Trump brands Khan a ‘nasty person' as Starmer jumps to Mayor's defence
Speaking to reporters at his Turnberry golf resort in South Ayrshire, Mr Trump said: 'I'm not a fan of your mayor.
'I think he's done a terrible job, the Mayor of London … a nasty person.'
The Prime Minister intervened to say: 'He's a friend of mine, actually.'
Mr Trump went on to add: 'I think he's done a terrible job. But I would certainly visit London.'
In response to comments made by Mr Trump during a press conference on Monday, a spokesperson for the Mayor said: 'Sadiq is delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world.
'He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer.
'Perhaps these are the reasons why a record number of Americans have applied for British citizenship under his presidency.'
This is not the first time the president has hit out at Sir Sadiq after he previously branded him a 'stone cold loser' and challenged him to an IQ test.
Sir Sadiq has also previously described Mr Trump as 'a poster boy for racists'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
22 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Online Safety Act and the Left's ‘ancient' institutions
After Reform promised to repeal the Online Safety Act, it didn't take long for Labour to defend internet censorship. 'And get rid of child protections online? Madness,' Labour MP Chris Bryant tweeted. 'Why would anyone want to grant strangers and paedophiles unfettered online access to children?' asked Mike Tapp. Science Minister Peter Kyle went one step further, declaring that anyone opposing the Online Safety Act – including Reform leader Nigel Farage – is 'on the side of Jimmy Savile'. Labour's latest attack ad reads: 'Farage's Reform party would scrap laws keeping children safe online'. The actions of government ministers over the past few days provide a masterclass in left-wing institution shrine-making. Yes, it might seem absurd that the government is treating a week-old policy like a sacred cow, the abolition of which is completely unimaginable. But this is a strategy ripped out of the progressive playbook. The same approach has been taken to the Human Rights Act, Ofcom, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Supreme Court. We live in a world of Blairite institutions treated as ancient pillars of society. On Sky News, Kyle added that Farage was 'on the side of turning the clock back to the time when strange adults can get in touch via messaging apps with children'. How dare Farage try to turn back the tide of progress like this, returning the UK to the dystopian hellscape of… last week? If Labour are to be believed, the internet before 25 July 2025 – when the act's child safety duties came into force – was a dangerous and terrifying place in which children were constantly at risk of predation. It's completely safe now, though. The fact that the greatest safeguarding scandal of the 21st century – the mass grooming and rape of our children – happened mostly offline seems to have passed the government by. Here's how it works. Step one: diagnose a real problem and propose an institution or law that may do something in a roundabout way to address it. The Online Safety Act latched on to very real fears that children were accessing hardcore pornography and self-harm sites online. Martyn's Law, legislation seeking to improve protective security and organisational preparedness in event venues, responded to the horrors of the Manchester Arena terror attack in 2017. The Human Rights Act of 1998 emerged from a good-natured desire to 'bring rights home'. Nobody could ever object to the prohibition of slavery or torture. It all seemed very reasonable at the time. Step two: give your newly created solution wide-reaching powers that go far beyond the scope of the problem you sought to solve. Consult every 'stakeholder' on the books and add in amendments seeking to cover a whole host of new issues. Quickly, the Online Safety Act became an attempt to age-restrict most of the internet, including 'content relating to': sexual exploitation, illegal immigration and people smuggling, and fraud. Yes, 16-year-olds will soon have the right to vote – but not to watch some speeches in Parliament. Attempts to insulate venues from the threat posed by terrorism left small event organisers with hours of paperwork and online training in order to hold even tiny events unlikely ever to have been the target of an attack. The Human Rights Act became a vehicle for criminals to stay in the country. Finally, once your institution has spiralled completely out of control, object to any and all criticism on the grounds that the world we lived in before was a cruel and dangerous place. Never engage with the realities of the past. Robert Jenrick's campaign for Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights and abolish the Human Rights Act was met with shock from campaigners. Those who support him are accused of trying to take away human rights – of trying to remove 'the fundamental universal rights we have as all human beings'. Ushering in a world where no one can have a free trial or a family life. Those on the left refuse to engage with the fact that, before 1998 when the act was introduced, Britain was clearly not an authoritarian state. Indeed, freedom of speech was undoubtedly better back then. The same case is made for the Supreme Court, which only came into existence in 2009, and the Equality Act of 2010. Before this, we are meant to believe that the ordinary person was suffering day to day at the hands of evil, woman-hating employers and parliamentary dictators. The same goes for the Office for Budget Responsibility – a creation of Cameron's 2010 government, and one which the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is determined to hand even more power to. Was the Treasury completely out of control before they weighed in with their forecasts? Is a 15-year-old institution that's overseen consistently rising government debt truly beyond reproach? Was the press really much worse before Ipso, the press regulator, was established in 2014? If anything, its existence has made it harder for the press to report on contentious topics, such as the gender debate. There was a world before the turn of the millennium. Britain is held together by the fundamentals of its democratic norms; by its truly ancient institutions: common law, democracy and parliamentary sovereignty have all done great things to protect the individual. The institutions and policies of the last decade have hindered, not helped, this project. Learn from the derangement of the conversation about the Online Safety Act. Don't fall for the progressive guidebook next time they get it out.
