Arsenal, Pilsner Urquell, Celtic, Cats, Movies, Softball, Baseball, Curry. FPL 🇺🇦
Česká Republika
Joined April 2011
- Tweets16.5K
- Following5.3K
- Followers4.8K
- Likes3.7K
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
10 years ago today, the Cubs won their first World Series Championship since 1908 in one of the greatest Game 7s in World Series history
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
10 years ago today, the Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series Championship by defeating the Indians in Game 7 of the 2016 World Series 🙌🏼
After being down 3-1, the Cubs came back and became World Series Champions for the first time in 108 years 🙏🏼
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Watching PMQs, strikes me once again how grateful we should be to David Cameron for closing the Europe question via a referendum once and for all.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Here's Britain's thickest person @LeeAndersonMP_ lying and getting found out on @GBNEWS
This 🤡takes thick to a whole new level👇
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Ian Wright on Man City's owners🗣️
"I have nothing but DISTASTE for the owners & what they've done"😡
"They are very very wealthy people & they could've done this properly, but they didn't because it's just a vanity project!"💸
"They do NOT care about ANYTHING! English football, what the fans think, They don't care about ANYTHING"❌
"They just wanted to win for PR, This is all for PR, THIS IS BOLLOCKS"🤬
{@WeAreTheOverlap}
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Andrew, forget for a moment the endless Brexit accountancy — customs forms, regulations, GDP fractions and whether one trade agreement adds 0.1% here or subtracts 0.2% there.
There is a much larger question: where does British power come from?
Churchill understood it perfectly. Britain was powerful because it stood at the junction of what he called the “three majestic circles”: the Commonwealth, the English-speaking world and United Europe.
That was not sentimental Europeanism. It was hard-headed British geopolitics.
For three centuries British strategy was based on one central principle: never allow the European continent to be organised without Britain having a decisive voice in its organisation. Marlborough understood it. Pitt understood it. Castlereagh understood it. Palmerston understood it. Churchill understood it.
The object was never to escape Europe. It was to shape Europe.
That is why Churchill could simultaneously be the supreme Atlanticist, an imperialist and the man who declared at Zurich: “Let Europe arise!”
Brexit can be argued economically until the last customs declaration is filed. But geopolitically the question is much more profound.
Sovereignty is the legal freedom to act.
Power is the ability to make others act with you.
Britain historically maximised the second, not merely the first.
The great British foreign-policy tradition was never “splendid isolation”. It was ensuring that Britain sat at every important table — Washington, the Commonwealth and Europe — and could play one circle through the others.
Leaving a table may increase your freedom from its rules.
It does not automatically increase your power over what is decided there.
Churchill’s Britain wanted both sovereignty and leverage.
That is the argument Brexit has never satisfactorily answered.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
@afneil told Question Time that Britain has outgrown Germany, France and Italy since Brexit, so closer ties with Europe are pointless. I work for a German company, my wife is Italian, and I'm between the UK and the Continent most weeks. Here's why he's wrong.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
🚨 EVERY SINGLE DAY, Adam Brooks posts misleading attention-seeking manufactured outrage.
GB News panellist and divisive adolescent gobshite Brooks uses the exact same structure he used in the misleading vertical-drinking tweet below: pile up a bunch of unrelated claims; strip out essential context; force a binary. Each claim only survives on the absence of the context it deliberately excludes.
1. “Every single day”
Brooks presents his own posting habit as data. Is it fuck. Aggregating individual crime reports day after day produces the impression of an epidemic without ever supplying a denominator: no comparison to offending rates in the general population, among asylum seekers specifically, or among foreign nationals as a whole.
It’s an anecdote treated as a statistic, and the scare quotes around “asylum seeker” do additional work, implying the label itself is being misapplied without offering any evidence for that.
It’s the same selectivity that lets him stay quiet closer to home. Months earlier, Brooks was a warm, admiring guest on the podcast of James English, a friendship he’s publicly acknowledged more than once. English was convicted in August 2026 of a course of abusive conduct toward a pregnant former partner. That case has drawn nothing like the daily treatment Brooks reserves for unnamed “asylum seekers.”
