Baerboxer

5 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Does Dubai have an extradition treaty with Thailand or not.  Not sure they do if Thaksin is still there under the watchful eye of the Emirates.

Dubai doesn't have treaties with other countries. The UAE does though!

Just now, david555 said:

Why oh why it took so long ....to go back in time once more to remember Brits did it ALL allone ????....????

No, they did it with Poles, Czechs, Americans, Indians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Canadians, Irish etc etc etc. 

They didn't cave in after a few weeks and capitulate, collaborate and collude with the onerous Nazis.

The stumbling block seems to be French and Spanish fishing industries wanting to plunder British waters at will and not accept a sensible agreement like the EU has with Norway on fishing. And Macron is too scared of the political muscle of the French fishing and agriculture sectors to act sensibly, preferring to ignore conservation and intelligent scientific advice on the matter.

You should be more worried about Germany. Sure, they want ever closer EU federal union, as they see Germany dominating and ruling. But they also don't want their industries to suffer to pander to greedy French and Spanish fishermen who have no regard for sustainable fishing. 

13 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

BJ is just like Trump: represents a minority, but has been making a series of bad decisions that will adversely affect the vast majority of the people, and the country, for years to come. 

Johnson won because Corbyn managed to loose 60 seats in the Commons, many from die-hard traditional Labour areas whilst Swinson managed to take the Liberals to new depths of obscurity.

His performance thereafter is open to fair criticism and his cabinet look inept and full of poor performers.

He will probably go before the next election.

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Australia style terms?

Why cant he just tell the truth and use the words no deal.

 

Probably for the same reason all other politicians can't tell the truth either.

2 hours ago, car720 said:

They both look tougher than the guy holding the flowers.

Interestingly, he appears to be a farang. Wonder how he got a work permit that covers being a flunkey and gofer. He never cracked his face all night, not one smile whilst on camera.

2 hours ago, greeneking said:

'He asked that all sides seek common ground so that they may utilize the country’s democracy to move it forward.'

Fortunately there is someone who can help.  His name is Thanathorn and he had a party which has helpfully changed its name.

Future Forward was reborn as the Move Forward Party.

Yes, another billionaire owner of a political party. Just the ticket! 

5 hours ago, mrfill said:

Of course, the original antifa was the Allies in the Second World War who waged an anti-fascist war against the Third Reich.

Interesting point. Although of course the "Western Allies" liberated lands occupied by the Nazis and Fascists whereas the Marxist Soviets enslaved them, applied similar control methods to the Nazis, and forced their political doctrine on them. 

See the relevance?

Why would a restaurant need "security guards" like this? Protection?

Bouncers are needed for nightclubs, bars, entertainment venues etc. Is this restaurant more of a clubby type place.

Bouncers here behave like some UK bouncers did in the 70s and 80s. Often looking for the slightest excuse to all jump in and do somebody. Enjoying building up their ego. The law eventually sorted the industry out. Now they are regulated, must be trained, must be trained in first aid, and restrain and remove. Police and Special constables were not allowed to work as bouncers or security, for very obvious reasons. Off duty soldiers did though.

16 hours ago, johng said:

I'm more and more convinced this whole debacle is about removing the last remains of "freedoms"

Politicians and bureaucrats all over the place do seem to have jumped on this as an excuse to remove freedoms.

Interesting that a number of British citizens freedoms were removed at the start of WW1 - you know, state of war, emergency, necessary for the war effort etc etc. Not all were restored, and not for some time. Then of course WW11 came along and another round.

This also comes at a time when the IT age makes information on our politicians, their performance, behaviors and characters more transparent the ever before.

Every cloud has a silver lining for politicians!

Not a conspiracy theorists but, quaintly, I expect politicians to be accountable and not hide, change subvert or otherwise impinge on citizens constitutional and legal rights.

Just a quick heads up. The forms aren't currently loaded on the website linked due to technical issues. They should be soon but you can email them in the meantime and the forms will be sent to you. Hope that helps anyone.

