![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A very funny limerick
31/10/26 11:52"A pansy who lived in Khartoum
Took a lesbian back to his room.
They argued a lot
About who would do what
And how and with which and to whom."
Michael Deacon
Hallowe’en is the latest ridiculous victim of woke policing
If officers think children dressed as ghosts and witches could offend religious minorities, they’ve truly lost the plot
Are your children excited that it’s Hallowe’en? Eagerly looking forward to knocking on all the neighbours’ doors, and getting lots of lovely sweeties?
If so, do remind them not to commit any far-Right hate crimes.
It’s a serious risk. Or so I gather from police in Leicestershire. Because officers have warned residents that trick-or-treating may offend some people’s “religious beliefs”.
Strangely, however, they didn’t say whose. Which is a pity, because I’d be fascinated to know which faiths deem trick-or-treating to be a crime against their god, or gods. Could officers point us to the ancient holy text which pronounces on the iniquity of pumpkins, broomsticks and plastic vampire fangs?
Then again, it may just be the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding. Perhaps last year, on seeing a group of children marching up their street dressed in white bedsheets, some people thought it was a rally by the Ku Klux Klan.
At any rate, police have instructed the public to be sensitive, because some communities’ beliefs “do not include Hallowe’en”. Which is interesting, because I can’t help but recall a story The Telegraph published earlier this year. At West Midlands Police, we reported, non-Muslim officers and staff had been invited to fast during Ramadan in an “act of solidarity”.
The message was clear. Even if you don’t share another group’s beliefs, you’re encouraged to join in with their customs. What a wonderful way to bring our communities together.
In light of that, though, surely Leicestershire Police should be following the example set by their West Midlands colleagues – and urging all religious groups to take part in trick-or-treating, as an “act of solidarity” with British children.
Go on, officers. There’s still time.
Sympathy for our suffering celebs
Yet another celebrity has bravely announced that they’ve been diagnosed with ADHD. A few weeks ago, as you may recall from this column, it was the actor Simon Pegg. This time, it’s Jools Oliver – the wife of Jamie, the TV chef.
Interviewed on a podcast this week, Mrs Oliver said she finds having ADHD to be “really hard work” – which is why she recently had to reject a request from Poppy, her 24-year-old daughter. “She said to me, ‘Please can I come home for the weekend, Mum?’ I went, ‘Well, I’ll be honest, we’ve got a party. I’m going to be overwhelmed. I’ve got ADHD, you know, I’ve got lots of issues.’”
Naturally I wouldn’t wish to downplay the suffering of Mrs Oliver, or indeed any of the numerous other celebrities who have recently discovered that they have ADHD. And you could certainly argue that, by announcing their ADHD diagnoses to the world, these celebrities are helping to reduce stigma and raise awareness.
All the same, I can’t help thinking: you never hear celebrities announcing that they’ve got piles, do you?
After all, that too is a stressful and debilitating condition. Yet we don’t often see famous actors and pop stars seeking to reduce stigma and raise awareness by bravely telling the world about their haemorrhoids. “For years I felt so awkward and uncomfortable, without ever knowing why. But now that I’ve been diagnosed with piles, everything suddenly makes sense.”
Similarly, I don’t recall many TV presenters revealing all about their heroic battle with flatulence. Or giving emotional interviews about “my worms hell”. (“I always knew I was different from the other kids at school. Mainly because of all the itching.”)
So come on, celebrities. Be truly courageous, and tell us about your fungal infections and chronic halitosis. Admittedly these ailments are unlikely to gain you much social cachet. But then, it’s not about that, is it?
The most bizarre trans story you’ll read all year
Here at The Telegraph we pride ourselves on the fiendish complexity of our puzzles. If you’d like to give your brain an even more strenuous work-out, however, try making sense of the following story, which I read in another newspaper this week.
“A Canadian author who was a straight woman before becoming non-binary and then a transgender man has announced that he is now ‘two-spirit’... [The author] previously told of how his son came out as a transgender girl aged 11, before his husband came out as a transgender woman… [The couple], who have now separated, formed a four-way open relationship with two other transgender women that they called a ‘polycule’. The polycule has since split, with [the author] and his husband now in separate relationships with their respective transgender girlfriends…”
If you managed to follow all of that, without developing a severe migraine, you should be granted immediate entry to Mensa.
For my own part, I must confess that I struggled to keep up with who was whom, or indeed what. But the bit that puzzled me most was this. On what grounds would a four-person “polycule” split up? Infidelity?
“You cad. I can’t believe you cheated on us. You promised to remain faithful to us three.”
“Please, my darlings, take me back. I swear, you’re the only three people I love. Those other men, women and persons of indeterminate gender meant nothing to me.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/31/halloween-is-the-latest-ridiculous-victim-of-woke-policing/
Michael Deacon
Today’s Left-wing radicals are nothing but whacking great toffs
As bakery chain Gail’s is attacked for its ‘extortionate’ prices, why exactly are so many rich kids becoming socialists, and not socialites?
Older readers may find it depressing to see the young people of today flinging themselves into rabid hard-Left activism. Still, let’s look on the bright side. Because there is one aspect of this trend that I find highly entertaining.
It’s the fact that so many of these aspiring tribunes of the proletariat turn out to be whacking great toffs.
This week we’ve been treated to a classic example. In London, Left-wing activists are running a campaign against Gail’s, the upmarket bakery chain – because, they claim, it has “extortionate prices”, it’s fuelling the “gentrification” of Brixton, and its majority stakeholder is a private equity group that has also invested in Israeli cybersecurity firms (boo, hiss!). But who exactly is behind this noble crusade against inequality and social injustice?
