Former soldier (1WFR). Country before party. conservative, (Studying) BA History, Auditor. Love Ridgebacks, fitness, learning and politics.
Joined June 2014
- Tweets76K
- Following608
- Followers1.3K
- Likes225K
Pinned Tweet
youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE
A great video on migration.
Economically literate grifter chimes in on something else he doesn’t know about..it will cost the customer more though.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
Part of Nigel Biggar’s article in The Sunday Times today, reminding us that a careful reading of history, by an historian who know what he’s talking about, is a big improvement on what too often passes for debate about slavery reparations.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who don’t know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britain’s greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britain’s deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
Factually inaccurate.
Africa was called the “white mans grave” because of malaria.
British didn’t kidnap, they bought slaves off African slavers, who plundered Africa for them, taking entire villages to market.
Quinine, the anti malaria drug was created after slavery was ended
James🇬🇧 retweeted
There were five slave trades. You were taught about only one. 🏴🇬🇧
One. The Atlantic. Twelve million Africans shipped to the Americas. Britain banned it in 1807, then hunted it for sixty years.
Two. The Barbary trade. A million Europeans taken to North Africa. Britain bombarded Algiers in 1816.
Three. The Saharan trade. A thousand years of caravans north across the desert. Britain had its northern end banned. Tripoli, 1857.
Four. The East African trade. Twenty thousand people a year through one customs house. Britain forced the market shut. 5 June 1873.
Five. The Ottoman trade. Raiders sold Eastern Europeans south for three hundred years. Britain made the Sultan ban it in 1854.
It cost sixty years and two thousand sailors. Nobody else fought all five. 🙏🇬🇧
It isn't over. Mauritania only made it a crime in 2007. Fifty million people are in slavery today.
Someone has to remember who started the fight. ⚓🇬🇧💪
James🇬🇧 retweeted
Why were Jonathan Powell, Peter Mandelson and Lord Hermer appointed without vetting?
The answer is that Chagos was a deal Starmer couldn't refuse to make.
Here's a timeline of the key stages of the Chagos treachery.
In 1982, after it became known that the Chagos seabed may contain vast mineral wealth, Mauritius set up a select committee to examine the matter.
However, sea-mining technology was in its infancy, and it was too expensive to be commercially viable at that time.
In 2003, as underwater mining technologies advanced and the value of minerals and rare earth elements soared, mining the Chagos seabed became an exciting possibility again; Mauritius appointed the eminent international barrister Sir Ian Brownlie as advisor for the Chagos Archipelago.
A former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Brownlie was a good friend of Sir Satcam Boolell, a former Labour deputy prime minister of Mauritius, and High Commissioner in London.
In 2009, Brownlie led the first Mauritius delegation to the Foreign Office in London seeking a Chagos deal.
Among the delegation was Sir Satcam Boolell's son Satyajit, who became Mauritius Director of Public Prosecutions the same year.
In 2010, after Brownlie died in a motor accident in Egypt, Sir Keir Starmer’s “great mate”, Philippe Sands, a leading human-rights lawyer who has publicly boasted of humiliating the UK in international courts, took over as counsel to Mauritius for Chagos.
In 2013, Satyajit Boolell invited Keir Starmer, whom he had become friendly with during Starmer's time as the UK's DPP, to a legal conference at the 5-star Balaclava resort in Mauritius.
During the trip, Starmer discussed the future of the Chagos Archipelago with then Mauritius prime minister Navin Ramgoolam.
After Starmer’s 2013 visit, Ramgoolam wrote that he and Starmer were aligned over Chagos.
In 2015, Ramgoolam was arrested on money-laundering charges when large sums of cash in foreign currencies, suitcases full of brand-new luxury watches, and blank British visas were found in his home.
Also in 2015, Starmer was elected to the British Parliament.
In 2019, Philippe Sands, after a campaign of lobbying the UN, obtained an International Court of Justice ruling (advisory opinion only, and non-binding) that the Chagos islands should be given to Mauritius.