2. “Going to court to STOP that migrant data being released”
This inflates a narrower and more mundane dispute. The Ministry of Justice is challenging an Information Commissioner’s Office ruling that followed a FoI request from the dodgy one-man far-right think tank, the Centre for Migration Control (CMC), run by wanker Rob Bates, who has cost UK taxpayers an absolute fortune in largely pointless FoIs which he then weaponises to attack migrants and asylum seekers.
The CMC FoI Brooks is referring to sought a detailed breakdown of criminal convictions by nationality, split by specific offence categories including rape and child sexual abuse, covering 2018 to 2024. The government has already released partial figures on this.
In 2025, foreign nationals accounted for around 14% of sexual offence convictions in England and Wales, a figure that has been public. Around 14% of adults aged 16 or over in England and Wales are estimated to be foreign nationals. So the legal fight concerns the granularity and methodology of one dataset, not whether any information on nationality and sex offences exists or is published.
Brooks also slides between “migrant,” “asylum seeker” and “foreign national” as if interchangeable, when they are distinct legal categories with different implications for what any dataset would actually show. But Brooks is particularly stupid, and he depends on his audience being gullible.
Bates frequently shows up in the same media world as Brooks. He is a frequent GB News guest on the same migration, hotels, crime-data and “two-tier” themes that Brooks talks about. Bates is a Brextremist campaigner with strong #TuftonStreet links who built a small, high-visibility migration-restriction outfit, and now appears constantly on GB News as its numbers man.
CMC is nothing remotely like an independent research institute: little or no named staff, no published methodology or peer review, opaque funding, with no dedicated HQ, and highly selective use of police/Home Office figures and often incomplete FoIs. Its an anti-immigration pressure group with a think-tank name that relentlessly cherry-picks and misrepresents data. Obviously, Brooks never questions the data.
3. “Pamphlets telling them not to rape, sexually assault or abuse kids”
This refers to a nine-page Home Office induction booklet, “Understanding Behaviours and Expectations in the UK,” published in August 2026. Its actual scope covers gender equality, domestic abuse, consent and general conduct in public, the kind of orientation material that’s pretty standard for people arriving from different legal and cultural contexts.
Reducing it to an ‘anti-rape leaflet’ strips out the rest of its content and implies the state believes migrants specifically need telling that rape is illegal, rather than this being one section within a broader civic orientation document.
It’s also worth noting this is not a novel category of document, nor one reserved solely for migrants r asylum seekers. In November 2025, the UK Ministry of Defence introduced mandatory training for all British soldiers on consent, misogyny and Incel culture, rolled out first at Catterick Garrison and Plymouth Naval Base.
It followed data showing that 29% of servicewomen and 11% of servicemen who had experienced sexualised behaviour had considered leaving the forces, and a 2022 cultural audit that documented men banging on colleagues’ doors at night demanding sex. The Army’s own Values and Standards guidance separately warns against “unwelcome sexual attention” and taking advantage of a more junior colleague.
Nobody reads that training as the MOD confessing that British soldiers are presumptively dangerous and destined to ‘rape, sexually assault or abuse kids’. It’s understood for what it is: institutional risk management for a population entering unfamiliar structures, informed by a documented problem. A similar document that reads as reasonable when issued to British soldiers reads as sinister, in Brooks’s framing, when issued to asylum seekers. That asymmetry, not the existence of guidance itself, is the actual story.
4. “Gives migrants condoms”
This was offered with no context, and placed immediately after “rape,” so that it reads as evidence of state-enabled predation. Providing contraception and sexual health resources within supported accommodation is a standard public health and harm-reduction measure, applied to many populations, not something unusual or specific to people seeking asylum.
The forced binary
Four separately contestable claims, none of them examined on their own terms, are then compressed into a single emotional referendum where any answer besides “no” reads as condoning child abuse. That is the function of “yes or no”: it forecloses the actual questions, whether the FOI dispute is really about hiding rape statistics, whether the induction booklet is really just about rape, in favour of a loyalty test that cannot be answered honestly in one word.
Brooks’s public brand is fathers, daughters, girls’ safety, and unnamed asylum seekers as a class of risk. James English is a named man in his own circle, convicted after a 12-day trial of violence against a pregnant partner. Brooks has not applied the same daily heat to that or other similar cases.
