🔥 Gary Neville has RIPPED into Manchester United’s owners, branding them INCOMPETENT, CHEAP and SADDLED WITH DEBT! Speaking on The Gary Neville Podcast, he said the fans are rightfully furious with those running the club: “They cannot accept the decision making. The season ticket stuff. The lack of recruitment on defenders.” He then strongly criticised the midfield recruitment failure: “Tottenham have taken the two main targets in midfield. Manchester United decided not to buy them because they can’t afford them! Because of the debt! And all the other waste of money that’s been spent in the last 13 years. An incompetence! It’s a series of bad mistakes.” The defensive situation drew even sharper criticism: “They had to sign defenders! They’d have been better off buying Tonali and Fernandes, rather than signing 3 that are ok. You’ve now got no defenders and that is absolute negligence to leave that defence out on that pitch!” His verdict on the club’s cheap approach was blunt: “Buy cheap, buy twice.” Well said, Gary. Everything he said is bang on. He should call out the owners more often. Saying there’s almost no point because they’re not going anywhere is the wrong attitude. Keep the pressure on. Even if they refuse to sell, that doesn’t mean you stop criticising them or calling for them to go. The only way this football club gets back on its feet is if the whole lot of them go. Keep pushing! 👊

This was excruciatingly awkward. 🫣 On @RidgeandFrost this morning, Wilfred Frost cornered Labour MP Sally Jameson on whether rejoining the EU would require a referendum and she completely folded. After the PM ruled out rejoining this parliament, Frost asked if freedom of movement (and by extension the single market) would need a public vote. She started flailing, stuttering, clearly scrambling for the approved lines: wait and see on negotiations, but “one way or the other the British people would get a say” because they won’t break the manifesto pledge in this parliament. Frost then asked a simple follow-up: “I guess the question is, how much of a say? Would rejoining the EU require a referendum?” Then came the moment. She froze. The script vanished. Visibly panicked, all she could stammer was: “Well, I think we’ll… we’ll wait and see… we’ll wait and see.” Frost’s response said it all: “Wow.” Watch her face 😬 the discomfort is unmistakable. Makes you wonder what they’ve actually got planned. 🤨 Andy Burnham has already signalled openness to adopting EU free movement. If Labour is lining up to rejoin without a fresh referendum, that would be a monumental error and would rightly anger the millions who voted Leave. Right or wrong, no matter how you voted or how you feel about it, the 2016 result was a massive democratic decision. If anything fundamental is to change, it must be put back to the people. Anything less is a betrayal and undemocratic.

🤔 Who are these Manchester United players Gary Neville is seeing out around Manchester? He claims some of them aren’t professional, not sleeping properly, not eating the right things, and not living and breathing the club. Let’s be honest, that sounds a lot like they’re out partying all night instead of acting like professionals. So who are they? This is completely unacceptable. There are good pros at the club who give everything despite limited talent. They shouldn’t be mixed in with that lot while fans are left guessing is it him or him? Come on Gary. You live in Manchester and clearly know. Name them. Come clean with the fans.

😳 Well, I certainly didn’t see this coming. London Mayor Sadiq Khan with a rare bit of honesty about the capital: “In recent years, the last 10 or so years, it has been in decline. I call it managed decline. It doesn’t feel safe. It’s dirty. It’s smelly.” What’s happened to the mini mayor? Has he been injected with some truth serum? 😂