Well, according to reports, one of the campaign’s ringleaders is an enchanting young gentleman called Marlo Swann McNair Plowden. That name alone is a delight. It could have sprung from the pages of PG Wodehouse. Meet Marlo: a charming chum for Bingo, Boko, Bertie, Barmy, Tuppy, Gussie, Oofy, Chuffy and all the other chaps at the Drones Club.
But there’s more. Young Marlo, we learn, comes from a splendidly illustrious family. For example, his grandfather, the Honourable William Julius Lowthian Plowden, was an Old Etonian who served as an adviser to a Tory government. Meanwhile, his great-grandfather was Lord Plowden, a leading industrialist who became a senior figure at the Treasury, and whose wife was awarded damehood for services to education.
Mind you, dear Marlo looks positively common next to some of his comrades in the fight to attain socialist utopia. You will no doubt have noticed how many of the Just Stop Oil girls have names like Cressida, Lucia and Indigo. And you may not have been entirely surprised to learn that the equally fabulously named Phoebe Plummer, the one who chucked soup over a Van Gogh, grew up in a Chelsea townhouse worth £4m and attended a school whose boarding fees are £69,000 a year.
Perhaps you also recall Robin Boardman-Pattinson, the privately educated Extinction Rebellion activist who declared that air travel “should only be used in emergencies” – before it was discovered that his Facebook page featured photos of him on skiing holidays. And don’t forget James Schneider, who at the age of just 29 was appointed “head of strategic communications” to Jeremy Corbyn. Schneider grew up in a £7m house in Primrose Hill, and attended a school whose boarding fees are £62,000 a year. Oh, and his mother is a member of The Sloane Club.
My personal favourite, though, is Arthur Clifton. He’s the Gen Z firebrand who co-founded Take Back Power, a “civil resistance group” which thunders that Britain has been “broken” by “the super-rich”. It so happens that young Arthur went to the same private school as Hugh Grant, and his father is an executive at an insurance broker that provides coverage for superyachts.
Enjoyable as all these details may be, however, I do think we need to ask ourselves a serious question. Why exactly is it that so many of today’s rich kids are becoming socialists, instead of socialites?
In my view, the answer is linked to an awkward truth at the heart of Left-wing politics. We often call it “the politics of envy”. And that’s true. But it’s not, as widely assumed, the envy the poor feel for the rich. It’s the envy the rich feel for the even richer.
In other words, this is the politics of people who are privileged – but not quite as privileged as they feel they should be. So they yearn, with furious vengeance, to tear down the people who are even more privileged than they are. Or, as the American author Rob Henderson has put it, the real battle is not between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. It’s between the “haves” and the “have-mores”.
Still, let’s not kid ourselves that this is a wholly new phenomenon. Consider the case of the original rebellious rich kid: Karl Marx.
In 1837, when Marx was 19, his father – a successful lawyer who owned a number of vineyards – sent him a letter, deploring the way that “weaklings” choose to “quarrel with the world because they do not possess, without labour or trouble, well-furnished palaces with vast sums of money and elegant carriages”. Such “embitterment disgusts me”, Marx Sr told his teenage son – “and you are the last person from whom I would expect it. What grounds can you have for it? Has not everything smiled on you ever since your cradle?”
A pertinent question for today’s pampered young radicals. Although I don’t suppose they’ll answer it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/28/michael-deacon-posh-left-wing-activists/
Michael Deacon
What makes Alastair Campbell think he’s a ‘national treasure’?
That’s how the former spin doctor describes himself in his new book. I fear, however, that not everyone will necessarily agree
In recent weeks I’ve seen each of the following people described in the media as a “national treasure”. The Girls Aloud singer Cheryl Cole; the former EastEnders actor Danny Dyer; the one-time X Factor contestant Stacey Solomon; the 1980s pop group Duran Duran; and the celebrated political commentator Gary Lineker.
Now, I mean absolutely no disrespect to any of these beloved public figures. I merely ask: how exactly is it decided that someone is a “national treasure”? Is there a formal process by which a given celebrity is nominated and approved? Indeed, is there perhaps a subdivision of the honours committee, officially authorised to decree which celebrities are to be bestowed with this coveted title?
If so, I would love to be a fly on the wall during that committee’s next meeting, as its members discuss whom to elevate to national treasuredom.
“Good morning, Mr Chairman. This year we wish to propose Celebrity Traitors contestant James Blunt, Ludwig star David Mitchell, and Great British Bake Off presenter Alison Hammond.”
“Yes, those are certainly strong candidates. But, as with all honours, do remember to discreetly check whether they’d be willing to accept. Especially after that interview with Judi Dench this month, in which she said she loathes being called a national treasure. Biggest shock to the honours system since John Lennon returned his MBE.”
Then again, maybe there’s no need for such a committee. Because it turns out that you don’t have to wait for anyone to declare you a national treasure. You can just declare yourself one.
Or at least, so I gather from Persevilience, the new book by Alastair Campbell. It’s all about the special qualities which Tony Blair’s former spin doctor believes are essential to success in politics, and indeed life in general. In my eyes, though, the most striking passage of the book is the one in which its author unexpectedly describes himself as a “national treasure presenting the UK’s No 1 podcast”.
With the second part of that claim, I have no quibbles. The Rest is Politics, which Mr Campbell co-hosts with Rory Stewart, indisputably has a lot of listeners. So that bit is perfectly justified.
I hope he will not be offended, however, if I venture to suggest that the first part of his claim is somewhat open to question. Mysterious though the process of anointing a national treasure may be, I think it is fair to say that the recipients of that honour tend to have certain qualities in common. They are – or are at least widely perceived to be – warm, cuddly, good-natured and above all lovable.
Admittedly I haven’t commissioned a polling firm to ask the public what adjectives it would use to describe Mr Campbell. But I would be a touch surprised if those were the most common responses.
