Gary Lineker And 120 Other British Millionaires Tell The New Prime Minister They Actually Want To Pay More Tax On Their Wealth

The idea of millionaires practically waving at the Treasury saying, “Go on then, take a bit more off me,” has a certain British comedy to it, almost like a sketch where Gary Lineker knocks on Downing Street with a cheque and a packet of crisps.

There’s something wonderfully British about the “super‑rich” queueing up like they’re at the Post Office, politely insisting the government take more money off them—almost Monty Python energy.

Gary Lineker stepping forward as the unofficial captain of the “Tax Us More FC” just adds to the comedy. You can practically picture him doing a Match of the Day‑style analysis:

“Well, Andy, you see, the wealthy haven’t really been pulling their weight on the left flank of fiscal responsibility…”

But beneath the humour, it’s a real political moment: wealthy people publicly asking for higher taxes is rare, and it’s landing at a time when public services are stretched thin.

The whole thing reads like a sketch. The former England striker, now the nation’s most recognisable football pundit, suddenly popping up as the spokesperson for “Please tax us more, Prime Minister” is peak British absurdity.

You can almost picture Lineker doing a Match of the Day breakdown of his own bank account:

“Well, Andy, as you can see from the replay, my assets have been left completely unmarked… plenty of space there for a modest wealth tax to slot one in the top corner.”

The slogan has the energy of something you’d see printed on a mug in a National Trust gift shop.

“We are proud to pay and here to stay.” It’s so earnest, so perfectly British, you can almost hear it being read out in a 1940s public‑information broadcast.

The whole thing has the tone of a very polite, very British millionaire uprising.

A 65‑year‑old worth around £30 million stepping forward to say, with absolute sincerity:

“Paying your fair share is a basic British value… Our richest people can do more and most want to.”

It’s earnest, it’s noble — and it’s unintentionally hilarious. Because you can picture it, can’t you?

Gary Lineker, sleeves rolled up, delivering this line like he’s analysing a dodgy offside:

“Well, if you look closely at the replay, you’ll see the ultra‑rich have been left completely unmarked… plenty of space there for a modest wealth tax to slot one in.”

‘To live up to our national values, our new government must raise taxes on extreme levels of wealth for a fairer, better, more hopeful Britain.’

Why it’s funny

Because the cast list feels like the Avengers of polite wealth redistribution. A musician, a crime writer, an economist, and a football legend all teaming up to tell the Prime Minister:

“Hello, yes, we’re extremely rich — please take more of our money.”

You can practically imagine Lineker doing a Match of the Day‑style analysis of the letter, Brian Eno providing the atmospheric background music, Val McDermid narrating it like a tense crime scene, and Gary Stevenson popping up with graphs.

And even when they’re making a perfectly serious point, the whole thing still reads like the politest millionaire revolt in British history.

They’re essentially telling Andy Burnham:

“Don’t tax the grafters. Tax the people whose money earns more money than they do.”

And this line they’ve given Burnham:

“Extreme wealth sitting idle in the hands of a few should be used to reduce inequality and improve public services… It’s time to tax us, the super rich.”

And this is the part that gives the whole thing a proper bit of British irony.

Because yes, Gary Lineker is now proudly signing letters saying:

“It’s time to tax us, the super rich.”

…but rewind a few years, and he was locked in a very long, very public battle with HMRC over a £4.9 million tax bill relating to his freelance work for the BBC and BT Sport.

It’s also exactly why the Mail and its billionaire ownership go after him with such gusto. There’s a perfect storm of irony, class politics, and media incentives all swirling around Gary Lineker, and he’s become the kind of figure their readership is primed to react to.

And yes, technically, Gary Lineker could have paid more tax all along. Anyone can. You can literally ring up HMRC and say:

“Hello, I’d like to voluntarily give you more money.”

They won’t say no.

His brand has taken a battering, and no amount of PR polish can fully reverse a narrative once certain parts of the British press decide someone is “done.” But the reason it feels like toast isn’t that the public suddenly turned on him — it’s because a very specific media ecosystem has worked overtime to make that happen.

The heroic millionaire offers to pay more tax while secretly hiding the rest” — is exactly what the tabloids want people to believe, because it fits their emotional script. But the reality is a lot messier, and a lot less cloak‑and‑dagger.

This, of course, is a popular suspicion, but it’s not actually supported by anything concrete. It’s a story — and a very convenient one — pushed by media outlets whose billionaire owners dislike him.

Why?

Because it turns him from:

“public figure advocating fairness”

into:

“hypocritical millionaire pretending to care”

That’s a much easier sell to their readership.

If you strip away the heat and keep the humour, the whole “champagne socialist” thing becomes less an insult and more a perfect bit of British character comedy.

And Lineker fits that archetype so well it’s almost theatrical.

You Don’t Dump Dignity On The Pavement

Security staff at St Thomas’ & Guy’s Hospital rolled an elderly man outside, left him half‑naked on a bench in the heat, and failed to return — a repeated incident showing a serious breach of duty of care.

This wasn’t a misunderstanding. It was a failure of care, a breach of safeguarding, and a loss of compassion in a place that exists to protect people.

Regardless of whatever explanation they give, you do not dump an elderly, vulnerable man on the street with no clothes — basic humanity should prevent that.

Even if security had a good reason to escort him out, it is not their job to dump a vulnerable elderly man on the street with little or no clothing — their duty is to remove him safely and protect, not abandon.

