roquefort

He knows that because even a bit of basic research will show you that up to 50% of scientific papers contain fake data or cannot be replicated. Some of these have to be retracted but many are not, so the true extent of the problem is unknown. What is perfectly clear is that if as a scientist you produce research which doesn't support the agenda of your grant donors........guess what? No more funding i.e. career suicide.

The cost of labour is certainly a key factor in any investment decision. As you say, the cheapest country benefits for a period of time until its labour costs become higher than its neighbours, at which point new investment goes elsewhere. But comparing Thailand and Vietnam from my own experience I would say the Vietnamese are generally (there are always exceptions) better educated, more resourceful, more industrious, and more open to foreigners, so cost is not the only reason Thailand is losing out.

How do you de-dollarize the USD?

I would agree with you that politicians love to present easy solutions to complex problems. It's almost the only way they can get elected. But it's not a prerogative of the far right, they're all at it. And yes, certain extreme elements can pose a threat to freedom, democracy and liberty. But that's true at both ends of the spectrum. The communist regimes in the Soviet Union and China in the 20th century killed far more of their own citizens than the Nazis.

Virtually the whole piece, but I'll just quote the last sentence. 'By voting and actively participating in the democratic process, we can push back against the forces of intolerance and hate and work towards a more inclusive and equitable Europe.' So by implication anyone who votes for the 'far right' parties which she has spent the whole article denigrating is in favour of intolerance and hate. That is an absurd generalisation and an unjustified slur on millions of voters whose individual motivations she knows nothing about.

I was referring to the OP. You seem to lose your way when we get into the detail. Of course nuance is a bit more difficult than smearing anyone who disagrees with you as far-right or Islamophobic.

I read it. Did you? It contained grossly generalized pejorative views against millions of people who vote for policies proposed by conservative parties that you would label as "far right" and I would call genuine conservative (as opposed to the pathetic, woke variety in the UK).

So rather like the grossly generalized pejorative views against millions of people in the OP.

Definitely the latter. Net Zero (EV charging etc) will require massive new supply of copper to reconfigure power supply networks. Not to mention AI, which consumes unimaginable amounts of energy. This is a good analysis of what is required in terms of commodities to get anywhere the current renewable energy targets. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/04/the-quantity-of-metals-required-to-manufacture-just-one-generation-of-renewable-technology-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels/

Keep repeating your mantra, it doesn't fool anybody. You'll be telling us next the BBC and Channel 4 are perfectly impartial. I notice you haven't read the second link, which explains WHY media that don't follow the officially approved narrative are being starved of advertising.

'The facts' (from your link): GB News has been the subject of a partial advertiser boycott since it launched in August 2021. In September former Sky News editor John Ryley called for that boycott to end, saying it was "an insult to the British people" and that it “represents a threat to free speech". Suggest you take your blinkers off before reading this one: https://unherd.com/2024/04/inside-the-disinformation-industry/

You have access to their current management accounts? Please share. If they are losing money it's because the Centre for Disinformation, a government funded quango, is blacklisting them from all mainstream advertising.... because 'misinformation'. As recently exposed by Unherd who were given the same treatment.

If you're going to post nonsense at least make sure it's up to date. 'year ending May 2023' LOL. A year is a long time in politics.

I would tend to agree with you, but if you go back far enough we are all immigrants. It is nevertheless a fact that more than 50% of people who live in London today were born outside the UK. As a Londoner born and bred I hardly recognise my own city.

Indeed. he's a minority.....of Londoners born in London.

Someone born in London. Now in a minority in their own city.

How sad to live in a one-dimensional reality where your opinions are the only correct ones and everyone else's are worthless. But keep on posting your BS, we'll just ignore you.

How sad to live in a one-dimensional reality where your opinions are the only correct ones and everyone else's are worthless. But keep on posting your BS, we'll just ignore you.

How sad to live in a one-dimensional reality where your opinions are the only correct ones and everyone else's are worthless. But keep on posting your BS, we'll just ignore you.

How sad to live in a one-dimensional reality where your opinions are the only correct ones and everyone else's are worthless. But keep on posting your BS, we'll just ignore you.

Is that the best you've got? Desperation showing.

Phimai is in Nakhon Ratchasima, not Buriram. Clearly not written by an AI.

Whereas of course the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and the Guardian are completely unbiased news media. There is a long-standing vendetta by Ofcom against GB News for daring to express opinions which do not conform to the left wing establishment narrative.

Your faith in British justice is touching. But you must also be aware that governments and intelligence services have no hesitation in overriding due process where they deem the matter to be one involving 'national security'.

It was not Assange who put lives at risk. He went to great lengths to redact names and any other information that could identify individuals at risk. It was two Guardian 'journalists' who later published the unredacted files.