Shocking New Evidence In The Thomas Markle Investigation! Explosive Letter Reveals: He Told Ex-Wife He Travelled to the Far East “Because 12-Year-Olds Are Legal There” Forensic teams now examining hard drives containing “hundreds, if not thousands” of alleged abuse pics and videos Fresh details have emerged in the probe into Thomas Markle Snr, the 82-year-old father of the Duchess of Sussex. What we know: • Markle Snr is under investigation in the Philippines over alleged child sexual abuse images. He denies all allegations, insists he has never downloaded pornography, and says he is willing to take a lie detector test. He has admitted “sleeping with prostitutes”. • His first wife, Roslyn Loveless (married 1964–75 and died two years ago), sent a seven-page letter in 2019 to Scotland Yard’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC). She wrote that she confronted him over child sex abuse claims: “I questioned Thomas Snr, he denied accusation but stated that he went to the Philippines and Thailand because 12-year-olds are legal there”. • The letter, seen by @TheSun, also accused Markle Snr and another individual of posing a threat to the Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry. Royalty Protection officers shared the information with the Sussexes’ office. • In 2019 the age of consent in the Philippines was 12, though paying for sex with anyone under 18 remained illegal. Markle Snr lived in Cebu from January 2025 until May and is currently in a nursing and rehabilitation centre in Florida. What they’ve found: • Interior Minister Jonvic Remulla told The Guardian the material suggests “a possible sex offender of the grossest kind”. He said: “In these cases where family disputes are mixed up, we have to consider all the angles. Right now all signs point to a possible sex offender of the grossest kind. We want to be sure before we release the findings.” • Four boxes of items were initially handed over by Markle’s son Thomas Jnr. A follow-up search of the home uncovered a laptop and what Remulla described as a “trove of child sexual abuse images.” Forensic examination starts today and may be completed within a week. • The full inventory lists 80 separate entries covering computers, hard drives, DVDs, phones, video tapes, film negatives, memory cards, books and pictures. Sources told The Sun the material found so far may be only “the tip of a huge iceberg” and “should provide more than enough evidence to clearly identify the source”. • Three of four hard drives examined by IT specialists contained “hundreds, if not thousands” of abuse images and videos, including the worst illegal content. Viewed files were downloaded in 2014 and 2020. Icons showing toddlers and young children appeared immediately upon access. • A 35mm negative concealed inside the book Lewis Carroll Photographs Of Children: Four Nude Studies shows a bearded man matching Markle Snr’s appearance in his late 40s or 50s with a slim, dark-haired girl who appears underage. Thomas Jnr identified his father; the image was cross-checked against an expired driving licence in the same boxes. Markle Snr maintains: “I have never been in a photograph like that.” • Additional books in the haul include volumes with explicit images of girls aged 11 and 12 and other material featuring naked children. Markle Snr has called the accusations “the worst thing anyone could accuse me of” and “just a bunch of lies”. Thomas Jnr said: “Since all this blew up, my dad hasn’t had the guts to call or even text me once to challenge what I’ve been saying. That’s because he knows I’m telling the truth about him and he knows justice is coming.” The big question remains why this stayed quiet for so long. The 2019 letter reached Scotland Yard’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre and was shared with the Sussexes’ office via Royalty Protection. If the claims now under investigation are accurate, why did no one act sooner? Answers are urgently needed.

This is one of the most blatant examples of gaslighting you’ll ever see. This clip sums up the Labour Party. It sums up Angela Rayner. And, frankly, it sums up too most politicians. Laura Kuenssberg asks Rayner about Andy Burnham opening the door to a return to freedom of movement. He’s started the debate by talking about it. Kuenssberg: “The Labour manifesto in 2024 said in black and white ‘there will be no return to freedom of movement’. You stood on that manifesto. Andy Burnham promised to stick to that manifesto. He’s breaking that promise, isn’t he?” Then this from Rayner: “No he isn’t, because he’s been really clear that this Parliament, that manifesto, we are clear we are not reopening that debate.” Unbelievable. Even by her standards. Kuenssberg put her right immediately: “He’s literally just reopened this debate. It’s exactly what’s just happened.” She denies the debate has been reopened in the same breath as it is being reopened. They will say anything, no matter how obviously contradictory. We watch car crash after car crash from Labour ministers, yet they keep rising in the polls. No wonder the country is in such a mess.

Manchester United fans confronted Jim Ratcliffe and delivered a few home truths. “You’re fcking worse than the Glazers, mate.” “Sort it out, you cnt.” “Fck you, Jim Ratcliffe!” They were right then and they’re right now. INEOS out. Glazers out. And take your minions like Berrada and Wilcox with you. The club can’t recover until that happens.

Young Bob has been arrested in London for allegedly using or discussing the word “Paki”. From the reports and footage, it looks like he was engaged in the usual street debate style, not launching a personal, direct, threatening attack on an individual. Offensive speech is not the same as harassment or abuse. Discussing whether a shortened demonym is acceptable, or even using it in a debate about language and immigration, should not trigger arrest. We already have public order laws that cover genuine harassment, intimidation, and targeted abuse. Stretching them to cover discussion of a word is over-policing of speech. “Paki” gets unique treatment in the UK. Comparable terms are also widely regarded as potentially offensive yet do not seem to produce the same automatic police response: • “Paddy” for Irish • “Taffy” (or Taff) for Welsh • “Jap” for Japanese • “Chink” for Chinese • “Kraut” for German • “Frog” for French These are all shortenings or nicknames with histories of pejorative use. Most people understand they can be insulting in context. Yet the idea that merely uttering or debating one of them should mean handcuffs is not applied evenly. “Aussie”, “Kiwi”, “Brit”, and “Yank” are treated as normal. The inconsistency is the point. If the standard is “this word has a bad history so talking about it is arrestable”, then large parts of ordinary political and cultural discussion become risky. That is not a workable free speech principle. Police should focus on actual disorder, threats, and targeted harassment, not on whether someone used a contested abbreviation while arguing in public. We should be able to debate language, immigration, and double standards without the threat of arrest for the words themselves.