He wasn’t just abandoned by security; he was abandoned by everyone walking past him. A vulnerable elderly man, half‑clothed, slumped in the heat, and people just streamed by like he was invisible. That’s not just a failure of the hospital; it’s a failure of basic human compassion.

If I had been the one walking past, I would have gone straight into the hospital, demanded gowns to cover him, and made sure he got home safely — because you don’t disregard a vulnerable man left half‑clothed on the street.

This incident reflects a wider problem: hospitals are increasingly lacking compassion, and vulnerable patients are being left without dignity, support, or basic humane care.

This incident shows a serious lack of compassion within the hospital, and the Trust should be ashamed that a vulnerable elderly man was left outside without clothing, support, or basic humane care.

No explanation makes what happened acceptable.

Hospitals deal with difficult people, yes. Security removes people for safety reasons, yes. I’ve seen this myself many times. But nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses dumping a vulnerable adult outside with no clothing, no dignity, and no protection.

Nan’s Leg Was Amputated After Routine Foot Scans Were Not Done

A grandmother had to have her leg amputated and subsequently died after a doctor “butchered” her foot instead of running a routine scan for a suspected cyst.

Erna McGuinness went for her annual scan at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, in August 2020. But her daughter Eileen, 36, has claimed a doctor refused to perform a scan and instead carried out a procedure to remove a mass using scissors that were “not clean.”

She said Erna was left with a massive open wound, which was just bandaged, and by 2 pm the same day she went into septic shock and was rushed back to hospital in an ambulance. There, Erna had to have her left leg amputated due to the infection.

The family took legal action in September 2021, but following delays the NHS offered to settle the case outside of court for a five-figure sum – which Eileen later accepted in November 2025. Tragically, Erna was left bedbound following the amputation, and after her “lifestyle declined” as a consequence, she died in January 2022 aged 67.

The doctor is no longer employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Eileen, who was taking some time out from work due to the stress of the case, from Glasgow, Scotland, said: “I don’t know if she was the first person to be wronged by this person.

“I still see that picture of her foot after it happened when I go to bed at night. They actually nearly killed the woman. She said to me, ‘Make sure they don’t get away with what happens to me’. I wanted to be mum’s voice, but I was under so much tension.

“She was only going into hospital for her foot to be looked at on a scan. They went in with a pair of scissors that were not clean. They were like the wee ones you use to cut nose hair with. They left mum’s foot with a very massive open wound that even if you were in reasonable health, you would suffer with.

“They took mum into hospital with septic shock and in resus the surgeon came around – a different surgeon – and said we can take her leg, but she might not make it through surgery, and if we treat her with antibiotics she will not make it after a couple of days. They had to take her leg, and it spiralled from there.”

Eileen said Erna had pleaded to stop the procedure – which she claims was done without anaesthetic. Eileen said: “She said ‘that’s sore’ and ‘you’re hurting me’, but they continued to do what they were doing. I got on the phone to them the following day. They said they’d do the exact same thing again. They played God.”

She continued: “Mum had COPD but apart from that was going to bingo every night, loved her grandchildren and was the happiest woman ever. It killed her in the end – it destroyed her.

“It was the mentality of going from being an independent woman who was so free, cooking her own meals, to where she couldn’t do a thing; for sure that affected her. She had everybody over – this woman used to host Christmas for 27 people, made the best lunches and dinners, and everyone was always welcome for food in her house.

“When her leg went, her whole mental state went. The things I read in the report, I didn’t realise how low she was at the time. She basically wanted to end her life because she couldn’t live in the pain and misery she was in.”

Eileen says the legal case should have gone to the High Court in March 2025 but says it was delayed by the NHS as they were “dragging their heels”. The case was rescheduled to go through the High Court in May 2026, but in November 2025 the NHS offered to settle outside of court.

After six years of back and forth and feeling “traumatised” by the ordeal, Eileen agreed to the five-figure settlement. She said: “I was so tired after six years of back and forward I couldn’t do it any longer. I don’t know how they got away with it for so long.

“I would love mum’s story to be told as not another name in their victim list but for people to remember her name. She always said, ‘if god forbid anything happens to me, let my story be told and don’t let them get away with anything they did’. What they did was inhuman and cruel; they hurt somebody who would have held out her hand and helped them”.

A spokesperson for NHSGGC said: “While we cannot comment on the details of any patient’s care, our sympathies remain with the family of Erna McGuinness. We recognise the care Erna received was not what should have been expected, and we are deeply sorry for her experience and the impact this had. This case was the subject of legal proceedings, which have now concluded.”

I am utterly shocked, because obviously the most logical medical move is to ignore a routine scan and instead hack into someone’s foot with unsterile scissors, leaving everyone wondering — with the deepest sincerity — how on earth this medical genius was ever allowed to practise medicine.

The doctor’s name has not been released anywhere in verified reporting. Every credible source — including Yahoo News UK and Metro — states only that the doctor is “no longer employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde”, and no disciplinary outcome or identity has been revealed.

The NHS doesn’t vet doctors; the GMC does, and they determine who is authorised to practise medicine in the UK. If someone has a licence, the NHS presumes they’re safe to employ, and a dangerous clinician can stay in post for years.