“Alastair Campbell? That’s easy, mate. Without a shadow of a doubt, the first word that leaps to mind is ‘lovable’. I mean, that’s what he’s always been known for, isn’t it? His sheer, overwhelming lovability. During that whole inquiry into the Iraq weapons dossier, I remember thinking: ‘Gosh, this Campbell bloke’s lovable. Lovability just oozes from his every pore. I don’t think I’ve ever seen lovability like it. Why, he’s the political equivalent of Paddington Bear.’”
At the very least, I suppose we do have to admire Mr Campbell’s self-belief. All the same, if he wishes to be known as a “national treasure”, I feel he should await an official ruling from my special honours committee.
“Well, ladies and gentlemen, it would seem that there’s room for one more name on this year’s list of national treasures. Ooh, I know. How about Alastair Campbell?”
“Hmm. Tough decision. I’d say it’s between him and King John, Guy Fawkes, Oliver Cromwell and Jack the Ripper.”
Could you be a BBC reporter?
Street Fighter – a new Hollywood action film based on an extremely violent video game – has not exactly won universal acclaim from critics. But if, for some unfortunate reason, you find yourself roped into seeing it at the cinema, don’t worry. Because I’ve thought of a way to alleviate the tedium.
Pretend that you’re a reporter for the BBC.
So, during the scene in which a man smashes another man through a wall, turn to the person sitting next to you and say: “He’s merely protesting about the poor condition of French schools.” Then, during the scene in which a man kicks another man repeatedly in the face, say: “He’s just concerned about the cost of living.” And, during the scene in which a woman blows up a van with a rocket launcher, say: “She’s simply worried about rising fuel prices.”
Then afterwards, when asked what you thought of this two-hour display of non-stop carnage, say: “It was largely peaceful.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/27/what-makes-alastair-campbell-think-hes-a-national-treasure/
What makes Alastair Campbell think he’s a ‘national treasure’?
That’s how the former spin doctor describes himself in his new book. I fear, however, that not everyone will necessarily agree
In recent weeks I’ve seen each of the following people described in the media as a “national treasure”. The Girls Aloud singer Cheryl Cole; the former EastEnders actor Danny Dyer; the one-time X Factor contestant Stacey Solomon; the 1980s pop group Duran Duran; and the celebrated political commentator Gary Lineker.
Now, I mean absolutely no disrespect to any of these beloved public figures. I merely ask: how exactly is it decided that someone is a “national treasure”? Is there a formal process by which a given celebrity is nominated and approved? Indeed, is there perhaps a subdivision of the honours committee, officially authorised to decree which celebrities are to be bestowed with this coveted title?
If so, I would love to be a fly on the wall during that committee’s next meeting, as its members discuss whom to elevate to national treasuredom.
“Good morning, Mr Chairman. This year we wish to propose Celebrity Traitors contestant James Blunt, Ludwig star David Mitchell, and Great British Bake Off presenter Alison Hammond.”
“Yes, those are certainly strong candidates. But, as with all honours, do remember to discreetly check whether they’d be willing to accept. Especially after that interview with Judi Dench this month, in which she said she loathes being called a national treasure. Biggest shock to the honours system since John Lennon returned his MBE.”
Then again, maybe there’s no need for such a committee. Because it turns out that you don’t have to wait for anyone to declare you a national treasure. You can just declare yourself one.
Or at least, so I gather from Persevilience, the new book by Alastair Campbell. It’s all about the special qualities which Tony Blair’s former spin doctor believes are essential to success in politics, and indeed life in general. In my eyes, though, the most striking passage of the book is the one in which its author unexpectedly describes himself as a “national treasure presenting the UK’s No 1 podcast”.
With the second part of that claim, I have no quibbles. The Rest is Politics, which Mr Campbell co-hosts with Rory Stewart, indisputably has a lot of listeners. So that bit is perfectly justified.
I hope he will not be offended, however, if I venture to suggest that the first part of his claim is somewhat open to question. Mysterious though the process of anointing a national treasure may be, I think it is fair to say that the recipients of that honour tend to have certain qualities in common. They are – or are at least widely perceived to be – warm, cuddly, good-natured and above all lovable.
Admittedly I haven’t commissioned a polling firm to ask the public what adjectives it would use to describe Mr Campbell. But I would be a touch surprised if those were the most common responses.
“Alastair Campbell? That’s easy, mate. Without a shadow of a doubt, the first word that leaps to mind is ‘lovable’. I mean, that’s what he’s always been known for, isn’t it? His sheer, overwhelming lovability. During that whole inquiry into the Iraq weapons dossier, I remember thinking: ‘Gosh, this Campbell bloke’s lovable. Lovability just oozes from his every pore. I don’t think I’ve ever seen lovability like it. Why, he’s the political equivalent of Paddington Bear.’”
At the very least, I suppose we do have to admire Mr Campbell’s self-belief. All the same, if he wishes to be known as a “national treasure”, I feel he should await an official ruling from my special honours committee.
“Well, ladies and gentlemen, it would seem that there’s room for one more name on this year’s list of national treasures. Ooh, I know. How about Alastair Campbell?”
“Hmm. Tough decision. I’d say it’s between him and King John, Guy Fawkes, Oliver Cromwell and Jack the Ripper.”
Could you be a BBC reporter?
Street Fighter – a new Hollywood action film based on an extremely violent video game – has not exactly won universal acclaim from critics. But if, for some unfortunate reason, you find yourself roped into seeing it at the cinema, don’t worry. Because I’ve thought of a way to alleviate the tedium.
Pretend that you’re a reporter for the BBC.
So, during the scene in which a man smashes another man through a wall, turn to the person sitting next to you and say: “He’s merely protesting about the poor condition of French schools.” Then, during the scene in which a man kicks another man repeatedly in the face, say: “He’s just concerned about the cost of living.” And, during the scene in which a woman blows up a van with a rocket launcher, say: “She’s simply worried about rising fuel prices.”