Sands used the ICJ ruling as leverage in the following years in his efforts to persuade the Conservative government to give Chagos to Mauritius.
In 2020, Starmer became leader of the Labour Party.
In 2021, Sands received Mauritius' top honour, The Most Distinguished Order of the Star and Key of the Indian Ocean.
In 2022, Sands made an unauthorized entry into the Chagos Archipelago for a flag-raising ceremony. Sands tweets at the time, “It’s morning on Chagos, where the flag of Mauritius flies."
In 2023, Sands became a Mauritius citizen, but retains his British and French citizenships.
🧧In November 2023, David Cameron replaced James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary and, with the support of other senior Tories, stopped a Chagos deal saying, it’s not in the national interest, as reported in Hansard.
In July 2024, Starmer became UK Prime Minister and just ten weeks after entering Downing Street, he agreed a deal with Mauritius, despite there having been no mention of Chagos during the election campaign, and the Labour manifesto pledging to protect the BOT.
in November of 2024, Ramgoolam was elected Mauritius prime minister again after a snap general election, and took over from the incumbent PM, Pravind Jugnauth, to lead the Chagos negotiations with the UK.
In December 2024, after 14 years in the role, Philippe Sands steps down as Mauritius counsel for Chagos.
In January 2025, Attorney General Lord Hermer recused himself from signing off on the Chagos deal, and declined to say why.
In February 2025, Jugnauth was arrested on money-laundering charges after large sums of cash in foreign currencies and suitcases full of brand-new luxury watches were found in his home.
In May 2025, twelve years after discussing the future of Chagos in Mauritius, Starmer and Ramgoolam sat down in London to sign the treaty that transfers the archipelago's sovereignty to Mauritius.
The Fall Out.
The Chagos deal does🟥NOT secure the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia.
The deal operationally hobbles the base, and increases the dangers to the British and American military personnel, and the civilians who work there, and in the wider Central Indian Ocean region.
Diego Garcia's remoteness made it easy to defend in the past. This deal leaves the base horribly vulnerable to the growing threats posed by the new longer-range missiles, and more sophisticated and lethal drones.
When Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer and Vijay Rangarajan, the Director General at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, made the deal it was fully understood that the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago were by far the best locations to deploy early warning, and air-defense systems, to protect the main base from missile and drone attacks.
Yet they still decided to lease only Diego Garcia.
Andy Burnham, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, and Defense Minister Wes Streeting, know the deal increases the dangers to the lives of British service personnel, and our NATO allies personnel, in the strategically important Central Indian Ocean region.
To double down and push the deal with that knowledge is a shameful act of betrayal.
While the deal leaves Diego Garcia vulnerable to attack, it also renders the base itself ineffective and operationally hobbled.
Mauritius is a signatory of the Pelindaba African Weapon-Free Zone Treaty which bans all nuclear weapons from treaty members' territory.
Pelindaba gives each of the more the 40 countries who have signed it the right to inspect the facilities on Diego Garcia if they suspect nuclear arms are being stored there.
The UK's nuclear-armed Trident submarines will no longer be able to enter Chagos waters, or visit Diego Garcia which is the only island in the region which has suitable anchorage and facilities for maintenance and restocking provisions, etc.
The US's nuclear-armed submarines, ships, and planes will also be banned from Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago's waters.
Mauritius gets complete sovereignty over everything, including control of the airspace above the Chagos Archipelago, which at 250,000 square miles is the same size as France.
The implications of controlling such a vast area of airspace in a strategically vital region are huge.
Mauritius has shown it will ban planes entering its current airspace when China asks.
The Chagos Deal does not ‘secure the base’. It methodically destroys every element required for operations. The text and annexes state it will:
❌Constrain future Ops and use of the base
❌Prevent the placing of sensors and other maritime installations
❌Require us to sight our foes on defence planning
❌Mean we’re unable to use our preferred contractors
❌See us lose of control over electromagnetic spectrum.