Hospitals can remove a doctor without naming them publicly, without a tribunal, and without triggering GMC action. This means the public never sees the warning signs.

Chemo To Cuffs — Then The Internet Made Her ‘Cartel Nan’

Viral ICE granny had a past drug‑smuggling arrest — but her daughter says the charge was tossed last year.

Her daughter begged for her release, warning she could die in ICE custody without urgent treatment, she told the Daily Mail.

ICE grabbed 56‑year‑old Martha Ochoa at a gas station on her way to treatment — because nothing says ‘Good morning, America’ like arresting a cancer patient, her daughter told the Daily Mail.

‘She’s a permanent resident. She’s been a permanent resident since the late 80s,’ Marilyn Morales, Ochoa’s daughter, said in a phone interview Wednesday afternoon.

Ochoa’s run‑in with ICE comes just days after the agency suddenly announced it would stop doing traffic‑stop arrests — probably because two of those stops ended with agents shooting men dead in Texas and Maine. Timing, as they say, is everything.

She added ICE hasn’t bothered to explain why they grabbed her mum — because apparently ‘basic communication’ is also on pause.

Her daughter admitted the drug‑smuggling charge was tossed recently — because, frankly, her mum’s health is so bad she can barely smuggle herself anywhere.

“It was dismissed back in 2021. She handled everything — we paid every fee, she showed up to every court date, and the whole thing was tossed,’ Morales said.

ICE didn’t respond to Daily Mail’s request for comment — not even after 24 hours and multiple nudges. Ghosting seems to be their official communication strategy.

In the footage, Ochoa is seen chatting with masked ICE agents in the Allsup’s gas‑station car park off Highway 54 — right on the Texas–New Mexico border, because apparently ICE loves a dramatic backdrop.

Her daughter says agents had been tailing Ochoa in unmarked cars — because nothing says ‘subtle’ like ICE playing undercover Uber.

Scared, Ochoa pulled into the convenience‑store car park and ran inside for help — convinced the unmarked cars tailing her were criminals, not ICE doing their best impression of a bargain‑bin spy movie.

As the mum of six and gran of four stepped back outside, she was met by agents in masks and vests screaming ‘Police ICE’ — because apparently subtlety wasn’t on the menu.

She went with them willingly to avoid trouble, but she doesn’t actually know what her rights are,’ explained the second‑eldest of six — because ICE loves a compliant grandma who’s too scared to argue.

Ochoa was diagnosed with cancer three years ago, her daughter said — what began as breast cancer later spread to her lungs and then her bones, because apparently life decided to throw every awful plot twist at her at once.

She’s terminal, so you can imagine why her chemo matters — it’s literally the only thing keeping her alive right now. They do it every two weeks,’ said Morales, who’s pregnant and understandably fed up with the whole circus.

She said her mum’s doctors even tried to step in — sending paperwork to the ICE office at Camp East Montana, where the grandma’s being held, basically begging them to release her. ICE, of course, treated it like optional reading.

It looked like ICE was gearing up to let her go around noon — and then, by the afternoon, Morales said the agency suddenly had a change of heart. Classic ICE: hope in the morning, plot twist by tea time.

Morales says ICE refused to release her — and wouldn’t even say when they might. Basically, the agency went full ‘we’ll let you know… never.

She was still stuck in the detention centre as of Thursday afternoon — ICE apparently running on its own mysterious timetable.

This is the most inhumane excuse they gave us: that they have to keep her detained for their own safety because they’re getting social‑media threats now that she’s gone viral,’ her daughter claimed — as if a terminally ill grandma is somehow the danger in this scenario.

Originally from Mexico, Ochoa has been living in West Texas since she was 19 — decades of building a life there, only for ICE to treat her like she just wandered in yesterday.

Her late husband was a US veteran before he passed away several years ago — a man who served the country, only for his widow to be treated like this.

Ochoa’s children are scrambling to hire a lawyer and have already reached out to public officials who might actually do something — because waiting for ICE to show compassion clearly isn’t a strategy.

I’m terrified she hasn’t eaten. In her condition, she has to be eating — she needs proper care,’ her daughter said, fighting back tears, because watching a terminally ill mum go hungry in detention is its own kind of cruelty.

Look, you can think she’s probably guilty and destined for deportation — but technically, in the United States, you’re innocent until proven guilty. So legally? She’s still wearing the ‘innocent’ label, whether ICE likes it or not.

Southern Water: Delivering That Authentic Seaside Experience — Now With Extra Sewage, Free Of Charge

Southern Water dumping sewage off the Kent coast wasn’t just a slip‑up; it was a full‑blown “we’ve absolutely lost the plot” moment. And now they’ve been slapped with a £7 million fine, which — let’s be honest — is probably what they spend on branded lanyards and “team‑building workshops” about accountability.

Southern Water, a company pulling in £800 million to £1 billion a year, stood in court last April and said, “Yes, Your Honour, we did 13 illegal sewage dumps.” Honestly, with that level of revenue, you’d think they could afford to keep the pumps working and not treat the Kent coastline like a toilet.

The court didn’t mince its words. They said Southern Water caused harm through a “pattern of repeated incidents over several years.” Translation: They didn’t just slip once — they kept tripping, falling, and dragging the coastline down with them.

And then prosecutors dropped the real jaw‑dropper: Some of the sewage was “unscreened.”

It means the waste still had solid material in it. Not filtered. Not treated. Just… straight from the pipes to the sea.

