last I know, you’re running away from someone. France says no.’

The police are told the man has just jumped out the back of a lorry after apparently being illegally stowed in the back – and there are another four people in the trailer.

One officer says: ‘Oh God! Did you… four more in the trailer.’

The migrant continues to plead: ‘I just want to go back to France!’

But the officer tells him: ‘I understand. You’re in this country, and there’s borders, and the French say you’re in here, you’re not allowed to France.’

They put him in a police van, and he is told: ‘OK, you’re in there for a minute, nothing silly.’

An officer says: ‘Obviously we’ve got a prisoner in our van, but we’ve got a shout from our colleagues that believe that there’s still some more in the lorry.

‘But the security team are dealing with that. We need to get to custody because this man is under arrest.’ They then ask him: ‘Are you okay in the back there?’

The officers then joke with each other that one of them had ‘said the Q word’ earlier on – suggesting it had been a quiet night, which is seen as bad luck on the shift.

The Port of Dover Police later confirmed that the man received a ‘community resolution’. This is an out-of-court order normally used for less serious crimes and incidents such as low-level public order, criminal damage, theft and minor assaults.

It comes after the Daily Mail reported how Labour had covertly repealed a restriction on small-boat migrants and other illegal immigrants acquiring British citizenship.

The remarkable reversal followed a judicial challenge alleging that the programme violated international refugee conventions and human rights laws.

This means that, three years after the Tories prevented them from doing so, unlawful migrants who are granted refuge here will finally be allowed to get British passports.

Under documents drawn up by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, they have to claim it was ‘outside their control’ that they arrived in the UK without permission.

Arrested for leaving, but not when they arrive because the police don’t know what he’s done, so we’ll just keep the bad ones; that makes complete sense. Why didn’t they just let him go? Now that would have made sense because he can then spread the word that the UK is not worth it.

This is unbelievable, and it makes sense that immigration is growing at an exponential rate when our own government refuse to let people leave when they truly want to.

This man was attempting to flee the freebies and escape his human rights, but we can’t let that happen because it might set a bad example.

If anything, this should be encouraged. Let the French deal with it. If only they were as adept at stopping them from coming in, we wouldn’t have a problem.

Let him go and make sure he takes some of his friends with him.

If he isn’t wanted for a crime, why can’t they stick him back in the lorry? The question is, are we breaching his human rights if he wants to go? It breaches them when we try to deport someone, so it must do if we’re stopping them from leaving, or is it just that our government needs their vote?

Asylum Seekers Must Repay £10,000 Once They Earn

Asylum seekers will be required to pay back £10,000 of what the taxpayer spends on supporting them, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will announce on Tuesday.

Once they have a job, the money can be taken out of their pay cheques in monthly instalments, just like a student loan.

However, because the payments would be means-tested, there are still significant questions about how much money the Home Office can recover.

Those who successfully claim they cannot afford to repay the money will be excused from the scheme.

The £10,000 sum – a flat-rate charge levied on all adult asylum seekers – will partially compensate the taxpayer for the cost of keeping asylum seekers in hotels or self-catering accommodation while their claims are decided.

Last year £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the UK.

The Home Office has said it costs an average of £158,000 a year to support a family of asylum seekers.

Ms Mahmood said: ‘The cost of asylum accommodation on the British taxpayer is too high.

‘We have already reduced asylum costs by £1 billion, but it is also right that we ask those who can contribute to do so.

‘Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility.

‘Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.’

The new Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is scheduled to be submitted in Parliament, will include the additional measures.

The Home Office said the ‘primary mechanism’ for the repayments would be direct deductions from wages, but it could also be done through the tax and benefits systems.

Before being granted permission to reside permanently in Britain, immigrants must settle the entire debt.

Anyone who leaves the country will be required to be making their repayments in order to return.

It is unclear how the policy will deal with asylum seekers who secretly end up working undeclared, cash-in-hand jobs.

Additionally, it’s unclear if it will motivate more asylum applicants to stay unemployed.

Only a quarter of 16-to 64-year-olds given asylum between 2015 and 2023 were in employment within a year, with the proportion rising to half by two years after being granted refugee status.

Asylum hotels currently cost the taxpayer an average of £144 per person per night, and self-catering asylum accommodation costs just over £23 a night.

Claimants in self-catering accommodation receive £49.18 a £ 49.18-a-week allowance, while those on full board get £9.95 a week.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: ‘It is flattering that Labour have adopted yet another policy put forward by the Conservative Party.

