Aspiring song writer!
London
Joined December 2013
- Tweets49.7K
- Following298
- Followers563
- Likes131K
Tim Pollard retweeted
Reform's Robert Jenrick has said today that bringing back imperial measures would help exports to the US, apparently unaware that while US uses the same terminology for measures like pints the units of volume are different. 🤡 (via Guardian).
Tim Pollard retweeted
I see Reform want to take us back to the future with a return to imperial measurements. I'm just walking a furlong for a firkin of ale. I also need a bushel of spuds & a peck of onions; oh, and a quart of raw milk. Must make sure I have enough florins & half crowns to pay. Careful with these Reform guys, give them an inch & they'll take your metres.
Tim Pollard retweeted
Poutine, cet "homme fort", tant estimé de nos "souverainistes" a perdu le Kazakhstan (échaudé par l'invasion de l'Ukraine), la Syrie de Bachar, la Hongrie (Orban) et maintenant la Serbie (Vucic). Il a provoqué en Ukraine une haine contre la Russie qui va durer plusieurs générations. Il est en train d'abandonner les richesses de la Sibérie à la Chine. Ses troupes piétinent en Afrique. Toute l'Europe se réarme pour faire face à la menace russe. Son seul succès, c'est d'avoir contribué à installer un agent russe à la Maison blanche...
Tim Pollard retweeted
Then tell Putin to withdraw from Ukraine and stop fighting. We're truly a warped culture when we blame the defender for existing
Tim Pollard retweeted
Seems like Simon & Shuster’s not exactly quaking in their boots from the threats made by Jared’s lawyers
New: Amid legal threats from Jared Kushner over explosive allegations published in a Vanity Fair excerpt, Simon & Schuster quietly expedited the release of Matthew Cole’s Princes and Thieves, with the book now available for purchase two days early
status.news/p/jared-kushner-…
Tim Pollard retweeted
It's a good job Suella Braverman claimed £45,000 for water bills on her parliamentary expenses. If she had failed to declare a ten quid overpayment on Universal Credit, she'd have been in serious trouble then.
Tim Pollard retweeted
Too many in the West don't understand the *actual* root cause of this war:
Russia fundamentally believes it is their God given right to rule over Eastern Europe & its people.
It's not that complicated.
🚨 Putin plans to use Ukraine peace talks to push NATO back to its 1997 military posture
According to The Telegraph, the Kremlin wants to force NATO to scale back its military presence in Europe to levels seen before Eastern European countries joined the Alliance.
This could mean demanding the withdrawal of NATO forces from Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland.
That is why Moscow is pushing for European countries to participate in negotiations over Ukraine. Diplomatic sources cited by The Telegraph say Putin wants to turn talks about ending the war into negotiations over the entire European security architecture.
The issue may also have been discussed during Putin's three-hour meeting with Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in St. Petersburg.
However, European countries have previously rejected the Kremlin's demands to reduce NATO's military presence on its eastern flank.
Tim Pollard retweeted
“The fact that we, the democratic, human rights-respecting West, is tolerating this horror is extraordinary." Peter Oborne
Tim Pollard retweeted
BRENNAN: The DOJ lawsuit demands the Alaska result not be certified if voters are confused. The confusion is defined as Sen. Sullivan not winning.
BLANCHE: That's not what it says
BRENNAN: I'm quoting from it. You are telling them not to certify it. What right does the federal government have telling a state not to certify?
Tim Pollard retweeted
Miksi Putin haluaa niin kiivaasti Donetskin, jota Venäjän armeija ei ole onnistunut valloittamaan vuosien sodankäynnistä huolimatta?
Kyse on paljon suuremmasta asiasta kuin yhdestä maakunnasta Ukrainan itäosassa.
Putin ei aloittanut sotaa vain saadakseen haltuunsa lisää ukrainalaista maa-aluetta, vaan palauttaakseen Ukrainan Venäjän vaikutuspiiriin ja estääkseen sen kehittymisen itsenäiseksi, länteen integroituneeksi valtioksi. Tämä on ollut Venäjän strategisen ajattelun ytimessä jo pitkään.
Donetsk on tässä kokonaisuudessa poikkeuksellisen tärkeä useasta syystä.
Ensinnäkin alue on ollut historiallisesti yksi Ukrainan taloudellisista ja teollisista keskuksista. Donbasin hiilikaivokset, terästeollisuus, konepajat ja energiantuotanto olivat aikanaan keskeinen osa Neuvostoliiton teollista perustaa.