So while Southern Water was raking in £800 million to £1 billion a year, they were sending Broadstairs and Margate a lovely little cocktail of:

  • Human waste
  • Wet wipes
  • Sanitary products
  • Everything else that should NEVER see open water

It’s the kind of thing that makes you want to bleach your soul.

They said they’re “deeply sorry” and have made “significant changes” under a new leadership team. Darling, please. This is the PR equivalent of turning up late, covered in mud, and saying, “Sorry I’m a mess, but I’ve started journalling now.”

Nine counts of dumping untreated sewage

Nine.

Not one rogue incident. Not a single “oopsie.”

Nine separate occasions where they basically said:

“Broadstairs and Margate?

Yeah, let’s just… pour raw sewage in there.

Nature will sort it out.”

Untreated, unfiltered, unscreened — the full horror show.

Solid waste bobbing about like it’s auditioning for I’m a Celebrity: Get Me Out of Here (Sewage Edition).

They failed to have a standby pump at Margate’s station from 27 July 2019 to 4 October 2020. That’s not a brief oversight. That’s FOURTEEN MONTHS of running a major coastal sewage station with no backup plan whatsoever.

That’s like saying:

“We’re a billion‑pound company, but we operate like a dodgy garden shed project.”

Southern Water got slapped with a £7,127,083 fine after Mr Justice Johnson ruled the company’s “overall serious failures” meant it couldn’t even maintain the basic kit needed to stop its own sewage disasters from spewing into the Kent coast.

Southern Water’s £7,127,083 fine only proves what everyone’s thinking: it’s long past time the top bosses faced personal fines or jail, because until the people in charge feel the consequences, the sewage scandals will keep flowing.

The water companies’ favourite excuse — “heavy rain made us do it” — has officially collapsed, because if they’re still dumping sewage during hosepipe bans and scorching summer days, it’s clear they’ll keep pumping filth into rivers and seas no matter the weather, the season, or the law.

Southern Water can say they’re “deeply sorry” until the pipes rust, but if they keep dumping sewage and passing fines onto customers, nothing will change — the day a senior manager is personally fined or jailed is the day this filthy nonsense stops overnight.

Southern Water can apologise until the seagulls stop screaming, but if they keep dumping sewage, dodging accountability, and passing fines onto customers while directors walk away untouched, it’s obvious the only thing that will stop this disaster is when the bosses who took the money and ran finally face real justice.

Britain: Let’s Stop Faffing And Crack On

Andy Burnham is set to replace Keir Starmer in Downing Street on July 20 after winning the support of 94% of Labour MPs, which is basically the political equivalent of everyone in the office agreeing to let Dave from HR run the place because he brought in doughnuts.

Whether Andy Burnham can unite the country is entirely up to the British public — though if he manages to get everyone from Cornwall to Carlisle agreeing on anything more complicated than the weather, he’ll have achieved something no Prime Minister has managed since about 1973.

Burnham might even end up dividing the country between taxpayers and benefit receivers — though in Britain, we’re already divided over tea strength, queue etiquette, and whether “scone” rhymes with “gone” or “bone,” so he’d hardly be starting from scratch.

The only time a Labour government truly unites the country is when everyone’s equally miserable — though to be fair, Britain doesn’t need any help being united in misery; we’ve already got the weather, the trains, and the price of a pint doing most of the heavy lifting, and Burnham could end up worse than Starmer — though in British politics, “worse” is usually just shorthand for “the plot twist we weren’t emotionally prepared for.”

Burnham may have been appointed leader of the Labour Party, but he hasn’t been elected by the public — which, to be fair, is how British politics often works; Prime Ministers tend to appear in Downing Street the same way new managers appear at work: suddenly, mysteriously, and without anyone remembering voting for them.

Great Britain, it isn’t; United Kingdom, it will never be — at this point some people joke we should just rename the place “Has‑Been Island” and be done with it, given how often the country feels like it’s held together with nostalgia, duct tape, and sheer stubbornness.

If you sum up British politics as “same trough, different pigs,” though, to be fair, Westminster has always been less about the livestock and more about the never‑ending scramble for the slop labelled “public approval.”

Andy Burnham will be Starmer Mark II — the sequel nobody asked for — but with better communication skills, like the same political software updated with a smoother voice‑over and fewer awkward pauses.

Labour divided the country, so the idea they’re suddenly going to unite everyone now feels about as likely as the trains running on time — technically possible, but only in theory and never on a weekday.

The only thing Burnham will unite the country with is bankruptcy — and given how things already feel, it’s like he’d just be cutting the ribbon on a grand opening we’ve been queuing for since last winter.

A new government will just mean more taxes, more borrowing, more division, more economic chaos, more unemployment and more boats — basically ‘more’ of everything you don’t want, like Britain’s own version of an unwanted subscription service that nobody remembers signing up for but somehow keeps renewing every year.

I foresee years of waste, strikes, more waste, record‑high immigration and even higher taxes — basically Britain signing up for the deluxe ‘chaos package’, complete with optional extras like gridlocked services and a national mood that resembles a wet Tuesday in February.

