Subscribe

Trump: is he insulting Britain, which is bad, or Starmer, which is bloody brilliant?

WHEN Trump insults Britain and our Royal Navy does he mean the country, which is outrageous, or our prime minister, which is great? Find out: 

Calling British warships ‘toys’ 

Once our Navy ruled the world, a period which all the world’s nations look back on with unalloyed happiness. Today, less so. This can only be the fault of Keir Starmer, who failed to order three new aircraft carriers despite being appointed as Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008. This is entirely at his door.

Verdict: Starmer

Saying ‘the UK was afraid to give us an island’ 

Accusing the UK of not giving him the Chagos Islands, Trump undoubtedly intended to denigrate the character of our prime minister and our prime minister alone. He knows full well the rest of the country is clamouring to hand over sovereign territory to the US in order to fight wars that raise fuel prices and mortgage rates and may see food rationing introduced.

Verdict: Starmer again

Accusing Britain of only offering to send ships ‘when the war was over’

This is definitely on Starmer. He knew full well Trump would begin a war with Iran on a random Saturday in February, and had ample chance to ensure all our ships were in the area and in danger from a war we had no say in and which the public does not back. If he resigned today Trump would love Britain again.

Verdict: Couldn’t be more Starmer

Saying Starmer was ‘not exactly Churchill’ 

We all know what Trump meant because we know who our Churchill is: the bulldog-faced Boris Johnson, who even now stands ready to lead Britain in its hour of need, deserting his post only to sire children. Why didn’t we immediately declare a unity government with him at its head when war broke out? Just because we’re ‘not involved’?

Verdict: Directly and inarguably Starmer

Posting the opening sketch from Saturday Night Live UK

Starmer was not involved in this sketch, nor was anyone who looks like, sounds like or could be reasonably interpreted as attempting to do an impression of Starmer. The grey-haired bloke was John Major. Therefore this was a rare insult not aimed at our prime minister but at the UK’s failing arts sector for which we are all equally guilty.

Verdict: An insult to Britain, but only one

Summary: Despite Trump’s deep unpopularity in this country coupled with public reluctance to be involved in his war, most of his insults are to Keir Starmer and therefore valid, necessary and should be reported widely and without context.

Sign up now to get
The Daily Mash
free Headlines email – every weekday
privacy

Seething gammons, and others whose screen time should be limited to an hour a day

GOVERNMENT guidance has called for screen time to be limited for children under five. But frankly these other groups could do with some restrictions too.

Seething gammons

Huge chunks of the internet are nothing more than a hate engine powered by outraged, narrow-minded pensioners. Restricting the amount of time they can bark about Meghan in the Mail Online comments section will cool down the culture war and make them realise that voting for Reform UK is probably a bad idea. It’s in the national interest that they’re pacified with a TV that plays Battle of Britain on an endless loop instead.

Dating singletons

Endlessly swiping through apps and realising your low ranking on the dating market is terrible for a person’s wellbeing. Scaling back this activity will get desperate, horny singletons approaching each other in real life again and hopefully reverse the gradual population decline. Either that or it will accelerate it as everyone realises they’ve totally forgotten how to flirt in real life.

Boyfriends who use toilets

Limiting boyfriends with working bowels to an hour of screen time a day will have a dramatic effect on how long they stay on the shitter. The previous average of 40 minutes will be brought crashing down to a tight ten, maximum, as they’re forced to ration out their private scrolling. However women need to be prepared for having to spend more time with their terminally boring partners as a result.

Social media influencers

True, social media influencers are going through a tough time at the minute after being driven from their homeland in Dubai. But cutting back their screen time is the next step in rehabilitating them into becoming useful, functional members of society. We will no longer need them to upload challenge videos or record sponsored reviews, and it would be really useful if they could start building houses instead. In fact why not make it compulsory?

Everyone else, realistically

Nobody is truly immune to the damaging effects of gawping at a screen 24/7. Putting a cap on it will shield young boys from the manosphere, prevent mothers from getting radicalised by Mumsnet, and protect your budget from late night eBay purchases. Upon doing so, society will soon revert to wholesome analogue pleasures, like getting shitfaced and having affairs.

Next story ›