Vaikka sota on tuhonnut valtavasti alueen tuotantokapasiteettia, Donetskin taloudellista ja historiallista merkitystä ei pidä vähätellä. Venäjän näkökulmasta sen hallinta merkitsisi samalla Ukrainan taloudellisen perustan heikentämistä.
Vielä tärkeämpi on kuitenkin sotilaallinen ulottuvuus. Ukrainan hallussa olevat Slovjansk ja Kramatorsk ovat osa vuosien aikana rakennettua puolustusvyöhykettä, joka suojaa Ukrainan sisäosia Venäjän etenemiseltä. Kyse ei ole vain kahdesta kaupungista, vaan kokonaisesta puolustusjärjestelmästä, jonka rakentamiseen Ukraina on käyttänyt yli vuosikymmenen.
Jos Ukraina luovuttaisi nämä alueet ilman taistelua, Venäjä saisi haltuunsa strategisesti arvokkaita asemia, joiden valloittaminen sotilaallisesti voisi vaatia vielä vuosien taisteluita ja valtavia tappioita.
Samalla Ukraina menettäisi yhden tärkeimmistä puolustuslinjoistaan, eikä vastaavan rakentaminen lännemmäksi olisi yksinkertaista. Tämä voisi avata Venäjälle huomattavasti paremmat lähtökohdat myöhempään hyökkäykseen syvemmälle Ukrainaan.
Donetsk on myös osa Venäjän omaa turvallisuusmaantiedettä. Alueen hallinta kasvattaisi Venäjän hallitsemien alueiden syvyyttä ja suojaisi sen Itä-Ukrainaan rakentamia sotilaallisia huoltoyhteyksiä. Laajemmassa kokonaisuudessa Donbas liittyy myös Etelä-Ukrainan miehitettyihin alueisiin ja Krimille johtavaan maayhteyteen.
Taloudellisten ja sotilaallisten kysymysten lisäksi Donetskilla on Putinille valtava poliittinen ja symbolinen merkitys. Kreml on vuodesta 2014 lähtien rakentanut kertomusta Donbasin venäjänkielisen väestön suojelemisesta ja alueen kuulumisesta niin sanottuun venäläiseen maailmaan.
Vuonna 2022 Venäjä julisti koko Donetskin alueen liitetyksi itseensä, vaikka ei sitä kokonaan hallinnut. Koko alueen haltuunotto antaisi Putinille mahdollisuuden esittää sodan lopputulos historiallisena saavutuksena.
Venäjän vaatimukset eivät silti rajoitu Donetskiin. Kreml on vaatinut myös Ukrainan Nato-jäsenyyden torjumista ja sen sotilaallisen toimintavapauden rajoittamista. Yhdessä alueluovutusten kanssa nämä tavoitteet voisivat jättää Ukrainan tilanteeseen, jossa sen taloudellinen perusta, puolustuskyky ja mahdollisuudet päättää omasta tulevaisuudestaan olisivat nykyistä huomattavasti heikommat.
Tässä mielessä Putin voi saavuttaa neuvottelupöydässä jotain, mitä hän ei ole kyennyt saavuttamaan taistelukentällä.
Siksi mielestäni olisi virhe tulkita Donetskin vaatimista vain Putinin tarpeeksi saada sodalle jonkinlainen "kunniallinen päätös".
Putin voi olla valmis lopettamaan sodan ilman, että hän luopuu alkuperäisistä tavoitteistaan. Siksi Donetskin kysymys on paljon suurempi kuin miltä se kartalla näyttää.
Tim Pollard retweeted
Different Leave figures promoted different destinations.
Norway-style arrangements were openly discussed, and Norway participates in the Single Market with free movement.
So it is historically incorrect to retrospectively compress every Leave vote into: 17.4 million people voted specifically to end freedom of movement.
Free movement was a major issue in the 2016 campaign, amplified by Nigel Farage’s notorious “Breaking Point” poster, which was widely condemned as racist.
But it was NOT the proposition on the ballot paper.
Yesterday @bbclaurak repeatedly treated freedom of movement as the defining core of the 2016 Brexit decision.
She explicitly told @AngelaRayner that free movement was “at the heart of the Brexit debate” and repeatedly pressed her on whether it should return.
But the actual referendum question asked only whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union.
It did not ask voters whether Britain should:
• leave the Single Market
• leave the customs union
• end freedom of movement
• or adopt any particular model of Brexit.
Those choices came afterwards.
2016 decided EU membership.
It did not write every subsequent interpretation of Brexit permanently into the constitution.