It’s starting to look like he’s trying to sow division rather than unity — and that if he keeps up the current naïve, slightly playground‑level rhetoric, he’ll end up causing more civil unrest than harmony, like a headteacher who tries to calm an assembly by shouting “EVERYONE STOP SHOUTING!” and he’s unpopular before he’s even begun, and people are already counting down the 35 months until they can vote for something different — it’s like watching the clock in a long shift, except the shift is the entire country and the manager keeps giving motivational speeches nobody asked for.

Britain’s Going Retro — But Without The Milk Snatcher

As Burnham takes office and starts pointing at Thatcher for the nation’s woes, I’m already rolling my eyes, because it’s just the usual political pantomime — leaders blaming the last lot, the last lot blaming the ones before, and the whole thing playing out like Westminster’s favourite recurring sketch.

Burnham is essentially rewinding Britain to before the “wrong turns” as his “coronation” comes to an end, and he begins to harken back to the pre-1980s golden days. This is accompanied by the dramatic sighs of everyone who remembers the 1970s and believes we are about to enter a sepia-toned replay, and he is essentially dusting out an instruction manual from the 1970s and reading it aloud at his own coronation as he trots around London and the South East, hinting at nationalisations and more public control.

Nothing says “new era” like a coronation tour packed with nationalisation allusions, Thatcher references, and a leader who has suddenly developed an enigmatic allergy to journalists, as Burnham gets ready to replace Starmer on Monday and deliberately avoids answering any questions from the media, and he appears to be launching his premiership via the world’s most aggressively wholesome TikTok channel as he avoids answering questions from the media and instead treats the country to soft-soap clips about how he takes his tea, whether he wears socks with sandals, and his firm stance against Yorkshire puddings at Christmas.

Burnham’s coronation has been so seamless that he may as well have come on a velvet pillow borne by the Parliamentary Labour Party, as he rushes into the Labour leadership following a symbolic procedure supported by over 95 per cent of MPs only weeks after his by-election return.

As he sails into the Labour leadership with 95 per cent of MPs behind him, Graham Stringer refuses to sign a ‘blank cheque’ — like the lone wedding guest who stands up during the vows to say, ‘Actually, I’d like a bit more detail before we crack on.’

On another dramatic day in UK politics:

British politics once again demonstrates that it’s just a soap opera with better suits as Burnham prepares to use his political capital on social care, Starmer bids farewell from Kyiv, and Wes Streeting maintains he wasn’t crying outside the incoming leader’s office.

The comments section is already making jokes that Burnham is essentially promising a return to vintage Labour, complete with nationalisations, nostalgia, and enough ideological chest-thumping to make it feel like a reunion tour, as he promises to be “unashamedly Labour in our priorities and in the decisions we take.”

Burnham is essentially providing a teaser for a blockbuster remake when he pledges a government with the “courage to fix the big things politics has neglected” and the “conviction to argue for our plans”—bold statements, dramatic music, and the expectation that the sequel will do better than the original.

And he’s essentially dusting up the old Labour scrapbook and recounting the pre-Thatcher chapters like a guy desperate to rewind the country to before the narrative twist, as he maintains that Britain suffered “a series of wrong turns in the 1980s” when political power was consolidated, and economic power was privatised.

Burnham is essentially announcing a complete reroute when he says that “a new path to the one we’ve been on for the last 40 years” will be necessary to make the economy work for everyone. It’s as if Britain has been on the wrong course since 1986 and he’s finally pressing the big, glowing “recalculate” button, and as Burnham gives Sir Keir only a polite sprinkle of praise for workers’ rights, the NHS and the Hillsborough Law — especially with Starmer not even attending — it’s the political equivalent of thanking the previous tenant for not breaking the boiler before you move in.

Burnham strolled into the leadership backed by 369 of Labour’s 403 MPs and eight of eleven unions; the whole thing was less an election and more a formality — the kind where the result is basically announced before the pens have even touched the nomination forms.

With Labour trailing Reform UK for over eighteen months, the party is hoping that Burnham’s presence will be more of a “defibrillator” than a “new leader,” igniting a bounce large enough to pull their polling prospects out of the recovery position.

As Starmer says he’d have won the next general election if he hadn’t been ousted — but is ‘proud to hand over the party in good shape’ —  it’s the political equivalent of someone being booted off the stage and still shouting, ‘I would’ve smashed it, by the way!’ while straightening the curtains on their way out, and with Burnham gearing up for social‑care heroics, Starmer off on his Kyiv goodbye tour, and Wes Streeting denying he had a tiny emotional wobble, already saying British politics has fully slipped into EastEnders territory — just with higher production values and fewer dramatic pauses before the duff‑duffs.

As Burnham’s major launch gets underway, it’s already claiming that this is typical Labour behaviour: blame Thatcher, dismiss everything else, and continue as if the 1980s are essentially an Olympic event that we’ve been preparing for since the miners’ strike, and with Burnham pointing at Thatcher,   he’s just joining the global tradition — Tories blame Labour, Trump blames Biden and Obama — and everyone’s shrugging like, ‘Of course, love, it’s politics; the theatrics are part of the ticket price.’

Brent Council Triumphs Again: Needs Up, Support Down, Logic Missing

A North London man complained that his council “wrongly removed” weekend care support from his severely disabled and non-verbal brother. The man had already had to move back into the family home to look after his autistic brother to prevent him from being put in a care home.

Following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO), Brent Council has been ordered to apologise for its failings in the matter and pay the man – referred to in the LGO report as Mr X – £1,000 for the “avoidable distress” caused.