Daily Mirror
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump confirms Jeffrey Epstein 'stole' his most well-known victim from him
Trump has given more details about the events that led to his falling out with America's most notorious paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein - and a well-known victim he claims Epstein "stole" from him Donald Trump has claimed Jeffrey Epstein "stole" his most well-known victim from him. The US President described for the first time during his trip to Scotland on Monday the events that led to his falling out with former friend Epstein. He told reporters during a Q&A session with Keir Starmer that the bust-up had been caused by Epstein doing something "inappropriate" - namely, poaching staff from him. Trump said he'd told him not to do it once, but that Epstein had repeated the behaviour, and so he'd ordered him to stay away from his Mar A Lago club in Florida's Palm Beach. As the Mirror noted the same day, Epstein's most well known victim, Virginia Giuffre, was allegedly 'hired' by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein while she was working in Trump's spa at Mar A Lago. And flying back to Washington from Scotland last night on Air Force One, Trump confirmed she was one of the people he'd been talking about the previous day. Trump has faced an outcry over his refusal to release more records about Epstein after promises of transparency, a rare example of strain within Trump World. Maxwell, who is currently serving 20 years for trafficking young girls for Epstein, was interviewed inside a Florida courthouse by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche - who was previously Trump's personal lawyer. The Justice Department has not revealed what he and Maxwell discussed. Her lawyers said Tuesday that she's willing to answer more questions from Congress if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony and if lawmakers agree to satisfy other conditions. During his trip to Scotland, Trump repeatedly refused to rule out offering Maxwell a presidential pardon. Aboard Air Force One last night, Trump said he was upset that Epstein was "taking people who worked for me." The women, he said, were "taken out of the spa, hired by him - in other words, gone." "I said, listen, we don't want you taking our people," Trump said. When it happened again, Trump said he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Asked if Giuffre was one of the employees poached by Epstein, he demurred but then said "he stole her." The White House originally said Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago because he was acting like a "creep." Giuffre died by suicide earlier this year. She claimed that Maxwell spotted her working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, when she was a teenager, and hired her as Epstein's masseuse, which led to sexual abuse. It's thought Trump's friendship with Epstein broke down years later, around 2004. Although Giuffre's allegations did not become part of criminal prosecutions against Epstein, she is central to conspiracy theories about the case. She accused Epstein of pressuring her into having sex with powerful men. Maxwell, who has denied Giuffre's allegations, is serving a 20-year-prison sentence in a Florida federal prison for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls. A spokeswoman for the House Oversight Committee, which requested the interview with Maxwell, said the panel would not consider granting the immunity she requested. The potential interview is part of a frenzied, renewed interest in the Epstein saga following the Justice Department's statement earlier this month that it would not be releasing any additional records from the investigation, an abrupt announcement that stunned online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's political base who had been hoping to find proof of a government coverup. Since then, the Trump administration has sought to present itself as promoting transparency, with the department urging courts to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex-trafficking investigations. A judge in Florida last week rejected the request, though similar requests are pending in New York. In a letter Tuesday, Maxwell's attorneys said that though their initial instinct was for Maxwell to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they are open to having her cooperate provided that lawmakers satisfy their request for immunity and other conditions. But the Oversight Committee seemed to reject that offer outright. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony," a spokesperson said. Separately, Maxwell's attorneys have urged the Supreme Court to review her conviction, saying she did not receive a fair trial. They also say that one way she would testify 'openly and honestly, in public,' is in the event of a pardon by Trump, who has told reporters that such a move is within his rights but that he has not been not asked to do it. 'She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning,' the lawyers said.
Western Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Freed hostage Emily Damari accuses Starmer of being on wrong side of history
Emily Damari accused the Prime Minister of 'moral failure' over the move. Sir Keir announced on Tuesday that the UK could take the step of recognising statehood in September, ahead of a major UN gathering. The UK will refrain from doing so only if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. The move has been criticised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed it 'rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism'. Ms Damari, who was released from Hamas captivity in January, said in a post on Instagram on Wednesday: 'Prime Minister Starmer is not standing on the right side of history. Had he been in power during World War II, would he have advocated recognition for Nazi control of occupied countries like Holland, France or Poland? 'This is not diplomacy — it is a moral failure. Shame on you, Prime Minister. 'As a dual British-Israeli citizen who survived 471 days in Hamas captivity, I am deeply saddened by Prime Minister Starmer's decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. This move does not advance peace — it risks rewarding terror. It sends a dangerous message: that violence earns legitimacy. 'By legitimising a state entity while Hamas still controls Gaza and continues its campaign of terror, the Prime Minister is not promoting a solution; he is prolonging the conflict. Recognition under these conditions emboldens extremists and undermines any hope for genuine peace. Shame on you!!!' In a statement from Downing Street on Tuesday after an urgent Cabinet meeting on Gaza, Sir Keir said the UK's 'message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged but unequivocal: they must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm, and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza'.