‘This precise scheme was proposed by us in an amendment to the Immigration Bill last year, which Labour blocked.’

He added: ‘Labour are failing to remove illegal immigrants and have wasted two years in government tinkering around the edges.

‘The Conservatives have set out clear and deliverable policies which we encourage Labour to copy in order to completely end illegal immigration.

‘We would leave the European Convention on Human Rights and modern slavery treaties that are restricting deportations and would allow for all illegal immigrants to be deported – meaning we then won’t need to worry about who pays for accommodating them.’

Wouldn’t it have been more feasible to not house them in the first place?

And the government’s strategy would only work if they were to find work, so that their earnings could be declared. But they didn’t come here to work; they came here to take. Some might work, but most of them will never contribute.

Of course, this is all smoke and mirrors yet again in an endeavour to deceive the public. It will presumably never happen, and this is why our government are constantly insulting our intelligence.

But from someone with a wee bit of intelligence. Just stop them coming, and stop giving billions in aid to non-British citizens. It’s about time we started taking care of our own citizens. It’s quite simple really, and this makes good sense, something our present government appears to have very little of.

If these migrants can afford to pay thousands to cross the Channel, then they have enough money to sustain themselves, and if they don’t, then remain where you are.

Of course they won’t pay; which goonhead thought this idea up? Yet another brainwave that will never happen – they should not be here in the first place. The clue is in the word ILLEGAL!

Andy Burnham’s Plan To Run Britain Part-Time From Manchester

Andy Burnham wants to manage Britain from Manchester on a part-time basis.

The would-be prime minister yesterday said a new ‘No 10 North’ outpost would be the ‘nerve centre’ of his government, and friends of the ex-Manchester mayor say he plans to spend a day or two a week in his former northern fiefdom when his schedule allows.

Mr Burnham also intends to shun a move to Downing Street, keeping his family home near Wigan and using No 10 only when he is working in the capital.

Set to be established as prime minister in a Labour coronation next month, Mr Burnham – in his first intervention since returning to Parliament – set out a Left-wing manifesto, including a massive new wave of council-house building, a focus on factory jobs and state control of the utilities.

He claimed the moves could revive the ‘working-class aspiration’ of the 1970s.

The No 10 North outpost, he said, would be the ‘nerve centre of a rewired Britain’.

It would help fix Britain’s ‘broken’ political system and deliver ‘the biggest rebalancing of power our country has seen’ in order to deliver ‘good growth in every postcode’, he added.

The Daily Mail revealed that Mr Burnham was eyeing up possible tax raids on middle-class southerners to finance his plans, including an annual property tax based on the value of family homes.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said his agenda amounted to ‘more tax’ so that he could ‘send money to the North of England to try and bribe voters at the next election’.

Security experts have warned it could cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds a year to replicate the fortress-level No 10 security in the North.

Both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak considered staying in their London family homes while serving as prime minister, but were informed that it was not feasible due to the duties of the position.

Some government insiders worry Mr Burnham’s plans could also accelerate Whitehall’s working-from-home culture, with more officials choosing to ‘dial in’ when the PM is out of the capital, but Mr Burnham said the plan was central to his vision for rolling out devolved government throughout England.

One friend told the Mail: ‘He will not be using No 10 as his main home, he’ll be staying in Golborne.

‘He said if he was elected prime minister, he wouldn’t forget where he was from, and he meant it.’

Another supporter said: ‘This isn’t just part of a political strategy. It’s who Andy Burnham is. He isn’t just from the North, he’s of the North. It made him.’

Mr Burnham has escaped scrutiny since his thumping by-election win in Makerfield, which started a coup against Sir Keir.

With possible Labour rivals falling by the wayside, he looks set to become prime minister on July 20, despite not having stood at the 2024 election.

In a tightly controlled appearance in front of the cameras in Manchester, Mr Burnham insisted his plans were ‘consistent with the 2024 manifesto’ which delivered Labour’s landslide. Still, he again declined to take questions from the media about how he will govern and who he will establish in his top team. 

Ironically, aides argued he was unable to answer questions because the self-styled ‘King of the North’ was in a rush to get back to London.

Addressing an audience of Labour activists, Mr Burnham acknowledged that his devolution drive could take a decade to deliver a sustained increase in living standards. Still, he insisted that a radical rewiring of the state was essential to rebuilding Britain.

‘Westminster hasn’t been working for people, and it hasn’t been working for a very long time,’ he said.

‘In fact, it is broken. And, as a result, the country isn’t where it should be. It is stuck in a rut.

