If it hadn’t been for England conceding two goals, it would have been the perfect performance, says Lee Dixon. This is why he gets paid the big bucks.

The State will give your children breakfast, help them choose their gender, and determine what information they are exposed to. Some might say this overeach by the chunky jewellery class that did fuck all to protect children from predatory rape gangs.

We'll be fine

Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.

“The White Star Line is delighted to appoint a new purser for its flagship vessel The Titanic”

@AlistairCarns had a distinguished military career. It is damning that Benn, Starmer, Hermer, Reeves and others would not listen to him on lawfare, the Northern Ireland Bill, on defence transformation or on financial resources; and all credit to this RM veteran for stepping into the breach and his resignation on principle. His dynamite resignation, on the back of the Healey exit represents the necessary detonation of a political bomb under UK defence; highlighting how screwed up it all really is, how badly Starmer is lying to the country, and how totally irresponsible is this @UKLabour government. Carns is very right on the big things, the MoD and the “centre” are not facing reality on the changing technologies of war, they are not getting the resources they need and they are not defending veterans from lawfare. On this latter and vital point, this is led and encouraged by the UK’s own Attorney General as chief back-stabber. For this, Hermer should be the next to go. And by the way, don’t expect much from the Starmer-loyalist, ex-Para Jarvis….not every Politician has the guts to do what Carns and Healey have just done…

There is evidence to show that targeted stop and search deployed in hot spot areas, is a deterrent. No one is angered more by knife crime than people who live in the areas where this is prevalent. Trust me. I grew up in Newham. I lived through it, and some sadly, did not.

THIS is a straightforward lie. Those who send their children to a private school pay twice, first for the private school, and then for state schools through their taxes, while making no demand on the state system.

Jimmy Corry has lived on this Belfast street for 13 years. Now he’s homeless. He’s lost sentimental items forever, including his dad’s possessions. He told me that he shares the anger many feel about the attack on Monday night but that burning down houses won’t solve anything.

He’s dating Kim Kardashian, who has an estimated net worth of nearly $2 billion. He's worth nearly $500 million and lives in Monaco to avoid paying taxes in the UK. Remarkable lack of self-awareness.

You first, Lewis. There’s nothing stopping him giving away his hundreds of million of pounds to charities, or even to HMRC if he so wishes.

Andy Burnham's business rates proposals would lead to significant food price inflation. Here's why: He has proposed abolishing business rates entirely for shops, cafes, & hairdressers; increasing the business rates exemption from £12k to £18k tapering to £21k, & implementing a 20% rates cut for pubs, clubs & music venues This would cost respectively £6.5bn, £800m & £120m. He claims the money can be recouped from higher taxes on large e-commerce warehouses / tech giants’ warehouses. This is pure fantasy. The government says its high-value multiplier will make 1,900 distribution warehouses pay about £90m more a year. To cover the cost of Burnham's rate reduction elsewhere, their bill would have to go up by £7.4 billion a year, i.e. many multiples higher Amazon's warehouses have a rateable value of some £60-£70m. The biggest operators of distribution warehouses are in fact supermarkets, notably Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, M&S, John Lewis & Ocado. Even if Burnham waters down his unworkable £7.4bn scheme to say only £1bn that additional cost is going to be passed straight through to consumers. Amazon will also pass on the increased costs to its 30m British customers. People won't be happy. It's sad that Burnham won't countenance the only real solution, which is to reduce public spending.

This is how bizarre Andy Burnham’s by-election campaign is: he is simultaneously giving interviews and sending press releases opining on various national policies when it suits him, while refusing to answer more difficult questions because he says he’s focusing only on Makerfield

Yesterday Burnham said on prime time television that he is going to challenge Starmer to become PM. Today he says he won’t tell voters why?

Here it is: my 2026 manifesto for the #Makerfield By-Election. Makerfield Great Again! #VoteBinface #MakeYourVoteCount

Neoliberalism – whatever people mean by it – stands falsely accused for stagnant Britain. I’ve attempted to defend it 👇

Plans released for a $16 billion mile-long ship capable of carrying 80,000 people. The 'Freedom Ship' would be home to about 50,000 people, with space for 10,000 tourists and 20,000 crew members. "The Freedom Ship is envisioned as a permanently mobile city at sea designed for long-term residence rather than short-term travel," the company says. The ship would be about 8 times the size of the current largest ship in the world, the Royal Caribbean’s Icon of the Seas. The plans include a 15,000-seat stadium, schools, colleges, shops, clubs, a water park, a music hall, museums, parks, and more. The ship, which would run on nuclear, would be too large to dock and would remain in international waters. Freedom Cruise International says it would go around the world every two to three years. Insane.