Then afterwards, when asked what you thought of this two-hour display of non-stop carnage, say: “It was largely peaceful.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/27/what-makes-alastair-campbell-think-hes-a-national-treasure/
A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?’ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/satire/why-do-some-british-people-not-like-donald-trump-135275/
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?’ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/satire/why-do-some-british-people-not-like-donald-trump-135275/
Tom McArdle
Man attacked Jewish woman as she pushed baby in pram, court told
Abdisamad Siad, 33, arrested and charged after incidents in Stamford Hill area on Monday
A man accused of assaulting three Jewish women in north London allegedly attacked one of the victims while she was pushing her baby in a pram, a court has heard.
Abdisamad Siad, 33, of no fixed abode, appeared at Highbury Corner magistrates’ court on Wednesday morning, charged with three counts of assault by beating.
Magistrates heard that the alleged offences took place on Clapton Common on Monday, when a first victim reported being “slapped across the face” by a man at around 1.30pm.
The man then “moved as though he was going to punch her” before running away, Shubhangi Mitra, the prosecutor, told the court.
The court heard that the second complainant was pushing her baby daughter in a pram when, at approximately 1.36pm, it was alleged that the defendant punched her twice in the face before leaving the scene.
Shortly afterwards, the defendant allegedly punched the third victim “three to four times” before running away.
All three victims were members of the Orthodox Jewish community, prosecutors said.
Siad entered not guilty pleas to the three charges. A provisional trial date was fixed for Dec 11 at Stratford magistrates’ court.
He was also charged with a separate offence of grievous bodily harm with intent over an unrelated alleged attack on another woman.
Magistrates told the defendant he would next appear at Snaresbrook Crown Court on Nov 18 for a plea and trial preparation hearing in relation to this single charge.
Siad was remanded in custody at the end of the hearing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/21/man-charged-after-jewish-women-attacked-in-north-london/
Man attacked Jewish woman as she pushed baby in pram, court told
Abdisamad Siad, 33, arrested and charged after incidents in Stamford Hill area on Monday
A man accused of assaulting three Jewish women in north London allegedly attacked one of the victims while she was pushing her baby in a pram, a court has heard.
Abdisamad Siad, 33, of no fixed abode, appeared at Highbury Corner magistrates’ court on Wednesday morning, charged with three counts of assault by beating.
Magistrates heard that the alleged offences took place on Clapton Common on Monday, when a first victim reported being “slapped across the face” by a man at around 1.30pm.
The man then “moved as though he was going to punch her” before running away, Shubhangi Mitra, the prosecutor, told the court.
The court heard that the second complainant was pushing her baby daughter in a pram when, at approximately 1.36pm, it was alleged that the defendant punched her twice in the face before leaving the scene.
Shortly afterwards, the defendant allegedly punched the third victim “three to four times” before running away.
All three victims were members of the Orthodox Jewish community, prosecutors said.
Siad entered not guilty pleas to the three charges. A provisional trial date was fixed for Dec 11 at Stratford magistrates’ court.
He was also charged with a separate offence of grievous bodily harm with intent over an unrelated alleged attack on another woman.
Magistrates told the defendant he would next appear at Snaresbrook Crown Court on Nov 18 for a plea and trial preparation hearing in relation to this single charge.
Siad was remanded in custody at the end of the hearing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/21/man-charged-after-jewish-women-attacked-in-north-london/
Опять сказочка про русского генерала, который свернул свои танки с прекрасного бетонного шоссе и повел их в болото, когда мог быть в Киеве через 4.5 часа и война была ба закончена. Я дал им Джавелины.
И мы ничего не получили взамен кроме горя.
Эй,, трамписты русскоязычные, ау! Арбат, Хахам, itsi, Часовщик, ugputu, кто там еще? Прокомментируйте, плиз откровения своего кумира и великого писдилера, прекратившего 9 войн.
И мы ничего не получили взамен кроме горя.
Эй,, трамписты русскоязычные, ау! Арбат, Хахам, itsi, Часовщик, ugputu, кто там еще? Прокомментируйте, плиз откровения своего кумира и великого писдилера, прекратившего 9 войн.
To Russia With Love, Signed Donald
Trump waives sanctions and tariffs under the Lindsey Graham law.
President Trump’s assistance to Vladimir Putin keeps growing by the day, and in the latest example he stuck a shiv in the back of the legacy of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Mr. Trump waived tariffs for an indefinite period against the top buyers of Russian energy contained in the recent Graham bill passed with big majorities by the House and Senate. The Senate vote was 86-11. His executive order also waives new sanctions on Russian political and military officials, government entities, financial institutions, the energy industry and the shadow fleet Moscow uses for sanctions evasion and other nefarious purposes.
Mr. Trump offered no explanation beyond a statement that “the issuance of such a waiver at this time is in the national interests of the United States.” The opposite is true, and Mr. Trump is now Mr. Putin’s best friend in the world, after perhaps China’s Xi Jinping.
Mr. Putin responded Friday night to Mr. Trump’s latest gift with one of the largest attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure in the four-and-a-half-year war. The assault included strikes on more than 15 power generation and transmission facilities.
This comes a week after Mr. Trump declared an “energy cease-fire” in the war. Ukraine honored it until it was clear Russia didn’t. Yet the U.S. President blames Ukraine.
Amid bipartisan criticism from Members of Congress, Mr. Trump said Saturday that he hasn’t made a final decision on the Graham sanctions, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he’ll take 60 days to review the impact.
On Sunday Mr. Trump said on social media that he is trying to negotiate a peace deal and doesn’t “want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.” But he’s been courting Mr. Putin this way for two years, to no avail.