‘We cannot go through another decade like the one we have just had. We need a new determination to raise living standards of every person in this land.’

Mr Burnham’s address was light on policy detail. But he vowed to deliver a world where there was ‘good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart’, delivered by mayors with new powers over tax, housing and welfare.

Hinting at more immediate help on the cost of living in a Budget this autumn, he added: ‘While not taking risks with the public finances, I will seek to give Britain some breathing space as soon as I can.’

Nigel Farage warned that Britain could not afford to wait another decade for change to be delivered. 

The Reform UK leader pointed to experience in Wales and Scotland that devolution does not automatically deliver better growth or public services.

Mr Farage said: ‘Just to give more and more powers, including tax-raising powers, to mayors across the country won’t of itself stop the boats; it won’t deal with the national debt.

‘He says it will take ten years to lift Britain back up. Those of us who believe Britain is broken would say we have not got ten years.

‘The country will be completely unrecognisable in ten years. The country wants immediate action.’

Mrs Badenoch said Mr Burnham’s plans amounted to ‘more and more government (being) created all over the country’, adding: ‘More politicians, more outsourcing of decisions to bodies with even less scrutiny and accountability.

‘He doesn’t have a plan beyond telling mayors to go and sort it out. This is not good enough.’

This man seems overly arrogant, has no mandate, is not elected, and declines to respond to any questions, but let’s give it two months and let’s see how little Andy is rated.

This is a northerner who doesn’t even seem to like London, and we are going to have him as our prime minister. It doesn’t give us much confidence, does it? And this will cost the taxpayer, which means he will be squandering money for a 3-year appointment until the next General Election.

And why does he avoid answering questions? Is it because he has no answers?

A General Election is exactly what we need, and we need one right now!

Under Andy Burnham, Universal Claimants Will Receive £304 A Month

If Andy Burnham is elected prime minister, millions of benefit claimants may anticipate increased payouts.

The former Greater Manchester Mayor looks set to take over from Keir Starmer in Number 10, and he will inherit the recently introduced rules over child benefit payments.

Starmer’s Government ditched the two-child benefit cap, boosting the finances of some of the most impoverished families.

He said this would result in half a million children being lifted out of poverty.

However, the Prime Minister faced criticism for being lenient on welfare and providing excessive benefits; Andy Burnham, who is expected to succeed him, will also have to address similar accusations. But the new Makerfield MP has been a fervent advocate for doing away with the cap, which was put in place by the Conservatives.

He said last year that the two-child limit “can’t be defended”. This indicates he will stick with the decision to ditch the two-child limit.

It enables parents to get larger Universal Credit payments if they have three or more children. In the past, they could only make claims for a maximum of two children.

People with three children will be paid £304 extra each month, while the amount will be £608 for households with four children.

Burnham said of the two-child limit last September: “I never supported its introduction. It can’t be defended, because it’s arbitrary.

“Why does the third kid just get cut out or get less, or why do all three if you’ve got three kids? I’m one of the three kids.

“My mum got child benefit for all of us … My parents always said to me something that has definitely guided me in my life – you can never visit the sins of the parents on the kids.”

But what about those pensioners who will never see their pensions? This is the part of the debate that gets swept under the rug, and it’s the part that should make people furious.

Some of those people will die before even reaching the rising pension age, and this isn’t speculative. It’s already happening, and our government raised it knowing that many of those people would not live long enough. It was framed as modernisation, but the financial modelling assumed early deaths so that they wouldn’t have to pay out.

If Andy Burham wants to be popular when he becomes Prime Minister, and he wants people to warm to him, then he seriously needs to lower the pension age, because lowering the pension age would be one of the single most popular things any UK Prime Minister could do, but here’s the thing, it’s popular, it’s morally justified, and it’s economically feasible, but politically terrifying for any leader, and that’s why no one touches it.

Andy Burnham, be bold, be fierce, and be the leader that our country wants and needs.

If he needs to trim anything, then it should be from the wealthy and celebrated, not the working man, not the disabled, not pensioners, but from people who can afford a little less in their pocket.

The government’s financial purse isn’t out of money, but it is in a severe fiscal squeeze. Well, if that’s the case, then our government need to compartmentalise what is really important, particularly for the welfare of the country and not other countries.

I understand that the UK must look rather inviting for some people who enter it legally or maybe not so legally, but if people want to live in our country, then they need to have secured employment before they get here or be able to provide for themselves. We are not a charity!

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started