Chomper Higgot

Did you miss this bit, or simply choose to ignore it ? In a statement, a BBC spokesperson clarified:“International journalists including the BBC are not allowed access into Gaza so we hear from a range of eyewitness accounts from the strip. These are not BBC members of staff or part of the BBC’s reporting team. We were not aware of the individuals’ social media activity prior to hearing from them on air. We are absolutely clear that there is no place for anti-Semitism on our services.”

Which part of “the Livingstone brothers amassed (not created) much of their wealth from buy-to-let rents and online gambling.” Isn’t true?

You can mean what you like, it does not alter the fact that the Livingstone brothers amassed (not created) much of their wealth from buy-to-let rents and online gambling. They are a couple of parasites.

The Livingstones are heavily into the buy to let and gambling businesses, the money is definitely flowing from the poor to the Livingstones.

I’m sure the hyper wealthy appreciate you fighting for their corner.

The Livingstone brothers held ‘Non-Dom’ tax status, something that was established to address the taxation of foreign nationals moving to the UK while holding assets and in receipt of income overseas. British citizens, born and living in the UK holding £billions worth of assets in the UK from which they were deriving income yet having ‘non-Dom’ tax status is obviously ridiculous and unjust. ’The Top Brass’ don’t ’allow’ the tax laws have been written in their favour. Addressing abuse of the ‘non-Dom’ tax regulations was already an issue under the last Government, Labour are very right to continue to close these tax loopholes. The first thing to address is limit the amount anyone can pay to UK Political parties and put an end to anyone not resident in the UK donating to UK Political parties. A maximum of perhaps £1000 per year would remove the ability of the rich to buy political favours.

It would be interesting to know what portion of the Livingstone’s income in rents is derived from welfare payments to their tenants.

Taxation isn’t based upon who anybody thinks makes better use of the money.

Money earned in the UK is taxed in the UK. How has that fact evaded you?

Which hostages are being held by Harvard Iniversity? Or are you conflating issues in your eagerness to promote collective punishment of Gazans?

How does Labour lose taxes on assets that remain the UK?

I don’t need to. If there is evidence of laws being violated, investigate and prosecute. You know the due process and right to defense in an open court of law.

Harvard’s real crime is facing down Trump’s attempt to corral universities. We expect more attacks on the university.

Well to be fair, it is an opinion. Though we are not told who’s.

I understand the affidavit contains allegations. The affidavit is the only ‘evidence’ presented.

That fine, their assets remain in the UK.

Sanders, AOC, Walz are speaking to sell out crowds, many of whom are Republicans. Buttigieg is making regular appearances on rightwing TV shows speaking directly to Republican voters. These are not gaining audiences on ‘not Trump’ they have a message voters want to hear. Hence the ad hominem attacks on these people.

Don’t confuse ‘celebrity’ with not being a sexual predator There’s enough cases of the two being coexistent to remove any doubt that celebrity is no proof whatsoever of being a rapist.

Sorry Blaze, I thought your comment was based on some rational reasoning, I over estimated you, my bad. “Yet when it comes time to actually do something other than spouting off online....we'll the door isn't so open.” The subject alleged rape victim is serving a 55 year prison sentence, there is absolutely no possibility of them requiring any alternative accommodation until that sentence is served, …. So erm… the door is definitely not open. Yet more failed rationality on your part. All are welcome here, you don’t have to apologize for not being American.

Which would apply equally to you and does not explain your rational. Have another go.

Can you please explain the rational behind your idea that someone supportive of others receiving their right to due process under the law should somehow become personally responsible for those who have that right of due process returned to them?

I’m wondering what kind of people so obviously enjoy reading a report of rape, to the extent that some get so overwhelmed with excitement they can’t help but add their own fantasy details of the rape.

We get likes by the barrow load and this year have had our first successful crop of cocoa, sorry no photos of the latter. We’ve now gone fully ‘no dig’ for the vegetable plots and I’ve built a three bay compacting shed to ensure a supply of compost. Each bay is 2mx2m, I initially filled the outer left and right bays to a height of 1.2m with a mixture of dead leaves, chopped up banana trees, vegetable water from the garden and kitchen, chick and cow manure. This past Friday I turned the compost from the outer bays to the center bay, where the combined volume is about 5 cubic meters.

Some of my crops:

Well done your wife I’ve planted three fig trees, they appear to be thriving but their fruit drops soon after forming.