This should be illegal. The Glazers should never have been allowed to buy Manchester United the way they did. It was a classic leveraged buyout that turned a debt-free club into a cash machine for its owners while loading the club with massive ongoing costs. • What they paid: £790 million in 2005. The club was effectively debt-free beforehand (around £50m in borrowings). The Glazers put in roughly £270–273 million of their own equity. • How they paid for it: The majority was borrowed money loaded directly onto the club — around £265m in senior bank debt and around £275m in high-interest “payment-in-kind” (PIK) loans from hedge funds, with rates as high as 14–16.25% that compounded if unpaid. The debt was secured against the club’s assets and future revenues. • Interest the club has paid: Hundreds of millions. Swiss Ramble estimates approximately £852 million in net interest payments since the takeover. Early years were especially punishing, with annual charges frequently between £40–80m. The club is still paying roughly £35–40m a year. • What the Glazers have taken out: Significant sums with almost no further investment. They received the bulk of roughly £166 million in dividends paid while the club carried the acquisition debt, plus management and administration fees. They also extracted large amounts through share sales, including substantial proceeds from the partial sale to Jim Ratcliffe. BBC Verify calculated that £1.187 billion in cash left the club (interest, dividends, fees, and related costs) that would not have done so without the takeover. • Further investment by the Glazers: None. They put in no additional equity after the initial ~£270m. All subsequent spending on the squad and infrastructure has come from the club’s own revenues or further debt. • Debt then vs now: Pre-takeover the club had negligible debt. Immediately after, it jumped to around £600m+. As of late 2026, long-term financial debt remains in the hundreds of millions (recently refinanced at higher rates), with overall liabilities including transfer payables and revolving facilities frequently reported around or above £1 billion. • What the club is worth now: Multiple times the 2005 price. The Ratcliffe/INEOS stake deal implied a valuation of approximately £4.3 billion. The Glazers still retain majority voting control through their Class B shares. In short: they bought the club mostly with the club’s own money, extracted well over a billion pounds in value, invested nothing more of their own, and left the debt on the balance sheet. That model should never have been allowed.

Manchester United former manager’s Zoom meeting: Solskjaer ✅ Ten Hag ✅ Amorim ✅ Carrick… Ruthless 😭

Gary Neville was adamant that Jim Ratcliffe would not accept second-rate standards at Manchester United: “He’s not gonna accept a poor performance department, recruitment department, football department — he’s not going to accept a second-rate one.” I wonder if he’d stand by any of that today. Nearly every part of the club has gone backwards since Ratcliffe arrived, which is remarkable given how low the bar already was. I was never optimistic. This was always a disaster waiting to happen. Ratcliffe’s 25% stake was a gift to the Glazers. They kept control, kept the debt on the club, and simply outsourced the blame. The ownership structure was never going to work, and it hasn’t. Ratcliffe bailed the Glazers out when they needed money and were on the ropes. He should have stayed away. Instead he’s made a bad situation much worse. Over to you, @GNev2?

Just go. You’ve more than had your money’s worth. The whole lot of you — Glazers, INEOS, the rest of them. Go now. Manchester United fans have made it clear: “Sell United and fck off home.” The club is on its knees. The soul has been ripped out. Staff are demoralised. Everything is about squeezing every last penny out of the club and the people who keep it running. Ground staff have had overtime cut. Meals and pack-ups for staff have been taken away. Staff tickets have been slashed. These are the people who make the club, and the owners clearly do not get that. Standards are through the floor. Players don’t care. They don’t run. They openly criticise the manager. You’ve done enough damage. You don’t understand this club in the slightest — what it means, what it stands for. You’ve rinsed it dry for over a decade and proved you cannot fix it. Go, and let the club rebuild.

😳 Robert Jenrick had a FURIOUS on-air BUST-UP with Lewis Goodall over Raheem Kassam calling Kemi Badenoch a “Nigerian scammer”. Asked point-blank on @LBC whether that was racist, Jenrick refused to answer. The exchange quickly turned heated as Goodall pressed him again and again. Goodall: “Is calling Kemi Badenoch a ‘Nigerian scammer’ racist, yes or no?” Jenrick: “Get Raheem on your show! I’m not on your show to talk about what a journalist has tweeted.” Goodall: “Would you be concerned if he was a member of Reform?” Jenrick: “As far as I’m aware he’s not a member of Reform.” Goodall: “But if he were, should he be thrown out?” Jenrick: “I’m not gonna go around debating the tweets of journalists. Shall we spend the whole of the program doing that?” Goodall: “He’s a long-time ally of Nigel Farage.” Jenrick: “I’d politely suggest, Lewis, that it’d be better if we used the time we have to talk about issues the public actually care about.” Goodall: “You seem very irritated by what is a very basic question about what lots of people would say is clearly racist.” Jenrick: “I’m not slightly irritated. I just think it’s a waste of time. You’re wasting time debating what a journalist has said rather than asking me about things I can control myself.” He was clearly irritated. Anyone watching could see it. He complained the line of questioning was a waste of the interview, and I half agree, because neither he nor anyone else in Reform said it. But just answer the question. Say it’s not right and move on. This is exactly why Reform have completely stalled. They’re constantly on the defensive, endlessly explaining and deflecting. The media does shine a harsher spotlight on Reform than other parties, Jenrick is right about that, but if they handled these moments cleanly instead of letting them drag on, the stories wouldn’t stick the way they do.