This is how thick our MPs are..
Taxation of goods pushes up the cost for the consumer..
See taxation on fuel.
Economically illiterate morons like this should never be near government office.
Nope, that’s not how taxes and price works. The price is determined by demand and supply.
Companies charge the highest price they can given demand. A tax levied on *profits* does not affect a company’s cost ie supply.
Taxes on *windfall* profits (like oil and gas) are the most efficient kind of tax there is.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
I've lived in the same apartment building in Tokyo for 11 years.
I know zero names.
That's normal here. We nod in the elevator. We do not speak.
Then Mike moved in on the third floor.
Ohio. Six-foot-four. Laughs like a truck starting up.
Day 1: He knocked on every door with a plate of cookies.
(In Japan, when you move in, you give your neighbors a small towel. Then you leave. Mike gave cookies. Then he stayed and talked.)
Week 1: He knew everyone's name. Including the dog's.
Then there was Mrs. Sato on the first floor.
She's 84. Her husband passed away ten years ago. She lives alone.
In 11 years, I had never heard her voice.
Every Tuesday, Mike carried her groceries up the steps. She didn't speak English. He didn't speak Japanese.
They talked anyway. Mostly about the photo of her husband by the door.
Then one morning, her curtains stayed closed.
Mike noticed.
Nobody else did. I didn't.
He knocked. No answer. He called the building manager.
She had fallen the night before. She'd been on the floor all night.
She's okay now.
But the building isn't the same.
People say good morning. The elevator has conversations.
Last month, we had our first rooftop potluck. Nobody knew what a potluck was. Mike explained it twice.
Mrs. Sato brought 40 rice balls.
And then she laughed at something Mike said.
That was the first time I ever heard her voice.
Mike moved back to Ohio this week.
On his last morning, the whole building came down to the lobby. Kids. Grandparents. The dog.
Mrs. Sato handed him a box.
Inside: one thousand paper cranes.
In Japan, you fold a thousand cranes for someone you want to protect. Her hands shake. She had been folding them since the day he found her.
Then she said the English sentence she had practiced every day for a week.
"Please... come back."
Mike was crying too hard to answer in English.
So he answered in the Japanese he had been secretly practicing.
"Kanarazu kaette kimasu."
In Japanese, that doesn't mean "I'll visit."
It's what you say when you're coming home.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
The Empire suppressed the self-immolation of widows and female infanticide in India and female genital mutilation in Africa. It moderated the disruptive impact of the inevitable arrival of Western modernity upon very unmodern societies in North America and especially Australia. It created regional peace by imposing an overarching imperial authority on multiple, warring peoples—unifying, for example, much of the Indian subcontinent. It promoted a worldwide free market, protected by the Royal Navy, that gave native producers and entrepreneurs in India and West Africa new economic opportunities. It made foreign investment attractive by reducing risk through establishing political stability and the rule of law. Consequently, Australia’s gross domestic product per capita became the highest in the world by 1890, and by 1914 India was the world’s fourth largest textile-producer. The Empire built canals in India, bringing five times as much land under irrigation as the Mughals had in the 18th century. By 1900 it had figured out how to prevent food shortage escalating into famine there and went on to fight disease in tropical Africa. It provided a civil service and judiciary that was generally and extraordinarily incorrupt. It introduced liberal ideas and liberal institutions of a free press and representative government to places that had never known them. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant the vote to men and women on equal terms, in 1893, and by 1935 electoral democracy had been established in Indian provinces. From May 1940, when France fell, to June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, The British Empire offered Nazi Germany the only military resistance—with the sole exception of Greece. Inspired by the ideal of the Commonwealth, it helped to plan and realise the League of Nations after the First World War and the United Nations after 1945. And it brought up three of the most prosperous and liberal states in the world—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—and gave birth to one more, the United States. Significantly, there is evidence that all of these former members of the British Empire are among the least racist countries on earth.
