RuamRudy

The thing is, the law recognises that 17 year olds are not sufficiently mature enough to make the right choices in life. That is why 18 or even 21 is the age of majority in most countries. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that even the sassiest, most streetwise 17 year old child is sufficiently sophisticated to be able to make rational decisions whilst under pressure from billionaire bankers or paedophile children of the queen of England. To suggest that she was an equal partner in Andrew's having sex with a trafficked child is beyond comprehensible, but you keep siding with the nonces if you wish.

You'd have to be sailing pretty close to the wind, morally, to suggest that a 16 year old, coerced into a world of power where, in her words, she was passed around internationally powerful people like a plate of meat, was master of her own fate.

Normally you get pretty het up about adults coercing children into sexual situations where the power dynamic is massively one sided, or are you now suggesting that all these Muslim grooming gangs that plague England are actually just transactional, victimless affairs?

I guess it should come down to what is most reliable and safe - a car controlled by a human or one controlled by a computer.

Your willingness to vigorously support a man alleged to have been involved in the sex trafficking of children is as concerning as your obsession with Meghan Markle.

If he truly cared about the lot of his peasants, he might consider myriad ways of helping - like paying taxes, paying for himself and his obscenely rich, obscenely indolent family rather than relying on the hard working people of the UK to fund their luxury.

Clearly comprehension is not your forte, but go ahead and confirm it. I am intrigued to see how might justify your utter failure to understand what you read.

Television - Marquee Moon

Big Star - Thirteen

Keep the Customer Satisfied - Simon & Garfunkel

Only 5%? Did you conduct the survey yourself or did you read this statistic in some august journal? Either way, please provide empirical evidence to this claim. Why don't I mention what I see on Russian TV? Because I don't watch it. However as Russian TV is used as a propaganda tool for the Putin regime, it can hardly be considered as objective evidence of a general sentiment. As for the rest of your incoherent and badly composed rant, it would seem that it is you who is only a few bottles away from falling off the metaphorical high horse upon which you are currently sitting.

Have you ever considered that it might be that most Russians find you objectionable?

I had the very good fortune of landing a job in Russia in the early '00s - I ended up living in the Russian far east for 8 years and loved every minute of it. I was always amazed at the level of cultural knowledge that even those did not study beyond secondary level had. You could talk to any Russian about Master and Margarita or Crime and Punishment; they would know the classics in detail, but not only Russian authors. Dickens and Shakespeare, Hemmingway were also widely read. There is an element of truth to the trope that the Russian demeanour is aloof and standoffish, but this is simply the default situation for strangers. Once you are friends with a Russian, they treat you like a brother.

No sweat for the UK's Paedo Prince though...

Read the post I responded to and then reconsider whether you were correct in stating baldly that I am lying. If you still struggle to comprehend what you have read then I don't think we have much more to discuss on this matter.

There are huge swathes of Christianity which hold similar positions. Hatred is bred into people of many backgrounds.

The facts prove that tourists will come regardless of whether we are a monarchy or a republic. So why continue with this affront to democracy that costs us hundreds of millions of pounds every year? Let's get rid of this parasitic institution and put the money it is costing us to good use.

Tourists doing routinely receive an audience with the monarch. They come for the history, palaces and photo opportunities. France is testament to that. We can have that income without having to pay an enormous sum to an already incredibly rich family. How about neither of them, but a person considered suitable by the electorate, and who can be replaced if not?

You seen unable to see options beyond the extremes. The obvious alternative to our undemocratic head of state does not have to be a polarising figure. We do not need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds annually on the cutting of ribbons - we need to spend that money on building the hospitals themselves.

Where do you see this 'debauchery' in Western society? Do you have your own personal definition of debauchery?

If this was, as I suspect, a marketing ploy designed to elevate the books profile, Kudos to whomever came up with the plan.

What is specifically wrong about supporting the emancipation of a downtrodden and abused people?

Give the poor guy a break. He can hardly be expected to clean up the EDL when he is off his face on drugs all the time, can he? "The far-right activist, who has several criminal convictions and in 2014 admitted to possessing 3.48 grams of cocaine with intent to supply, claimed: “No matter where I’ve gone in the world I score … I’ve gone to f***ing Qatar, to Doha, and scored gear on the sesh while they’re all praying. Everywhere mate, every city I’ve gone to.”" Tommy Robinson boasts about scoring drugs and proclaims himself 'king of whole Islam race', in newly emerged video

Double post

Even Wilders himself didn't see that coming, so he can hardly be said to be riding a clear wave of sentiment. I suspect, much like brexit, it's the nutters who won it while the majority are turned off by the rantings of extremists at both ends of the spectrum. I am glad to hear that, after all these years, the objective of brexit has finally been confirmed. But can you expand it beyond nebulous, meaningless soundbites?