Just in case any of you out there had made the mistake of assuming that Burnham would be—HAD to be, actually—any kind of improvement over Starmer.

UK believes Iran involved in RAF Fairford incident, Burnham says
The government believes that Iran played a part in the RAF Fairford incident which resulted in five men being arrested and then bailed, Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said.

“There are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford,” he told the BBC. He did not provide further details.

Well, I mean, y’know, like, D’UH.

Iran has responded, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying the UK leader was “barking up the wrong tree”.

“I can confirm Iran’s belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all,” he wrote on social media.

Of course, the Iranians are constant, irredeemable liars, but with that last I must admit he’s onto something.

Asked why the suspects had been released on bail – a decision which has been openly questioned by President Donald Trump – Burnham insisted the men were subject to the “strictest possible bail conditions”.

Another patent, transparent lie, establishing once again that the Persians do NOT have a corner on that market. As for Trump “openly questioning” the craven, incroyable decision by the UK to release these malefactors, shitlibs will squeal like stuck pigs over it, but he’s absolutely right to, and wouldn’t be much of a US Prez-mo-dent, or any kind of a man, if he didn’t. Thus:

Speaking at the White House on Monday, Trump said: “I will tell you, I would have said, ‘don’t let them have bail’. I’m surprised that they released them. I wouldn’t have done that.”

But Burnham said: “I think people need to understand that when it says released – that isn’t as people might think. It’s obviously with the strictest possible bail conditions.

“The authorities have this under the strongest grip and closest control, and I can assure you of that.”

Uh huh, RIGHT. Ten’ll get ya twenty that this aforementioned “strongest grip and closest control” the PM is yapping bloodlessly about isn’t anything like as “strong and close” as the gimlet-eyed scrutiny the Brits will be maintaining on the 80-plus-year-old Grandma who gets her butt thrown into the blades of the UK “justice” system to answer charges on numerous counts of seriously heinous (no really, you guys!) “crimes” such as Double-Plus Ungoodthink; Wrongspeech; Unlawful Melanin Deficiency in a Public Place; Looking Illegally Askance at Our Dark-Complected Brethren; or, say, Uttering a Discouraging Word sotto voce after having been hurled violently to the pavement, stripped nekkid in broad daylight, and gang-Culturally Enriched by fifteen (15) Pakistani Youths™ in Brixton last week.

And if for some bizarre, incomprehensible reason Duly Constituted British and/or Europeen Authority failed in their sworn duty to see to it that Granmaw got hers last week—in fullest measure, no stinting, holding back, or pulling of a single punch—you may rest assured she will NEXT week, or the week after that at the absolute latest. As the great old t-shirt/bumper sticker/whatever slogan once opined in reference to snipers, so it now is for the traditional English Gramma:

Why run? You’ll only die tired. After all, it’s not as if there’s anyplace left in Aulde Blighty to run to anyhow.

PROGRESS update! A wave becomes a current, becomes a tide, becomes a tsunami. Hopefully so, at any rate.

More Countries Are Introducing Laws Targeting Religious Customs
Portugal has enacted a new law banning most face coverings in public, adding the country to a growing list of European nations that restrict garments such as the burka and niqab.

President António José Seguro signed the measure after it was adopted in Lisbon in July with support from a right-wing governing coalition, according to GB News.

Although frequently described as Portugal’s “burka law,” the legislation does not expressly single out Islam. Instead, it prohibits clothing intended to conceal or obstruct a person’s face in public.

Gotta love that “…Laws Targeting Religious Customs” scare-propagandizing, don’tcha? Don’t necessarily have to “expressly single out” Pisslam at this stage anyways; nobody’s gonna need to resort to any blind SWAG-work (ie, the venerable old Scientific Wild-Ass Guess) as to what’s being proscribed here, nor the reason for it. Leastways, if the Catholic Church has started requiring face-hiding garb for its female parishioners, I ain’t heard about it as of yet.

There are several exceptions. Face coverings remain permissible for professional and health purposes as well as certain artistic, advertising and entertainment activities.

The restrictions also do not apply in places of worship or at holy sites. Aircraft and certain diplomatic and consular circumstances are similarly exempt.

Those distinctions have not stopped human-rights organizations from arguing that Muslim women who wear full-face veils will bear the practical consequences of the legislation.

João Godinho Martins, executive director of Amnesty International in Portugal, called the measure “a threat to human rights.”

“Despite having removed direct references to Islam, which were a part of previous versions of the text, this new law clearly violates the human rights of Muslim women who choose to cover their faces,” Martins said. “It is a direct threat to their freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”

Uh huh, right, assmunch. Funny, but I haven’t noticed any indignant, fretful noises emitting from either you or your organization concerning Moslem women’s “freedom of expression and…religion” in any other context, nor in any Moslem nations either. Gee, wonder why that might be.

My favorite bit is coming up, which you’ll recognize from the boldface I’ll be using for it.

Portugal is far from the first European country to legislate on the issue.

According to the Express, 24 other countries have imposed burka or face-covering restrictions of some kind. European countries with such measures include France, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway and Luxembourg, though the scope and legal structure of their restrictions differ.

Niiiice. Enough so to warm the cockles of even my cold, black heart, I gotta tell ya. Fingers and/or toes crossed that it won’t turn out to be just  another damnable instance of way too llittle, way too late.