Mr X described the “huge strain” it had put on him caring for his brother – referred to in the report as Mr Y – due to his “extensive care needs” and it being unsafe for other members of the family to provide care. Mr Y has autism with motor and sensory difficulties, meaning he can be a threat to himself and to others, according to the LGO.

Mr Y lives at home with his family, where he is supported by a care package and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Mr X told the Ombudsman that he had to return to live with his family to help care for his brother; otherwise, there was a chance of him having to be put in a care home. Mr X has since had the full-time responsibility for Mr Y, which he said has put “a significant strain on him and his family”, according to the report.

A jointly funded health and social care package from the Children’s Services Disability Team supported Mr Y in the community, consisting of 81 hours of care per week – which included three nights and on Sundays. In May 2024, Mr Y’s care package was reviewed after Mr X explained to the social worker that he needed to return to work full time and the family were requesting more care hours.

At the review, Brent Council said that it was looking at a day centre for Mr Y; however, the centre later said it could not meet his needs. In early July, the social worker again visited Mr X and supported an increase in the care hours to 111 hours a week because of his intention to work full time, the LGO report adds.

Later that month, the council’s 18 Plus Panel considered the care package and determined that it should be increased. However, the Sunday hours were reduced from 10 hours of one-to-one support and three hours of two-to-one support, as well as a reduction in the weekly two-to-one support. Mr X “was worried about this” and received no decision letter explaining the panel’s decision.

Mr X submitted a formal complaint about the reduction in care hours, claiming they were “just sprung on him” and he was given no rationale for the decision. A stage two complaints report was completed in January, 2025, which upheld “most of his complaints” and set out a number of recommendations, according to the LGO.

Brent Council accepted the recommendations of the review, which included that it should, as soon as possible, undertake a thorough risk assessment and review the support plan – with an emphasis on Positive Behaviour Support, risk assessments and any training needs.

However, in August 2025, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the council had not implemented the suggested actions. He also wanted to be compensated for the loss of the 10 hours of support since July, 2024, at a cost of £20 an hour, on the basis that it was “removed without proper consideration or rationale”.

Following the review, a new care plan was scheduled to start in mid-March, 2026, but Mr X told the Ombudsman that the council had still failed to increase the care hours since July 2024. Instead, the council had “rearranged the existing hours while reducing the one-to-one support during these times” – meaning it was a reallocation rather than an increase in the hours.

The council said that the plan would be reviewed in mid-May of this year, but Mr X claims this “still has not happened”.

The Ombudsman stated: “The failure to provide a decision letter, after the 18 Plus Panel meeting of July 2024, has meant that Mr X cannot understand the rationale for the reduction in the 2:1 Sunday support, particularly when the social worker was recommending an increase in hours. Since making his complaint, Mr X remains none the wiser about the rationale for the 18 Plus Panel’s decision of July 2024.

“I find the delay in reviewing the case and having an interim plan amounts to fault and this has compounded the faults identified in the earlier statutory investigation. This additional fault would also have compounded the injustice to Mr Y, Mr X and his family and has required Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman to ensure the council carried out the action it had agreed to.”

A Brent Council spokesperson said: “We accept the Ombudsman’s findings and apologise to the family for the shortcomings identified in this case. We recognise the impact this had on them and remain committed to learning from the issues raised.

“We have already taken steps to address the Ombudsman’s recommendations and are reviewing our processes to help ensure families receive the support they are entitled to in a timely and effective way.”

Many said it was “disgraceful” that Brent cut hours when the social worker recommended more, calling it another example of councils “balancing budgets on the backs of disabled people”, and people voiced deep compassion for the brother who had to give up work, saying the situation was “heartbreaking” and “unfair beyond words”.

Many widened the debate, saying this is “happening everywhere”, with councils “cutting first, assessing later”.

Some said the LGO was “the only body holding councils to account”, though others felt the £1,000 compensation was “insultingly small”.

People are saying it’s wicked to trim care for a non‑verbal autistic man who needs two‑to‑one support, pointing out that this is what happens when councils are broke and disabled people pay the price, that social workers do their job only for panels to override them to save money, and that £1,000 doesn’t even begin to cover the stress this family endured.

Public sentiment echoes outrage at Brent Council for disregarding its own social worker, sympathy for the family forced into crisis, profound mistrust of indistinct care‑panel judgments, a feeling of despair about chronic underfunding, and frustration that Ombudsman rulings seldom lead to significant structural transformation, all merging into a panorama of a system people no longer feel can protect the most vulnerable.

Bedroom Bandits, Billion‑Pound Chaos — And Busted By A Takeaway

Two teenagers who became Britain’s biggest cyber hackers are facing jail for a £29 million attack on the London transport network after being caught out by a takeaway order.

Thalha Jubair and Owen Flowers took down Transport for London (TfL) in a four-day cyber attack that threatened to cause £56 billion of ‘catastrophic damage’.

Jubair even spoke of ‘nuking’ access to the system, but TfL managed to ‘pull the plug’ on the network to stop the duo.

Now it can be revealed how the pair became Britain’s worst hackers, ransoming companies around the world for tens of millions of pounds, continuing to wreak havoc even behind bars.

The prolific pair were members of the notorious Scattered Spider network, which has been tied to attacks on Jaguar Land Rover costing an estimated £1.9 billion, a £300 million hack of M&S, and attacks on Harrods and the Co-op causing losses of £206 million.