You could argue that Brooks is awaiting the sentence, that he doesn’t comment on every crime, or that he’s protecting a contact/friend. None of that removes the asymmetry: the unnamed migrant is a constant theme; the convicted acquaintance is not.
It could reasonably be argued that:
Every single day, Adam Brooks proves he’s a shameless, divisive bigot.
He relentlessly pumps out misleading bullshit.
But he stays quiet on an acquaintance convicted of abusing a pregnant woman.
Because he is a particularly stupid attention-seeking wanker.
ARE YOU OK WITH THAT?
YES OR NO?
See how easy it is?
Anyone else sick to death of gobshite Adam Brooks and his pathetic misleading manufactured outrage?
Brooks describes himself as a GB News and TalkTV panellist with close to 440,000 followers on @X,
He told his gullible audience that if his council tried to "ban vertical drinking... ie drinking at the bar," he would sue them and organise protests, because standing at the bar "is what makes a pub so British."
A good provocative line if your goal is maximising engagement and outrage through disinformation, but he's describing a policy that does not exist.
Tory-run Westminster Council's draft licensing policy, currently out for public consultation, does not propose *banning anyone from standing up with a drink*. It asks licence applicants to "discourage excessive drunkenness and encourage the provision of more seating... in place of open bar space that caters for high volume vertical drinking."
That's a document about crowd density and table service in a handful of overcrowded Soho streets, not a prohibition on how a person may have a pint.
Council leader Paul Swaddle has explicitly said so, directly and repeatedly: there is no plan to stop anyone standing at a bar, and the policy is about safety, not conduct.
Brooks's tweet collapses that distinction entirely, turning a licensing nudge aimed at venues into a personal threat aimed at drinkers, then invites his followers to feel the fear and anger of a ban that was never proposed.
This is not an isolated misreading. Brooks's timeline runs on the same fuel month after month: grievance framed as betrayal ("billions of pounds just magically appears... but when old people need it to heat their homes, nah, they can die"), culture-war shorthand delivered as verdict ("And there we have it, Two Tier Britain. The End."), and now a fabricated ban to rage against.
The vertical drinking tweet fits a house style: take a real but narrow policy document, strip out nuance and caveats, and replace them with a threat to something intangible and beloved, in this case "what makes our pubs unique around the world" (also not true).
The mechanics matter more than the target. Whether the subject is asylum accommodation, net zero, or pub licensing, the method is consistent: a document exists, a headline-friendly distortion of it circulates, and Brooks arrives to amplify the distortion as fact, adding a personal promise of resistance that positions him as defender against a threat he has largely invented himself.
The tweet earned roughly 3,000 likes and nearly 300 reposts within a day, dwarfing the reach of Brooks's other recent posts by a wide margin. That's the commercial logic of outrage: a plausible-sounding threat to a cherished British institution outperforms an accurate but dry description of a licensing consultation every time.
Nobody shares "council asks venues to consider more table seating." Everybody shares "they want to ban you standing at the bar."
It's also worth noting that Brooks is not a bystander misled by a bad headline. As a self-described broadcaster and publican with a direct line to two national platforms, he had every means to check the underlying policy before broadcasting a false version of it to hundreds of thousands of people.
The choice to skip that step, and to reach instead for the version that generates outrage, is the story.
None of this means Westminster's proposal is beyond criticism. Overcrowding measures dressed up in licensing jargon are a legitimate subject for scrutiny, and there is a real conversation to be had about pub culture, town-centre safety, and how far a council should go in shaping how venues are laid out. But that conversation cannot happen honestly while its loudest voices are responding to a ban that was never on the table.
Brooks's tweet does not defend pub culture from an attack. It manufactures the attack, then sells the defence.
He's a divisive provocative attention-seeking adolescent gobshite talking out of his arse.
Cheers! 🍻
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
What people don’t seem to understand is that sensible people across the centre, centre-left and centre-right broadly agree that we need to effectively eliminate undocumented migration by people entering under false pretences as asylum seekers. Very few people seriously disagree with that.