Read our latest here: nigelbiggar.co.uk/p/empire-a…
James🇬🇧 retweeted
Major-General Julian Thompson, who commanded 3 Commando Brigade during the Falklands War, on the small boats crisis:
"We could stop them tomorrow if we really had the guts. I'd shot them, sorry but I would."
"We're wet. I think there's going to be a revolution."
Full interview covering his military career, views on modern Britain, and growing up in Imperial India: youtube.com/watch?v=nZGUfnIy…
James🇬🇧 retweeted
The conversation on ethnic identity is an instant disaster for the establishment.
The minute it happens, woke Muslim apologist Leila Ahmed El Meleighy Cunningham will point out that Olukemi isn't loyal. Conservatives will point out that Mohammad Ziauddin Yusuf isn't a British name. Kevin Hollinrake will suggest that Jews are not English. And that's even before the reparations squad - Lammy, Abbot, etc... - get in on the act.
Everyone knows the truths that they are repressing.
Soon, it will just be Nigel Farage and Danny Kruger insisting that they're all akshually English.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
I remember being absolutely sickened by the commentary at the time.
People I once respected were falling over themselves to portray girls aged just 12 to 14 as racist thugs and aggressors. The implied accusations of racism were disgusting, as was the extraordinary eagerness to condemn children before establishing what had actually happened.
And now we know.
A grown man made sexual remarks towards a 12-year-old girl, assaulted her and behaved threateningly towards four young girls. His sister admitted dragging another girl to the ground by her hair and striking her. The sheriff rejected his account of events.
The punishment? Community service. Not a single day in prison.
I find that utterly disgraceful. What message does that send about the seriousness of intimidating and assaulting children?
But there is another elephant in the room. Class.
I cannot help wondering how differently this would have unfolded had these been middle-class girls from an affluent neighbourhood, rather than working-class girls from Lochee.
Would they have been branded racist thugs quite so readily? Would their distress have been dismissed? Or would we have heard endless lectures about safeguarding, trauma, sexual harassment and violence against women and girls?
I think we know the answer.
There is a particularly ugly form of class prejudice among some of our supposedly enlightened commentators. A frightened middle-class girl is a victim deserving protection. A frightened working-class girl with the wrong accent and postcode is apparently a thug.
And the implied racism narrative made it worse. The nationality of the adults involved should have been irrelevant. Had Scottish adults behaved this way towards Bulgarian girls, I suspect the outrage would have been deafening.
Some people were so desperate to identify racism that they appeared willing to overlook the actual abuse of children.
Police Scotland subsequently acknowledged that its initial account did not fully reflect what happened. @JohnSwinney apologised. But where are the apologies from those who so confidently vilified these girls?
I've spent decades working with people whom respectable society finds easy to dismiss. I know how quickly prejudice can masquerade as moral superiority.
What disturbed me most was watching people who endlessly preach compassion, equality and protecting the vulnerable apparently abandon those principles when the victims didn't fit their preferred political narrative.
I lost respect for people over this. Not because they initially got the facts wrong, but because of how eagerly they embraced a narrative that suited their prejudices. Some of these very people have built entire careers on claiming to speak for and defend the working class. Yet when confronted with vulnerable working-class girls who didn't fit their preferred political narrative, their much-vaunted compassion seemed to evaporate. It was a deeply revealing moment. I learned rather more about their prejudices than I ever did from their lectures about mine.
If your compassion depends on someone's nationality, class, accent or political usefulness, it isn't compassion. It's prejudice dressed up as principle.
These were children. Working-class girls who deserved protection, not public vilification.
And if we've reached the point where protecting a political narrative matters more than protecting children, something has gone very badly wrong.
Shame on those who condemned them. And shame on those who still cannot bring themselves to admit they were wrong.
‼️FINALLY SENTENCED‼️
Bulgarian siblings have finally been sentenced at Dundee Sheriff Court for attacking Scottish girls in Lochee, Dundee, in August 2025.