Tim Pollard retweeted
The Hillsborough Law was supposed to hold public officials accountable for deliberately misleading the public!
Only … MPs and peers have EXCLUDED themselves from the new law when acting as public officials!
So the people who made the law have ensured the law doesn’t apply to them. Only to the little people. So what’s the point of it?
Tim Pollard retweeted
Putin hävdar att ukrainsk mark tillhör Ryssland av historiska skäl. Utmärkt! Då tillämpar vi samma logik på Ryssland.
🇯🇵 Japan får tillbaka Kurilerna.
🇨🇳 Kina tar tillbaka Vladivostok.
🇫🇮 Finland återfår Viborg och Karelen.
🇩🇪 Tyskland återtar Königsberg, dagens Kaliningrad.
🇹🇷 Turkiet kan göra historiska anspråk på Azov.
Absurt? Japp!
Om historiska gränser ger rätt att invadera andra länder kan halva världen börja marschera över sina grannars gränser.
Historia ger ingen äganderätt till självständiga stater. Ukraina tillhör inte Ryssland, oavsett hur många gånger Putin upprepar sin historieförfalskning.
Tim Pollard retweeted
The rewriting of 2016 needs challenging.
❌ The referendum ballot did NOT ask: “Should Britain end freedom of movement?”
It asked whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU.
Nothing about leaving the Single Market.
Nothing about the customs union.
Nothing about ending free movement.
And during the referendum prominent Brexit campaigners openly cited Norway and Switzerland as models for Britain outside the EU.
🇳🇴 Norway is in the Single Market and accepts free movement.
The Leave coalition contained several completely different versions of Brexit. The public was never asked to choose between them.
So it is simply not accurate to retrospectively turn 17.4 million Leave votes into 17.4 million votes specifically against free movement.
That interpretation came afterwards.
And if Britain is now deciding what relationship it wants with Europe, voters are perfectly entitled to decide again with the actual choices made explicit.
Tim Pollard retweeted
He’s right btw, the academic definition of indigenous does not mean “people who were there first”, it’s a role in the colonizer-colonized dichotomy. When looking at the modern state of Israel and Palestinians, the application of “indigenous” to Palestinians is inarguable.
Jewish history in Palestine does not grant any "rights", Ben.
And, look up "indigenous" in any dictionary.
Indigenous people are the people living in a place when outside colonizers come and push them aside, kill them, destroy their society. Jews have long history in Palestine, but are not "indigenous" there.
Why do you have such an obsession with Jews? I actually don't get it. I wish you'd stop already. You're giving us a bad name.
Tim Pollard retweeted
So the trump regime’s bullshit about annexing Greenland or making Canada the 51st state were just shiny objects designed to distract from their true endgame: Giving Alaska to Russia. Putin’s installation of trump to destroy us from the inside has worked beyond his wildest dreams.
US energy company execs have resigned in disgust as the Trump family is caught secretly expediting the funneling of $25 billion from a sanctioned Russian energy giant in exchange for allowing Russians to obtain a natural gas project in Alaska.
According to investigations by The New York Times and Financial Times, Russia's Novatek allegedly concealed its financial involvement in the American project through a UAE-linked intermediary.
Gentry Beach, a longtime Trump ally and close friend of Donald Trump Jr., signed an agreement with Novatek to pursue natural gas development in Alaska. Reuters documented the arrangement in February.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin discussed this cooperation on the Alaska energy project with Trump's representatives, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, during negotiations involving Russia and Ukraine.
The controversy deepened when Polar Train LNG's CEO, Joel Riddle, raised concerns about concealed Russian financing and possible sanctions violations. He departed in September, followed by other senior executives.
The Financial Times also described discussions about a potential arrangement under which Novatek would provide technology for the Alaska project in exchange for sanctions relief benefiting its Arctic LNG 2 development in Siberia.
According to The New York Times, Riddle and two other departing executives warned the Trump administration about the Russian financing and urged officials to investigate.
The White House maintains that the project was mentioned only briefly and that no detailed discussions took place. There is no established evidence that Kushner or Witkoff knew about the allegedly concealed financing. Polar Train LNG denies wrongdoing.
The central question is how a sanctioned Russian energy company became involved in a major American energy venture while Putin was discussing potential economic cooperation with Trump's representatives and a longtime Trump family associate was pursuing a separate agreement with the same Russian company.
Selling Alaska to the Russians or selling Ukraine to the Russians - to the Trump family it's all the same.
ft.com/content/e9cfbfbb-e65a…