What sensible people object to is the hard right obsessively focusing on this one group, then weaponising every crime committed by an individual within it to stir up fear and hatred towards minorities across Britain for political gain.
And this is where their sanctimony becomes particularly galling.
The hard right has a serious violence problem of its own, notably violence against women. These people don’t get to lecture the rest of Britain about keeping women safe while conveniently ignoring the wife-beaters, domestic abusers and violent thugs within their own ranks.
If we jailed every hard-right scumbag who beats his wife or abuses women, violence against women in Britain would probably fall 50% overnight.
Yet strangely, they never seem interested in talking about those men.
Because this was never really about protecting women.
It was about exploiting women’s safety as a vehicle for hatred, division and corrupt politics.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Man came from the 4th division of Brazil for €8m as an 18 year old, joined us when we were at our lowest point and went on to score 68 goals for the club and provide 38 assists. Multiple goals at Anfield, multiple big goals against Man City, goals against Bayern, Real Madrid, you name it. That equalizer against City will never be forgotten in the road to our first league title in 22 years. Champions league top scorer in a season we made our 2nd final in club history. Took and scored the penalty in the final under immense pressure. And in the end of it all, he gets us a £50m+ profit becoming our record sale. Phenomenal professional with a top work ethic - never created any troubles even once. If it were upto him, he would’ve signed a lifetime contract. He is one of us and will be remembered here forever.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
This is why everyone needs critical thinking skills.
The tweet is a classic weather-vs-climate sleight of hand. Facts get it half right and the logic is doing all the misleading work.
The 1911 heatwave was real. It ran from mid-July to mid-September, peaked at 36.7°C at Raunds, Northamptonshire and Canterbury, Kent on 9 August 1911, and it was a severe drought year with genuine hardship (mill closures, water rationing, rising deaths).
Where the ill-informed idiot's argument falls apart:
1. One hot summer isn't "climate."
Climate is the statistical pattern over decades; weather is a single event. 1911 was a freak outlier for its era — its record stood for 79 years before being broken in 1990. That's the point: extreme heat used to be rare enough to hold a record for eight decades.
2. Now those records fall constantly.
Since 1990, the 36.7°C mark has been met or exceeded four times, with two further highest-temperature records set since — 36.7°C again in July 2015, then 38.7°C in Cambridge in July 2019, then 37.8°C in 2020, and the current all-time UK record is now 40.3°C (Coningsby, July 2022).
That acceleration in frequency is the actual climate signal — a single 1911 anecdote can't touch it.
3. The "what caused it, was it aeroplanes/AC/diesel?" line is a straw man fallacy.
Nobody claims 1911 was human-caused warming, and its existence doesn't disprove that the current run of consecutive record-breaking summers is.
While natural heatwaves have always happened, the question is why they're now more frequent and more extreme, not whether one occurred before industrial-era emissions took off.
It's the same rhetorical trick every time: cherry-pick one historical anomaly, use it to imply "see, nothing's changed," and skip past the actual evidence (frequency, trend lines, global temperature records) that the argument would need to engage with.
Patgetuc ill-informed attention-seeking wankers like Brooks are ruining Britain with their banal misleading adolescent bullshit.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Someone has to do it, so I will. This policy is holed below the waterline before it begins.
Zia Yusuf wants Britain’s warships to push migrant boats back to France. There are only three small problems: the law, the French and the Royal Navy.
Operation Fortress will be “the largest military operation in the English Channel since World War Two”. Nigel Farage will grandiosely order “his Majesty’s Royal Navy” to intercept every unauthorised vessel crossing the Channel and return its occupants to France. No one arriving illegally will reach Britain. The border will become “impenetrable”. The invasion will be stopped.
It sounds magnificent, provided you know nothing about ships, sailors, France or the law.
The first clue lies in the name. Operation Fortress sounds like the title of a 1960s war film. Once the bunting has been cleared away, this new policy amounts to parking a few warships in the Channel and instructing them to make the small boats go backwards. Nobody appears to have asked what happens when they do not.