Meanwhile, the evidence compounds that Mr. Trump wants Ukraine to surrender on Mr. Putin’s terms. He’s dropped sanctions on Russian sales of diesel oil, a $4.5 billion windfall for Russian energy companies. He’s threatened to cut off U.S. intelligence to Kyiv. And the Trump Administration still hasn’t come clean on who ordered speed limits on SpaceX’s Starshield satellite service that has compromised Ukraine air defenses and strikes on Russian positions in occupied Ukraine.
Reuters reported Friday that the order to throttle Starshield “came from inside the White House.” Mr. Trump said Friday “I don’t know if it was anybody because it wasn’t me and I don’t think it was Elon” Musk, the SpaceX CEO. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Saturday that some restrictions on Starshield were still in place, so someone is ordering it.
Congress is preoccupied with the Nov. 3 election, but Mr. Trump may not appreciate the anger he’s courting if he keeps aiding Mr. Putin. When the election is over there needs to be a bipartisan reckoning for Mr. Trump’s budding alliance with the Kremlin against Ukraine, Europe and American interests.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/to-russia-with-love-signed-donald-bffbcdc8?mod=hp_opin_pos_4
"Крым омывается с четырех сторон океаном"
""Если бы русский генерал не свернул с шоссе в болото, то война закончилась бы в тот же день. Поэтому Путин очень зол".
"Байден дал Украине очень много ракет Патриот и Томагавков, а украинцы их все продали на свободном рынке". -(Я так думаю, что на Привозе)..
"Зеленский разрушил Украину".
25-я поправка или импичмент давно плачут по нему горючими слезами.
""Если бы русский генерал не свернул с шоссе в болото, то война закончилась бы в тот же день. Поэтому Путин очень зол".
"Байден дал Украине очень много ракет Патриот и Томагавков, а украинцы их все продали на свободном рынке". -(Я так думаю, что на Привозе)..
"Зеленский разрушил Украину".
25-я поправка или импичмент давно плачут по нему горючими слезами.
Очень в тему
14/10/26 20:53"Торопись — тощий гриф над страною кружит!
Лес — обитель твою — по весне навести:
Слышишь — гулко земля под ногами дрожит?
Видишь — плотный туман над полями лежит?
Это росы вскипают от ненависти!
Ненависть в почках набухших томится,
Ненависть в нас затаённо бурлит,
Ненависть потом сквозь кожу сочится,
Головы наши палит!
Погляди — что за рыжие пятна в реке?
Зло решило порядок в стране навести.
Рукояти мечей холодеют в руке,
И отчаянье бьётся, как птица, в виске,
И заходится сердце от ненависти!
Ненависть юным уродует лица,
Ненависть просится из берегов,
Ненависть жаждет и хочет напиться
Чёрною кровью врагов!
Да, нас ненависть в плен захватила сейчас,
Но не злоба нас будет из плена вести.
Не слепая, не чёрная ненависть в нас —
Свежий ветер нам высушит слёзы у глаз
Справедливой и подлинной ненависти!
Ненависть — пей, переполнена чаша!
Ненависть требует выхода, ждёт.
Но благородная ненависть наша
Рядом с любовью живёт!"
В. Высоцкий
Лес — обитель твою — по весне навести:
Слышишь — гулко земля под ногами дрожит?
Видишь — плотный туман над полями лежит?
Это росы вскипают от ненависти!
Ненависть в почках набухших томится,
Ненависть в нас затаённо бурлит,
Ненависть потом сквозь кожу сочится,
Головы наши палит!
Погляди — что за рыжие пятна в реке?
Зло решило порядок в стране навести.
Рукояти мечей холодеют в руке,
И отчаянье бьётся, как птица, в виске,
И заходится сердце от ненависти!
Ненависть юным уродует лица,
Ненависть просится из берегов,
Ненависть жаждет и хочет напиться
Чёрною кровью врагов!
Да, нас ненависть в плен захватила сейчас,
Но не злоба нас будет из плена вести.
Не слепая, не чёрная ненависть в нас —
Свежий ветер нам высушит слёзы у глаз
Справедливой и подлинной ненависти!
Ненависть — пей, переполнена чаша!
Ненависть требует выхода, ждёт.
Но благородная ненависть наша
Рядом с любовью живёт!"
В. Высоцкий
Michael Deacon
Neglectful modern parents are failing their children – no matter what the BBC says
Despite pointing the finger at time, money and stress, there really is nobody else to blame when four-year-olds go to school in nappies
See if you can make sense of this. A council in Yorkshire has asked parents to make sure their children have mastered certain skills before they start primary school next year. These skills include using cutlery, brushing their teeth, putting on their shoes – and “saying their own name”.
Now hang on a moment. Are there really children starting primary school who have yet to master the last of these “skills”? I appreciate that some names are trickier to pronounce than others. For instance, I myself sometimes forget how to pronounce “Saoirse”. But I’d like to think that I’d remember how to pronounce it if it were actually my own name.
Still, we shouldn’t joke. Because the truth is, an alarmingly high number of children nowadays are apparently incapable of completing the simplest tasks. And this week, the BBC website ran a lengthy report about the most shocking example of all.
According to a survey of teachers by an early-years charity called Kindred Squared, a quarter of children who started primary school in 2025 had not yet been toilet trained. Seriously: a quarter. So the BBC decided to investigate. And, somewhat curiously, every single person the BBC spoke to agreed on one thing. It definitely isn’t the parents’ fault.
“It’s not the parent, it’s not being lazy,” said a teacher. “We need to be really careful that we’re not just jumping to blaming parents,” said an expert in childhood development. “I just genuinely don’t think it’s the parents’ fault,” said a parent.