Even as Flowers, 18, was behind bars, he used a smuggled phone to try to hack into the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice, various Government domains and even the prison he was being held in.

Meanwhile, Jubair, now 20, is estimated to have handled £200 million in cryptocurrency from ransoming businesses since he became a hacker at the age of 13, US prosecutors believe.

Ultimately it was the spending of that cash that was to prove his undoing after Jubair splashed out, not on fast cars or jewellery, but on food takeaways.

He bought gift vouchers for a food delivery service using a cryptocurrency wallet containing £27 million he and his fellow hackers had allegedly taken in ransom payments from major US companies.

The mistake led the FBI right to his door by tracing the takeaways, discovering that one of the most dangerous cyber hackers in Britain was a 17-year-old autistic loner living with his parents in a high-rise block next to a Met Police call handling centre in Tower Hamlets, East London.

Yesterday, Jubair’s lawyer Paul Keleher, KC, told Woolwich Crown Court that his client was a ‘modern-day Oliver Twist’, groomed by criminals to hack companies from the age of 13.

In a cautionary tale of an ‘online upbringing’, Jubair was given a smartphone at the age of four, and he got his first laptop at six from his father, who was a care worker, and from his mother, who worked with children who have special needs.

By the age of nine, Jubair was writing computer programmes. At 13, he had graduated to hacking after being recruited on gaming platforms such as Roblox. By 15, he had managed to infiltrate the City of London Police systems.

Mr Keleher said his client later graduated to becoming the ‘Artful Dodger’, recruiting other young hackers and teaching them tricks.

He revelled in his growing reputation online after being ridiculed and isolated at school.

His bedroom in a 22-storey tower block became the unlikely headquarters of a millionaire cyber criminal while Jubair was still at school.

He started off with SIM-swapping – when an individual’s mobile phone number is redirected to a hacker, allowing authentication codes to be sent straight to criminals.

In 2021, Jubair amassed 700 victims using this technique in an attack on BT/EE.

By the age of 15, he was part of a teenage hacking group described by prosecutors as ‘online bandits’, claiming tech giants such as Microsoft, Nvidia, Samsung, T-Mobile and Uber among their victims, stealing data and source code, including the unreleased Grand Theft Auto 6 from Rockstar.

Despite being under police investigation, Jubair was more nervous about his parents finding out, according to messages sent to other hackers.

But in the event, he was arrested in his school uniform. In 2023, he was convicted of 22 offences including blackmail, fraud and stalking, receiving an 18-month youth rehabilitation order.

But Jubair continued to target major corporations. US prosecutors have linked him and his associates to at least $115 million (£86 million) in ransom payments, including from a major hack of Las Vegas casinos.

Court documents allege that Jubair even hacked the US federal court system by contacting the help desk, impersonating a judge to ask for a password reset, then gaining entry to the judge’s email account.

In September 2024, Jubair vowed to ‘f*** the railways’ and ‘nuk[e] access’ after compromising the account of a single employee to hack into Transport for London’s systems.

Although buses and tubes were kept running, the breach disrupted TfL services for months, affected the personal data of millions of people and left all 28,000 TfL employees needing to reset their passwords in person.

The booking system for the Dial-a-Ride buses used by those with disabilities was shut down, and data on live Tube times for apps such as TfL Go and Citymapper was taken offline.

Jubair and Flowers hunted celebrity TfL users, but the duo were unable to get into credit card details.

When police pounced just hours later, they caught Flowers in the act of hacking two US healthcare companies from his bedroom in Walsall, West Midlands, where he lived with his grandmother.

Even in a prison cell, he continued to profit from his crimes, receiving £450,000 in Bitcoin, which he intended to ‘wash’ for clean cryptocurrency to pay drug debts from smoking cannabis behind bars.

Flowers boasted to other hackers that he would be out of prison soon: ‘Bro, I’ll get 2 ish years for TfL. Would have done a year by trial. Go home straight away. Right now it’s a section 3za [offence] which is 14 years max [in] prison, but cuz I was youth I won’t get as long as.’

He added: ‘Bro, I’ve been studying law on the side since I got arrested. Studying the judges I might get.’

Perhaps as the pair are sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court, they may discover the judge is less understanding.

As Mr Justice Turner stated: ‘There’s no Fagin in this case, it’s a Fagin-less crime.’

Perhaps they could get them to work with cyber security to instruct them on what to do to prevent this.

Just think, if they used their intelligence legally, they could run our treasury department, and we’d be sorted.

Parents don’t seem to have a clue what their kids are doing, but provide the money and equipment to let them do it.

I’ve got to confess, it’s kind of impressive. A Bedroom cyber‑brats blitz TfL for £29 million — then blow their masterplan with a takeaway blunder worthy of a sitcom.

The thing that truly bothers me is that our government believe it’s completely safe to put all of our money and sensitive and confidential data into computerised and cloud databases.

One of them will probably pass the bar and go on to become a top judge, just as a sideline so he can fight his own case. Another ‘catch me if you can’ chap.

They’re clearly excessively intelligent. Pity they didn’t use their genius to do something else that wasn’t criminal.

Being that intelligent means they must have been extremely bored at school – idle hands… devil’s work!

One day we will wake up to find no money in our Bank Accounts, not stolen, just wiped. With no history, except our printed bank statements; well, for those who still get them, most don’t.