An overloaded inflatable carrying 60 or 70 people is rather different to a French fishing trawler whose skipper can be ordered to head for Calais. It may have insufficient fuel, an inadequate engine, and no one aboard capable of navigating it safely. The smugglers may have left the controls in the hands of one of the passengers. The boat may already be leaking, listing, or taking on water. A Royal Navy officer cannot order an inflatable to become seaworthy.
The Navy cannot legally fire across its bow. This is a border control operation, not a war. There may not even be enough bow to fire across. HMS Cottrell cannot ram the boat, create a wash beside it or undertake aggressive manoeuvres without risking a capsize. Sending a boarding party alongside an overcrowded dinghy creates another opportunity for dozens of frightened people to shift their weight at once and end up in the water.
The moment the boat becomes unsafe, Nigel's great military operation turns into a rescue mission. British sailors are legally required to save those aboard. The obligation arises under the law of the sea, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue. None of these contains a Zia Yusuf exemption.
After rescuing the passengers, the Navy must take them to a place of safety. Reform says that place will be France. France may have something to say about that.
Britain cannot sail warships into French territorial waters, seize boats, or disembark passengers in Calais without French permission. Nor can it deposit 70 people at the maritime boundary and invite them to swim the remaining distance. Returning them to France requires the French government to accept them. This is the gap at the centre of the policy. A Reform government can give orders to the Royal Navy; it cannot give orders to Emmanuel Macron.
There is already a UK-France returns agreement. It permits selected small-boat arrivals to be returned after they reach Britain, in exchange for Britain accepting an equivalent number via a legal route. The arrangement exists because France’s consent is required. It is limited, negotiated and reciprocal. Nothing in it authorises the Royal Navy to deliver every intercepted passenger to a French port.
Perhaps Reform has secretly negotiated a much broader agreement with Paris. Perhaps Macron has promised Farage that France will accept tens of thousands of people in exchange for nothing. Perhaps the French will also provide a complimentary cheese board. The details, we are told, will be revealed today.
Without French agreement, the Navy will intercept the boats, rescue their occupants, and bring them to Britain. Reform’s answer to the “free ferry service” is to paint the ferry grey and staff it with sailors.
The legal problems persist after rescue. Once British forces exercise effective control over a boat or take its passengers aboard, those people fall within British jurisdiction. They cannot all be summarily expelled without any examination of their circumstances.
France is a safe country, and there is no general legal prohibition on returning an asylum seeker there. However, any return must still take place under a lawful arrangement. Officials would need to identify children, trafficking victims, those requiring medical treatment, and anyone presenting a specific reason why return would expose them to serious harm.
Roughly one in seven small boat arrivals since 2018 has been referred to the National Referral Mechanism as a possible victim of modern slavery. Among those who arrived in 2025, the eventual figure reached 19 per cent. Those cases cannot be resolved by a sub-lieutenant circling boxes on a clipboard while HMS Harborne bobs around somewhere off Dungeness.
The European Court of Human Rights has already held that intercepting migrants at sea does not create a legal black hole. In Hirsi Jamaa v Italy, Italy was found to have violated the European Convention by returning intercepted migrants without considering their individual circumstances. In that case, the destination was Libya, so it does not establish that returning to France would be unlawful. It does establish that a government cannot evade its obligations by processing the entire group under the legal category of “off you go”.
Reform might respond that it intends to leave the European Convention. That still leaves the Refugee Convention, maritime rescue law, France’s sovereignty, and the stubborn tendency of drowning people to require rescue. A press conference cannot repeal the sea.
Then there is the Royal Navy itself. Britain possessed 32 frigates and destroyers in 2000. By October 2025, it had 14. Several of those were undergoing maintenance or preparing for operations. The Navy is also attempting to sustain the nuclear deterrent, protect two aircraft carriers, patrol the North Atlantic, support NATO, guard undersea infrastructure, maintain overseas deployments, and prepare for a possible war with a serious state adversary.
Amid this crowded programme, Zia Yusuf demands the largest Channel operation since 1945.
A Type 45 destroyer is a £1 billion air-defence platform designed to protect a carrier group against missiles and aircraft. It carries sophisticated radar, anti-aircraft weapons and a crew of nearly 200. Using one to chase inflatables off Dover would be rather like sending a new Challenger 3 tank to enforce parking restrictions outside Lidl.