But if the parents aren’t to blame, what on earth is the cause of this disturbing development? Well, according to the BBC’s report, there are numerous possibilities. For example, “some parents don’t have time”. Others are too “deprived” to afford “expensive” books on parenting. Oh, and we mustn’t forget “parental stress”.
Now, I don’t mean to sound callous. But I’m afraid that I for one find these excuses just a tiny bit unconvincing.
First: some parents “don’t have time” to potty-train their children? Are their lives really so staggeringly busy that they can’t spare a moment to teach their children how to go to the loo? Do they at least manage to find time to feed the poor things now and again? Or do they leave that task to the teachers, too?
Second: some parents can’t afford “expensive” parenting manuals? Do they seriously need a book to tell them how to do potty-training? And if they can’t afford one, can they not at least afford to look up some tips online? Or is Google behind a paywall now?
Oh, and as for “parental stress”: do these parents not feel rather more “stressed” at the thought of how disgusted the teacher will be when he or she discovers that they haven’t bothered to potty-train their child and, as a result, the child is still in nappies at the age of four?
That thought would have made me feel pretty stressed. Fortunately, however, the problem never arose, because I actually had bothered to potty-train my child. Funnily enough, it was one of the least difficult parental tasks I’ve ever had to do. I simply bought my son a special Thomas the Tank Engine potty, which plays the show’s theme tune every time the child uses it successfully.
Then again, perhaps I shouldn’t mention that, in case the BBC runs an article explaining that some parents are too “deprived” to afford a Thomas the Tank Engine potty. Or maybe even a potty at all. (To adapt an old saying: “We were so poor, I didn’t have a potty to p--- in.”)
No matter what the BBC tells us, though, I do blame the parents. In fact, I think they’re not merely being “lazy”. I think they’re being disgracefully neglectful. They’re actively failing their children. But if our national broadcaster gives them the impression that it isn’t their fault, how can we expect them to change?
In its defence, the BBC may argue that it has merely reported what its interviewees said. All the same, how odd that none of them thought feckless modern parents were to blame. Surely there must be at least some teachers who disagree.
And indeed there are. Compare the BBC story with an article in The Sun earlier this year, which reported that “primary school teachers are in crisis” after being forced “to change nappies because of laziness and neglect by bad parents… One [teacher] said mums and dads were a ‘disgrace’, adding: ‘We don’t have enough time to teach because of bad parenting. It’s soul-destroying.’”
We often say that young people today should be having more children. But on second thoughts, maybe it’s best if they don’t.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/14/feckless-modern-parents-potty-training-school-children-bbc/
Neglectful modern parents are failing their children – no matter what the BBC says
Despite pointing the finger at time, money and stress, there really is nobody else to blame when four-year-olds go to school in nappies
See if you can make sense of this. A council in Yorkshire has asked parents to make sure their children have mastered certain skills before they start primary school next year. These skills include using cutlery, brushing their teeth, putting on their shoes – and “saying their own name”.
Now hang on a moment. Are there really children starting primary school who have yet to master the last of these “skills”? I appreciate that some names are trickier to pronounce than others. For instance, I myself sometimes forget how to pronounce “Saoirse”. But I’d like to think that I’d remember how to pronounce it if it were actually my own name.
Still, we shouldn’t joke. Because the truth is, an alarmingly high number of children nowadays are apparently incapable of completing the simplest tasks. And this week, the BBC website ran a lengthy report about the most shocking example of all.
According to a survey of teachers by an early-years charity called Kindred Squared, a quarter of children who started primary school in 2025 had not yet been toilet trained. Seriously: a quarter. So the BBC decided to investigate. And, somewhat curiously, every single person the BBC spoke to agreed on one thing. It definitely isn’t the parents’ fault.
“It’s not the parent, it’s not being lazy,” said a teacher. “We need to be really careful that we’re not just jumping to blaming parents,” said an expert in childhood development. “I just genuinely don’t think it’s the parents’ fault,” said a parent.
But if the parents aren’t to blame, what on earth is the cause of this disturbing development? Well, according to the BBC’s report, there are numerous possibilities. For example, “some parents don’t have time”. Others are too “deprived” to afford “expensive” books on parenting. Oh, and we mustn’t forget “parental stress”.
Now, I don’t mean to sound callous. But I’m afraid that I for one find these excuses just a tiny bit unconvincing.
First: some parents “don’t have time” to potty-train their children? Are their lives really so staggeringly busy that they can’t spare a moment to teach their children how to go to the loo? Do they at least manage to find time to feed the poor things now and again? Or do they leave that task to the teachers, too?
Second: some parents can’t afford “expensive” parenting manuals? Do they seriously need a book to tell them how to do potty-training? And if they can’t afford one, can they not at least afford to look up some tips online? Or is Google behind a paywall now?
Oh, and as for “parental stress”: do these parents not feel rather more “stressed” at the thought of how disgusted the teacher will be when he or she discovers that they haven’t bothered to potty-train their child and, as a result, the child is still in nappies at the age of four?
That thought would have made me feel pretty stressed. Fortunately, however, the problem never arose, because I actually had bothered to potty-train my child. Funnily enough, it was one of the least difficult parental tasks I’ve ever had to do. I simply bought my son a special Thomas the Tank Engine potty, which plays the show’s theme tune every time the child uses it successfully.
Then again, perhaps I shouldn’t mention that, in case the BBC runs an article explaining that some parents are too “deprived” to afford a Thomas the Tank Engine potty. Or maybe even a potty at all. (To adapt an old saying: “We were so poor, I didn’t have a potty to p--- in.”)
No matter what the BBC tells us, though, I do blame the parents. In fact, I think they’re not merely being “lazy”. I think they’re being disgracefully neglectful. They’re actively failing their children. But if our national broadcaster gives them the impression that it isn’t their fault, how can we expect them to change?