Ilia Belov, 23, was given a community payback order of 300 hours’ unpaid work with 18 months’ supervision, and 18 months on the sex offenders register, for assaulting a then 12-year-old and for threatening or abusive behaviour towards four girls aged 12–14.
Nadjedzha Belova, 20, was given 180 hours’ unpaid work after admitting she seized a 13-year-old by the hair, dragged her to the ground and struck her on the head.
The court heard Ilia Belov told a 12-year-old: “Come here sexy. I will show you how to have a good time”. He then pushed her and her head hit a metal handrail. Only after that did she produce the axe and knife she had in her waistband.
Sheriff Niven-Smith rejected his story (that he never made sexual remarks and only pushed her to protect his sister) as neither credible nor reliable. The sheriff found his comments were the trigger for the incident.
Just remember how this all went down at the time though:
👉🏻 The police initially tried to flip the narrative, framing the perpetrators as victims and vice versa, stating the Bulgarians were approached by the young girls. The 12-year-old girl was subsequently arrested and charged over the weapons, and her self-defence was dismissed as “misinformation”.
👉🏻 Commentators and parts of the media also spent months implying the child was the threat, and the adults were the victims.
👉🏻 John Swinney warned the public off the footage, then had to subsequently apologise to the girl.
👉🏻 Sentencing was delayed twice, in August and September, because social work reports were not ready. Fourteen months from the attack to a sentence and, after all that, no jail time.
So, two adults of foreign descent, one of them making sexual remarks, assault young Scottish girls walking the streets of their native homeland and the first instinct of the authorities was to protect the narrative, charge the child, and gaslight the public.
This is what happens when the safety of women and children is treated as secondary to managing the story about immigration.
Polanski doesn’t know that the Israelis left Gaza..there were elections in afterwards..
The Palestinians voted in Hamas..
Hamas charter stated it wants to kill all Jews/eradicate Israel..
Hamas postponed elections, indefinitely.
There will never be a 2 state solution.
"Do you think that the state of Israel, as a safe home for Jews after the Holocaust and after the pogroms, has a right to exist?"
@bbcnickrobinson repeatedly asks Green Party leader Zack Polanski.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
British Fascism was a product of the British left. Sir Oswald Mosley was a former Labour minister and member of the Fabian Society. It seems that history is now repeating itself, complete with the resurgence of left wing antisemitism. Perhaps, Sir Sadiq, your moment in history has arrived!
90 years ago today, Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts attempted to march through and intimidate a predominantly Jewish area of the East End.
Men, women and children, alongside local residents, trade unionists and anti-fascist protesters, came together to defend the community in what became known as the Battle of Cable Street.
They taught us an important lesson: communities can resist fascism by joining together.
Hate and antisemitism had no place in London then, and it has no place here now.
Best thing I’ve seen on YouTube today..
What Shane Gillis & Steve Gerben Get Up to After Filming an Episode of T... youtube.com/shorts/s8odVw3nO… via @YouTube
James🇬🇧 retweeted
For those in government claiming to protect women and girls look at this carefully. The UK government welcomed uncontrolled immigration and rapes rose 747%. Poland said no to immigration and the number of rapes fell.
If you cannot see from this what the problem is you should not be in government.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
Rupert Lowe MP has been reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over his “repeated rhetoric about Muslims, Islam and Pakistanis”, with the complainant accusing him of Islamophobia.
When the Government announced its Islamophobia definition — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — it claimed that it would not have a chilling effect on free speech.
We said it would. Time and again, the Free Speech Union has been proved right.
When Nick Timothy criticised a mass public Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square, he was branded “Islamophobic”, reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, called a racist by the Equalities Minister and faced calls to resign from the then Prime Minister.
Reform UK was also reported to the Equality and Human Rights Commission by 28 Labour MPs, who called the party Islamophobic and urged an investigation.