The Type 23 frigates are old, scarce and already stretched. The River-class offshore patrol vessels are better suited to maritime security, but the newer ships have global commitments, while the older ones perform fisheries protection, patrol and training tasks. Moving them into the Channel simply leaves gaps elsewhere.
Border Force operates five cutters, six coastal patrol vessels and a range of smaller craft. These are the vessels designed for customs and immigration enforcement. Even that fleet cannot create an impermeable cordon while covering Britain’s other maritime borders. The Channel is one of the busiest shipping routes on earth, not a village pond across which the Royal Navy can stretch a chain.
Ships also require crews. As of April 2026, the Royal Navy and UK Marines had 32,520 regular personnel, of whom 4,580 were untrained. Recruitment has begun to improve, but the Navy remains critically short of experienced technicians, engineers and specialists. Some vessels have been alongside for extended periods because the service lacks the trained personnel to operate them.
A continuous patrol requires several crews for each vessel on station. One crew is at sea, while others are training, recovering, taking leave or preparing the ship. Each interception requires qualified boat crews, boarding parties, medics, communications staff and command support. If people are brought aboard, the ship also needs space, food, sanitation, interpreters and safeguarding personnel. Warships do not come with infinite sailors.
The smugglers would adapt before the first triumphant press release had even finished circulating. They would overload boats until turning them around became impossibly dangerous. Engines would “fail” as British vessels approached. Passengers would be instructed to call for rescue, enter the water, or threaten self-harm. Several boats would launch simultaneously during brief windows of good weather.
The absolute promise that nobody will reach Britain creates an incentive to treat every encounter as a humanitarian emergency. The Navy would either rescue those aboard or preside over preventable deaths within sight of its ships. No commanding officer should be placed between his legal duty to save life and a politician’s promise that not one migrant will set foot on British soil.
There are serious policy options available. Britain could negotiate broader returns with France, fund aggressive French interception near the beaches, attack the financial and logistical networks behind the crossings, accelerate asylum decisions, remove failed claimants, and build a Border Force fleet capable of sustained maritime enforcement. Joint patrols could operate under an agreement that defines jurisdiction, disembarkation, and responsibility for rescued individuals.
Operation Fortress contains none of the difficult parts. France will apparently accept everyone. Every boat will turn around safely. Every legal claim will disappear. The Navy will find spare ships and sailors somewhere in a cupboard in Portsmouth. Declaring the Channel impenetrable will make it so.
This is not a serious or credible policy. Operation Fortress is nothing but a press release wearing a sailor’s hat.
🚨Important Reform policy announcement:
In a plan endorsed by senior former members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, a Reform government will launch Operation Fortress: a military operation to secure Britain’s borders.
Britain is being invaded.
Tory and Labour governments responded with a free ferry service and free hotels.
Reform UK will respond by launching the largest military operation in the English Channel since World War Two.
Nigel Farage will order his Majesty’s Royal Navy to ensure that not a single unauthorised vessel crossing the English Channel makes it to the shores of the United Kingdom.
Those who attempt it will be intercepted by our Armed Forces and returned to France.
To those with no right to enter Britain, our border will be impenetrable.
Under a Reform UK Government, nobody coming across the Channel by boat illegally will make it to our shores.
That is how we stop the boats.
We will stop the invasion.
Full details will be published tomorrow morning.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
HILARIOUS!😂
This is literally how most people watch the news! SNL hit this one out of the park!
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
Is the UK worse off because of Brexit? Ten years on since the Brexit referendum, we've looked at this question in detail. The video is produced by Katerina Karelli - and it's longer than our usual explainers. I hope you find it helpful.
Daneček 🇨🇿 🇮🇪 retweeted
It was inevitable, wasn't it🙄
Of course the Telegraph would run with something like this👇
So let's remove some of the rose-tinted spectacles and also look at some of that data comparing 1976 with modern heat waves
Because the 1976 nostalgia porn is wearing a bit thin at this stage
🧵1/23
ALT Telegraph headiline: "Heatwave hysterics wouldn't have lasted a day in 1976", overlaid with a bold “MONK DEBUNKED” stamp.