RayC

Here's one you can hold against me, @JonnyF. I'm left with egg on my face. The government did legislate against the sentencing guidelines. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-legislation-to-block-new-sentencing-guidelines Cue rant about political interference, infringement of civil liberties, etc.

The 'Sentencing Guidelines' were proposed by an independent body, The Sentencing Council. They are, as the name suggests, guidelines not laws. This Labour government has voiced its' opposition to the guidelines and asked the Sentencing Council to reconsider. What more do you want them to do? Legislate against the Council? No doubt you'd be then be complaining about political inference and the restriction on the freedom of expression. I'm not the one who sets the tone for these exchanges, Jonny. You (almost) inevitably couch your posts in inflammatory language from the word go. I'm also not the one looking foolish here by not knowing the facts.

Not a strong enough test I'm afraid. The only people who should be allowed to stay are those who pledge allegiance to one of the legitimate, full-blooded descendants of one of the kings of the original tribes e.g. Celts, Picts, etc.

I don't support this demand but neither do I think that it would have only targeted the indigenous, white, working-class males of the UK as you probably do. As I said yesterday, your sense of grievance knows no bounds.

Didn't mind it but a bit dated now. Clearly my attempt at humour didn't impress you.

Which one? WW1 or II, the regular Franco-German dust-ups ... Oh, b*****s🤦

Many European countries (Belgium, France, the UK, etc.) have had a significant Muslim minority population for decades. Members of these minorities integrated into their host societies to varying degrees, however, only a very few individuals were openly hostile and sought to change the culture of their hosts. That is no longer the case. There are certainly more Muslins in Europe than there used to be but, in itself, that doesn't explain the radicalisation of the European Muslim population. Also although Muslims form a much smaller proportion of the population in the US than they do in many European countries, in absolute terms the numbers are similar but the US does not appear to suffer greatly from 'cultural conflict'. Which begs two questions: 1) What has caused radical Islamism to increase in Europe and 2) why hasn't this occurred in the US to the same degree? (These are genuine questions. I don't have any answers or theories).

I agree that the Post-WW2 period of peace in Europe was the exception rather than the norm. I also agree that it appears that Europe apparently cannot count on the US to safeguard its' security as it has done. However, I appear to be more optimistic than you. The EU is not perfect by a long stretch, but it has managed to function for more than 60 years with some notable achievements such as the Single Market, Customs Union, etc. Egos were put aside for the common good in these cases; hopefully, they will be in this case.

If France, Germany and the UK compete with each other on defence matters resources will be wasted. Co-operation, not competition, should be the aim here.

The pertinent facts, which you seem to ignore, are 1) Connolly plead guilty and was therefore sentenced without the need for a trial and 2) Jones opted for a trial, pleaded 'Not guilty' and was acquitted by a jury of his peers (Incidentally, what's the chances of 12 randomly selected individuals all having the same political views? Pretty slim, wouldn't you agree?) Now you may consider Connolly's sentence excessive, and you might consider the verdict reached in the Jones trial to be the wrong one, but that is merely your opinion. In both cases, due process was followed. What we have here is not an example of a 2-tier justice system, but further evidence of your sense of grievance which seemingly knows no bounds. What would you do now? Order retrial(s) of both cases until the 'correct' verdicts were made?

If you listen to some posters, you'd be forgiven for believing that he's a cross between Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. In US terms a liberal.

Maybe read this and educate yourself https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ricky-jones-cleared-lucy-connolly-jailed-b2808629.html Jones seems to be a nasty piece of work but a jury acquited him. What do you want? A retrial until you get the correct verdict? Where am I gloating about anything? That's right, I'm not. If there's one thing that you can teach me, it's how to whine. In fact, you could probably teach a wail of banshee how to whine. No crying from me. Just a reminder of the utter foolishness of Brexit every time you mention it. Always nice to end of a point of agreement.

Eastwards expansion did not happen. (Well, technically I suppose it did: North Macedonia and Montenegro have joined NATO since 2010, but I hardly think their membership constitutes a major threat to Russia. Do you? In any event, their application to join NATO can be seen as a by-product of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as can Finland's membership). Back on topic: Ukraine abandoned its' goal of obtaining NATO membership in 2010, so this idea that Russia's invasion can be justified on the basis that Ukraine presents a threat to Russia can be seen for what it is: Complete nonsense.

I realise that it may be difficult to keep up with events in the UK from afar, but there is no 'tyranny of the left' and people can speak their mind. Maybe have a look at the contents and comments on the Daily Mail, Express or Telegraph sites or watch GB News. You'll find more than enough anti-government rhetoric and right-wing views to satisfy yourself.

That's an interesting theory. You might well be correct. On the other hand, it may have hastened a Russian invasion i.e. before Ukraine formally became a NATO member. Even if Ukraine had joined, would Article 5 have definitely been involved, given that escalation into nuclear conflict would be extremely likely? We'll never know.