Technology will be the destruction of civilisation.

Highly intelligent people seldom fit in with the rest of society. Some are groomed, some do it for the pleasure of it, and instead of leaving them by the wayside, their minds need to be challenged.

Indeed, they have committed a crime, and that needs to be penalised in some way. I’m not sure jail time is the way to go, but they should never be allowed any electronic devices again, and they should be tagged continuously.

Hey! Some people might not agree with me. I can please people some of the time; I can’t please them all the time.

Chancellor Chaos: Burnham’s First Big Wobble

Andy Burnham’s government-in-waiting has descended into chaos as he dithers over whether to appoint Ed Miliband or Shabana Mahmood as Chancellor.

Reports that Mr Miliband’s ambition to take over at the Treasury is about to be dashed have sparked a fierce briefing war at Westminster.

Ms Mahmood has emerged as favourite for the position, with one ally of Mr Burnham declaring she is ‘nailed down as Chancellor’.

But others close to the incoming PM insisted that, with just days to go until he enters Downing Street on Monday, he has still not made up his mind about an appointment that will set the tone for his government.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper is also still pushing for the position, with friends highlighting her experience as a Treasury minister in the last Labour government.

Mr Miliband has long been the favourite for the job and has been working with Mr Burnham on his economic plans for government for months.

But the possibility of his taking charge at the Treasury has sparked a ferocious backlash that has united business, trade unions and Blairite Labour MPs.

Sharon Graham, general secretary of the powerful Unite union, warned Mr Burnham last month that Mr Miliband’s obsession with Net Zero would be a ‘noose around the neck’ of job creation.

A Bloomberg survey of investors on Wednesday found that just 5 per cent support the idea of appointing the former Labour leader as Chancellor. Ms Mahmood fared only slightly better, with 11 per cent support. Former health secretary Wes Streeting was the frontrunner with the backing of more than 30 per cent of investors, but has fallen out of favour.

But ditching Mr Miliband now could trigger a massive row with Left-wing MPs who are pushing Mr Burnham to deliver a significant change of direction.

There was speculation that Mr Miliband could be made foreign secretary as a consolation prize. But denying him the Treasury would risk angering a key ally who played a significant role in forcing out his former friend Keir Starmer.

One Labour MP sympathetic to Mr Miliband said he was the only minister with the experience needed to push through radical changes at the Treasury.

‘Ed has shown he can get things done in government and he has the experience to take on the Treasury, which is the biggest obstacle to delivering real change,’ the source said. ‘If Andy bottles it now he is going to end up running a continuity Starmer government where the Treasury is basically still in charge. That is a recipe for certain failure.’

Tory frontbencher Ben Obese-Jecty said Mr Burnham’s dithering was already damaging the country.

He told the Mail: ‘With only a few days until he takes over as Prime Minister, Andy Burnham’s paralysis over who will be his Chancellor amid infighting in his inner circle shows how unprepared he is for Government.

‘After the disaster of the Starmer administration, Burnham’s rush to seize power whilst avoiding scrutiny, without a plan or an economic vision, shows he is on the cusp of filling his Cabinet with last-minute panic appointments.

‘The next stage of this ill-thought-out coup already appears to be in trouble.’

A spokesman for Mr Burnham said ‘no decisions’ have been made about the make-up of his new cabinet.

But an ally of the new PM told the Financial Times: ‘Shabana is nailed down as chancellor. That’s definitely happening.’

Ms Mahmood has been keen to remain at the Home Office and moving her would create a vacancy that would be difficult to fill. She has limited economic knowledge, having served as a junior member of Labour’s Treasury team in opposition. Appointing a member of the Labour Right to the role would also risk a backlash from Left-wing MPs.

By contrast, Ms Cooper has considerable experience, serving as chief secretary to the Treasury in the last Labour government.

Mr Miliband was an adviser to Gordon Brown in the Treasury for years.

Treasury officials are preparing to brief Mr Burnham and his new chancellor on the dire state of the public finances when he takes charge next week. The Resolution Foundation think tank last night warned that the new PM and chancellor are ‘not starting from a position of fiscal strength’, with the Iran war cutting the government’s fiscal headroom by nearly £15 billion.

Mr Burnham indicated he is preparing to impose tax rises, saying people might be asked to pay ‘a little more’.

Kemi Badenoch said: ‘We are heading for another summer of chaos with Labour obsessing about who they can tax to pay for more benefits. It doesn’t matter who is in charge, the problem is the Labour Party.’

How have we ended up with this utter disaster of a government?

Sunak, Boris, and Cameron were all covert failures. The current state of affairs was created by promoting economic conservatism while permitting liberal immigration laws. They keep in their circles behind the gates and don’t really interact with regular people in regular places, so it doesn’t affect them, and now we are footing the bill.

People wanted “change”, but they never asked what it entailed, even though many of us who have actually seen previous Labour Governments in action knew precisely what would happen and tried to tell them.

Milliband is more hated than Starmer. If Burnham appoints Milliband to any government position, then it will be the same rot as before, and Labour MPs will turn on Burnham before the next election to protect their own skins, and the next few years will be a lot rougher than the past two years.

Andy Burnham will be the new captain, re-shuffling the deck chairs, but the Titanic is still sinking.

Milliband would bring chaos; keep him well away from the cabinet.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started