In its defence, the BBC may argue that it has merely reported what its interviewees said. All the same, how odd that none of them thought feckless modern parents were to blame. Surely there must be at least some teachers who disagree.
And indeed there are. Compare the BBC story with an article in The Sun earlier this year, which reported that “primary school teachers are in crisis” after being forced “to change nappies because of laziness and neglect by bad parents… One [teacher] said mums and dads were a ‘disgrace’, adding: ‘We don’t have enough time to teach because of bad parenting. It’s soul-destroying.’”
We often say that young people today should be having more children. But on second thoughts, maybe it’s best if they don’t.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/14/feckless-modern-parents-potty-training-school-children-bbc/
Только что по ВВС выступал General Sir Alexander Richard David Shirreff, KCB, CBE и он прямо сказал, что Трамп - это агент Путина, это надо осознать и европейские лидеры должны вести себя и поступать с ним соответственно.
Today's Michael Deacon
13/10/26 10:40Michael Deacon
Are British people stealing immigrants’ jobs?
I thought it was meant to be the other way round. But a report on benefits claimants in Birmingham has made me wonder…
Over the past couple of decades, more than a few British people have accused immigrants of stealing their jobs, by under-cutting them on pay. At last, though, it seems that things may be starting to change. Because these days, apparently, it’s the other way round.
Or so I gather from a fascinating quote in our report, published on Sunday, about places in Britain where a majority of adults are claiming out-of-work benefits. In Birmingham, our reporter interviewed a local man named Mohammad Khan. And he said: “Here it is hard to get a job. A lot of students come and pick up part-time jobs. They take over the housing. They work for a lower rate and they can speak English.”
If the ability to speak English is giving these students a decisive advantage in the Birmingham jobs market, that means the people they’re under-cutting must be immigrants who can’t speak English. In which case, I hope Birmingham isn’t going to see mass protests by unemployed immigrants, muttering: “Bloody British. Coming over here, stealing our jobs.” Then again, if they can only say this in another language, I suppose we won’t know what they’re protesting about.
As it happens, my 18-year-old niece, who is from Buckinghamshire, has just started studying at the University of Birmingham. I must warn her not to get a part-time job. After all, that would be very unfair on the locals. Especially the ones who can’t speak English. Also, I hope she and her student friends won’t, in Mr Khan’s phrase, “take over the housing”. It would be outrageous if much-needed local accommodation were given to a load of outsiders who have only just arrived.
Anyway, this unfortunate situation puts me in mind of an article I read in Metro, in 2022. It reported that the recent gentrification of Brixton, South London, had been deeply distressing to locals of Caribbean descent – because, they said, it had caused their area to undergo rapid demographic change. One man, who had run a jerk chicken van there for 17 years, complained: “If you go to some places in Brixton nowadays, you will not see any black people.”
Which is interesting. Because, this last time year, Reform’s Robert Jenrick got in a lot of trouble for saying that, when he visited the Handsworth area of Birmingham, he “didn’t see another white face”. If it was offensive for Mr Jenrick to note a lack of white faces in parts of Birmingham, was it offensive for the jerk chicken vendor to note a lack of black faces in parts of Brixton? Personally, I don’t recall anyone kicking up a fuss about the latter of the two comments. So I suppose it must be different.
At any rate, the important thing to remember is that diversity is our strength. And so, if this sudden influx of English speakers makes Birmingham more diverse, I think we should all applaud it.
The Traitors’ most amazing feat yet
May I say how impressed I was by the BBC’s diligence in ensuring that, throughout Bella Ramsey’s time on Celebrity Traitors, the actress was never misgendered. Ms Ramsey identifies as non-binary, and so must be referred to using the pronouns “they” and “them”, rather than “she” and “her”. What a relief, therefore, that everyone involved in the show managed to get it right, every time.
Or did they? Let’s not forget, the series was filmed well in advance of transmission. So I suppose it’s possible that, now and again, one of the other celebrities slipped up, and inadvertently used the wrong pronoun – thus requiring the scene to be re-shot. Just imagine.
Celebrity: “Of course, the lovely thing about Bella is that she’s so…”
Producer: “CUT!”
Celebrity: “Eh? What did I do?”
Producer: “You misgendered her!”
Cameraman: “It’s true, you did. Remember: she’s not ‘she’, she’s ‘they’.”
Runner: “But hang on. Now you two have misgendered her, too.”
Producer: “Well, now so have you!”
Director: “Right, that’s it. No more of this disgraceful misgendering. If anyone else refers to them as ‘her’, I’m kicking them off the show.”
Celebrity: “You’re kicking Bella off the show?”
Director: “No, not her. Oh, Christ…”
I can’t help thinking of the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, in which a high priest (John Cleese) is about to have a man stoned to death for blasphemously uttering the word “Jehovah”. Unfortunately, however, the crowd – who have each brought heaps of stones – are all too eager to get cracking. So the high priest barks: “Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand? Even – and I want to make this absolutely clear – even if they do say ‘Jehovah’!”
And so, of course, he immediately gets stoned to death himself.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/13/are-british-people-stealing-immigrants-jobs/
Are British people stealing immigrants’ jobs?
I thought it was meant to be the other way round. But a report on benefits claimants in Birmingham has made me wonder…
Over the past couple of decades, more than a few British people have accused immigrants of stealing their jobs, by under-cutting them on pay. At last, though, it seems that things may be starting to change. Because these days, apparently, it’s the other way round.
Or so I gather from a fascinating quote in our report, published on Sunday, about places in Britain where a majority of adults are claiming out-of-work benefits. In Birmingham, our reporter interviewed a local man named Mohammad Khan. And he said: “Here it is hard to get a job. A lot of students come and pick up part-time jobs. They take over the housing. They work for a lower rate and they can speak English.”