Rupert’s referral to the Commissioner is further proof that this definition is being used as an Islamic blasphemy law by the back door.
Since entering Parliament, Rupert has done brilliant work across the political divide to expose the grooming gangs scandal. Too many people have shied away from speaking about what was happening for fear of being branded Islamophobic. This is a national disgrace.
Parliamentarians, public figures, council officials and the public at large must not be silenced from speaking out about the grooming gangs scandal or Islamist extremism for fear of being branded racist.
This definition is deeply dangerous and threatens our society. People need to wake up to what it really means — and the consequences it will have.
James🇬🇧 retweeted
One moment to leave my box then I'll get back in it.
If you're uneducated enough to have an issue with the British government rightly making this statement, lemme put it very simply:
-49,000 slave owners, approx 0.19% of the population at the time, were given money to buy them out of owning slaves. British taxpayers paid to free the slaves.
-For decades during the 19th century, Britain dedicated 1/6th of it's entire Navy specifically to seek and capture other nations' slave ships to free the slaves on board. The economic cost was bore by the taxpayer. 2,000 British sailors lost their lives.
-During the US Civil War, Pres Lincoln blockaded Cotton exports from the USA. This put more than half a million working Britons out of already very poorly paid work. After months, the mill owners worked a deal with the US govt to reopen trading. More than half a million working class Britons voted AGAINST the deal citing that they didn't ever want to work with goods produced from slavery again.
About half as many (24,000 ish) Brits died from malnourishment, disease etc in the affected cotton factory communities as a direct result of that action as ever owned slaves.
-Britain paid £400,000 to Spain to convince it to stop its slave trade. It also placed diplomatic pressure on France to stop them too.
Of every empire that ever took part in slavery, Britain is the ONLY ONE that grew a conscience, stopped its own, and then set out to stop everybody else without any outside encouragement.
And it is also the only one that has maintained a successful and genuinely beneficial diplomatic network to lift up and empower its former territories- the Commonwealth- which has helped ex-colonies outperform their peer nations in almost every way ever since.
Not to mention endless and unwavering humanitarian relief when a hurricane rips through their islands every season, or when an earthquake buries their brothers and sisters under their own houses.
The British taxpayer has bore the cost of all of that. Britons voted in favour of that responsibility in the 19th century, decades before anybody else grew a conscience of their own- even African Kingdoms such as the Asanti Empire who only stopped slaving when Britain took over Ghana and made it illegal.
You reparationsit types don't harass modern-day Turks over the 6-8 million slaves that passed through the Ottoman Slave trade, or modern-day Ghanaians for the millions that the Ghana and Asanti empires captured, abused, and traded in the Trans-Sharan and Transatlantic trades. You don't even get on at the Arab and African countries who still enable slavery today. Why?
There is no other demographic/nation/country for which people feel so empowered to blame the crimes of the most miniscule proportion of its ancestry, which were undone and atoned for by exponentially more of its ancestry, on an entire diaspora that has lived for generations with no direct culpability in said crimes.
Every population in the world has been a victim to another population at a given time. The following paragraph should be the one that sticks from this whole rant:
The working class, poor, destitute British man and woman who rotted in workhouses for centuries had more in common with their African slave counterparts than they ever did their compatriot masters. That's exactly why they bloody well did something about it. British people en masse stood WITH the slaves. Not with their feet on their necks.
Reparationism towards the British nation is just politics of division, meant to absolve commonwealth governments of their own failures towards their people at the expense of a population who have never committed the crime they are demanding reparations for, and whose ancestors paid the human and economic price for for the last 2 centuries.
This is the last post I'll make on the matter.
🚨 BREAKING
The UK Government says it “does not and will not pay reparations” for Britain's role in the transatlantic slave trade.
The remarks were made today by a spokesperson for Prime Minister Andy Burnham as Jamaica steps up its campaign for reparatory justice.
#Reparations #Jamaica #JamRadioNews #AndyBurnham