On 10/1/2020 at 11:35 AM, Blue Muton said:

Deflection. Is that because answering the question would not suit your agenda?

Do you know who the Proud Boy's Chairman is? And his ethnicity?

"On Wednesday Proud Boy International Chairman Enrique Tarrio, an African-Hispanic American, spoke out against the smear that Proud Boys is a white supremacist group as Joe Biden claims." Source Sky News.

Fact.

1 minute ago, Matzzon said:

Okay! I do not say that they had the right to be there. However, the McCloskeys had the possibility to call the police. They didn´t, instead they made the choice to illegally threaten people walking outside their property. That´s an illegal act. If you are not an officer of the law, you are not allowed to point a gun at someone that are walking in a street. if it is in a private community or out in the open city is totally irrelevant according to the law in that case. So, the result is that you are the one that choses to look away from the facts and the power of the law. Please do not make another stupid response. Good Night!

Just because you don't like a response or it doesn't suit your narrative doesn't make it stupid or incorrect. Suggesting the bringing back of public stocks and spitting on people is rather stupid though. As is reverting to mob rule.

Had the trespassing protesters actually attacked the McCloskey's home, then they would have been legally entitled to use lethal force to defend, IIUC. However, threatening people publicly with weapons is also against a local law, as the prosecutor has informed everyone with some relish. Had no trespass taken place, no threatening would have. Thankfully the protesters didn't do any damage and lethal force wasn't required. Was that because these protesters, unlike many many others, were peaceful or was it because they backed of at the site of the guns and homeowners? No one really knows. But the deliberate ignoring or protesters looting, thieving and causing significant criminal damage for political agendas certainly fueled emotions on both sides. That context is important consideration.

4 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

A number of posts with false and unsupported claims have been removed.

 

The gate in question was to the private housing development where the McCloskeys' home is located, not to their home itself. Also, there's opposing accounts as to whether the protesters that day broke thru the gate or it was already open, including a video account suggesting the gate had been unlocked.

 

There's no indication that the protesters did anything regarding the McCloskeys' home itself, other than marching past on a private street in the housing estate, where the confrontation occurred, while headed for a planned protest at the local mayor's house.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53891184

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jun/30/what-we-know-about-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-gun/

 

Thank you for your clarifications. 

I don't know the specifics of the Trespass laws in the US and Missouri or St Louis in particular. But by being on a signed private road, with no right of passage, without a valid reason would seem like trespass? Regardless of whether the gate was broken open or not. If it was broken open, that would bring other charges maybe?

Speculation of what was said to heighten the McCloskey's fears was reported by several news sights. How reliable is debatable but presumably the Grand Jury had access to all evidence rather than just hearsay.

It has been pointed out that Missouri has a castle law so homes can be protected with lethal force. St. Louis also has laws aimed at preventing people threatening others with guns. 

I guess a lot will come out at the trial and it will be up to the jury what they believe such as the state of mind/fear felt by the defendants and whether their response was reasonable and if they broke laws in that response.

What may come out of this is an increase in closed private estates employing more private security guards as unlike certain politicians, they can't build barricades and / or station police officers permanently outside their homes to keep the rioters away. 

3 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Seems to me that you totally chose to misunderstand on purpose just to stir up a problem. Simple, this is about the McCloskeys. They threatened people walking delivering their opinion outside their property. That is wrong and unlawful. End of story. Now you see that it seems to be after the law, and nothing else.

Seems to me you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the people walking outside their property were actually on a private road, which they broke down a security gate to get onto and had no right whatsoever to be there. They were delivering their opinion whilst trespassing on someone else's property; and some were expressing similar opinions not too far away in very violent destructive illegal fashions.

Seems you want to gloss over the illegal activities which contributed to this and only recognize the ones that suit your agenda.

On 9/22/2020 at 4:53 AM, uncleP said:

Seems pretty standard .

No it isn't