If the ability to speak English is giving these students a decisive advantage in the Birmingham jobs market, that means the people they’re under-cutting must be immigrants who can’t speak English. In which case, I hope Birmingham isn’t going to see mass protests by unemployed immigrants, muttering: “Bloody British. Coming over here, stealing our jobs.” Then again, if they can only say this in another language, I suppose we won’t know what they’re protesting about.
As it happens, my 18-year-old niece, who is from Buckinghamshire, has just started studying at the University of Birmingham. I must warn her not to get a part-time job. After all, that would be very unfair on the locals. Especially the ones who can’t speak English. Also, I hope she and her student friends won’t, in Mr Khan’s phrase, “take over the housing”. It would be outrageous if much-needed local accommodation were given to a load of outsiders who have only just arrived.
Anyway, this unfortunate situation puts me in mind of an article I read in Metro, in 2022. It reported that the recent gentrification of Brixton, South London, had been deeply distressing to locals of Caribbean descent – because, they said, it had caused their area to undergo rapid demographic change. One man, who had run a jerk chicken van there for 17 years, complained: “If you go to some places in Brixton nowadays, you will not see any black people.”
Which is interesting. Because, this last time year, Reform’s Robert Jenrick got in a lot of trouble for saying that, when he visited the Handsworth area of Birmingham, he “didn’t see another white face”. If it was offensive for Mr Jenrick to note a lack of white faces in parts of Birmingham, was it offensive for the jerk chicken vendor to note a lack of black faces in parts of Brixton? Personally, I don’t recall anyone kicking up a fuss about the latter of the two comments. So I suppose it must be different.
At any rate, the important thing to remember is that diversity is our strength. And so, if this sudden influx of English speakers makes Birmingham more diverse, I think we should all applaud it.
The Traitors’ most amazing feat yet
May I say how impressed I was by the BBC’s diligence in ensuring that, throughout Bella Ramsey’s time on Celebrity Traitors, the actress was never misgendered. Ms Ramsey identifies as non-binary, and so must be referred to using the pronouns “they” and “them”, rather than “she” and “her”. What a relief, therefore, that everyone involved in the show managed to get it right, every time.
Or did they? Let’s not forget, the series was filmed well in advance of transmission. So I suppose it’s possible that, now and again, one of the other celebrities slipped up, and inadvertently used the wrong pronoun – thus requiring the scene to be re-shot. Just imagine.
Celebrity: “Of course, the lovely thing about Bella is that she’s so…”
Producer: “CUT!”
Celebrity: “Eh? What did I do?”
Producer: “You misgendered her!”
Cameraman: “It’s true, you did. Remember: she’s not ‘she’, she’s ‘they’.”
Runner: “But hang on. Now you two have misgendered her, too.”
Producer: “Well, now so have you!”
Director: “Right, that’s it. No more of this disgraceful misgendering. If anyone else refers to them as ‘her’, I’m kicking them off the show.”
Celebrity: “You’re kicking Bella off the show?”
Director: “No, not her. Oh, Christ…”
I can’t help thinking of the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, in which a high priest (John Cleese) is about to have a man stoned to death for blasphemously uttering the word “Jehovah”. Unfortunately, however, the crowd – who have each brought heaps of stones – are all too eager to get cracking. So the high priest barks: “Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand? Even – and I want to make this absolutely clear – even if they do say ‘Jehovah’!”
And so, of course, he immediately gets stoned to death himself.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/13/are-british-people-stealing-immigrants-jobs/
Trump is adding farce to Ukraine’s tragedy
The main problem with the ‘energy ceasefire’ is that it only exists in the US President’s head
In just 24 hours, Donald Trump’s eccentric policy on the war in Ukraine has taken a bizarre new twist. Having U-turned on Russian sanctions by doing a deal to import diesel, then called for Volodymyr Zelensky to be replaced as Ukrainian President, Mr Trump then announced an “energy ceasefire”.
His idea is, apparently, that both sides will stop destroying the other’s oil and gas facilities. If that were to happen, the United States might import enough Russian diesel fuel to lower prices in time to save the Republicans from losing one or both houses of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
The main problem with this ceasefire is that it only exists in the US President’s head. Mr Zelensky responded by saying that it was news to him, though he would cooperate as long as Russia did the same. From the Kremlin, there was silence. Then, after Mr Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire, the Russians launched drone attacks on power plants in Kyiv and Kharkiv.
It has been clear all along which side in this conflict genuinely wants peace. Mr Zelensky quickly responded to Mr Trump’s outrageous call for him to go by offering to hold elections – but only if Russia agreed to a comprehensive 60-day ceasefire. Needless to say, this offer, like all the others, was ignored by Putin. These latest examples of the Russian leader’s belligerence give the lie to Mr Trump’s accusations against Mr Zelensky.
There is, as usual, method in Mr Trump’s madness. Even though his claim to have brokered an “energy ceasefire” is invented, many Americans may believe him. Now that Ukraine has been attacked again, as it has been incessantly, Kyiv will sooner or later have no choice but to retaliate. When it does, Mr Trump can blame Mr Zelensky, not only for breaking his imaginary ceasefire, but for raising the price of diesel in America. He hopes voters will overlook the real reason for high fuel prices: his own war against Iran.
Mr Trump has been trying to pin the responsibility for Putin’s war of conquest on Mr Zelensky at least since the infamous Oval Office press conference in February last year. Now he sees an opportunity to turn his bête noire into his scapegoat.
But the rest of the world can see what is going on. The antics of Potus have merely added an element of farce to a tragedy in which he appears to have taken the side, not of the victim, but of the villain.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2026/10/12/trump-is-adding-farce-to-ukraine-tragedy/