Here's my @spectator column, 'Soho’s Nimbys are the worst in Britain' spectator.com/article/sohos-… I am aware that there is limited interest in my domestic arrangements, but there is a reason why I’m telling you that for much of my adult life I lived in central London. First in Bayswater, then in Fitzrovia. I loved the bustle, the grime, the noise and all the things which are part of – indeed the point of – living in a city centre. And then I stopped loving them. As I got older, I decided that I no longer wanted my sleep to be interrupted by fights in the street outside my bedroom window (Cleveland Street, since you asked) and that I actually liked the idea of having some space. So I moved to suburbia, a path taken by many before and after me. But that simple acceptance of the rationale behind choosing to live in central London and choosing not to live in central London – and what comes with the former, both positive and negative – appears to be unrecognised by the Soho Society. Without a trace of self-awareness, the society describes itself as being “for all the people that have Soho in their lives…residents, workers and visitors. The Soho Society listens to and represents them all.” But according to a report in Saturday’s Guardian the Soho Society is “ferociously objecting to all new bar and restaurant licences”. At its AGM last week it decided to challenge every single new application by a bar or restaurant – even to renew an existing licence. And it will object to any extensions to licences into the night, whether permanent or temporary, as a matter of policy. The Soho Society is not so much NIMBY as POSE: piss off somewhere else. The society says it is seeking to tackle unacceptable noise levels, crime and litter. But although its views matter because it has a formal consultative role over Soho planning and licensing application, its selfish, blinkered, narrow-minded attitude is itself responsible for so much of what it complains about. Soho has had its good times and its bad times. It’s currently going through the latter: crime is a real problem and businesses – bars, restaurants and cafes – finding it hard enough to survive also have to deal with a ludicrously powerful vested interest committed to making life even more difficult for them. The argument put forward by the society that making it easier for hospitality to thrive in Soho would mean more crime is risible. Crime is not a product of the easy availability of smashed avocado. Nor is it a product of bars serving alcohol in a pleasant environment. Rather, it is the result of issues with policing, with the criminal justice system and also with the society’s own outlook, which means many businesses fail, creating a vicious cycle, and which forces the down-it-in-one drinking culture and sudden swamping of the streets imposed by a general 11pm chucking out time. The Soho Society appears to be unaware – although I suspect it knows full well – that other cities, both here and abroad, manage to have a welcoming attitude both to hospitality outlets and their customers without becoming crime centres. If bars, restaurants and cafes were able to react to their customers’ needs, Soho would thrive, businesses would be sustainable and the area would buzz again. That’s the real issue, of course. The Soho Society doesn’t like the idea of the area buzzing after bedtime – or even in daytime. They’d love it to be full of advertising agencies and graphic designers who go home after work, or after a quick supper in a restaurant where business tapers off early. They want to have their cake and eat it: to live in central London with all the advantages that brings. But not to have to deal with the other side of living in central London: the bustle and the people. So the society uses any objections it can. Last year it said a new gin bar and distillery would be a fire hazard. The London fire brigade told the licencing hearing that it had no issues with the application and the objection did not carry the day. But it cost the distillery £44,000 in legal fees to fight the case, with the Soho Society only being made to pay £27,000 because it said it was in a precarious financial position. Other ludicrous objections have included the claim in 2019 that the converted Boulevard Theatre should not be built because customers could “suffer from lack of facilities” and thus urinate in the street; and its successful opposition to building works in Soho Square because it would mean noise between 11am and 4pm. Inevitably, the old building which remained became derelict and was inhabited by squatters. In this respect the Soho Society represents so much of that is wrong with Britain. Rather than there being a predisposition towards entrepreneurialism and growth, those who put their own narrow interests above all else have the legal, regulatory or political means to impose those interests on the rest of us. Soho should, and could quite easily, be one of the world’s great centres of culture, food and drink – as well as being a wonderful place to live for those who value that. But instead, the Soho Society is putting a stop to the fun – and spoiling everything that’s good about Soho

>be Cheshire East Council >developer wants to build 160 homes and a care home >also offers parkland, school money, sports cash, cycle paths, healthcare funding, affordable homes, biodiversity gain >our own planning officers say approve it >they explain refusal won’t survive appeal >they explain refusal will cost taxpayers >ignore them >reject it 7–2 >developer appeals >realise we have no case >don’t even defend our own decision >inspector approves the homes anyway >accidentally lose £345k for cycling and walking also lose £144k for local healthcare >nearly £500k in local benefits gone >homes still get built >just later minus £500k for community > tell residents we stood up for them samdumitriu.com/p/how-cheshi…