RayC

Irrelevant. The important thing is that the judge and jury understand the legal definition.

Is this an example of elitism or snobbery?🤔

Obviously our thresholds for "brillance" are yet another thing we differ about My apologies you haven't. I confused your posts with another member's. You have 'only' used this thread about sport i.e. the success of the England Women's football team to have a dig about such unrelated subjects as the Labour party; 'wokeness', the (perceived) two-tier justice system in the UK and women footballers making political statements, while at the same time suggesting "Keep the politics, demands, complaining and Wokery out of it (sport) ...". No Jonny, it's called unbiased analysis. There are pros and cons associated with almost all proposals. If I consider something to be logical and, in general, beneficial I will support that measure. I do not have an overly simplistic 'Black/ White' view of matters whereby anything originating from the Left; the EU; the Labour party, etc is automatically dismissed as 'bad', whereas anything proposed by Reform; Trump; the Right, etc is - by dint of its' origin - good. Yes, nice to agree on something [ (a), b) and c)]. I fear that you may be disappointed about future developments but I remain open to persuasion. If only I could say the same for you.

Err ... https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/fame-and-popularity-donald-trump

Fair point. You've stated time and time again throughout this thread how discriminated against you perceive yourself to be. My world view is seemingly more nuanced and less 'black and white' - oops, I mean monochrome - than yours, Jonny.

Your opinion that women are "mentally inferior" to men has no scientific grounding. My experience of living and working with women - shared by many others - differs from yours. Women are just as mentally capable as men. Kudos to you for spending time developing others. I agree. No one is trying to argue that the women's game is as skilful as the men's. However, as a spectacle women's football can be just as exciting as the men's game. Man City have some of the best players in the world. Sometimes they are wonderful to watch, on other occasions when the ball is being passed around amongst themselves outside the box ad infinitum, I'd much rather watch a women's match. This is the second-most important women's football tournament in the world, so imo the amount of coverage on this occasion is warranted. The hyperbole is over-blown but that is no different to the coverage of the men's game. The BBC is going overboard but the coverage would probably have disappeared by now if England had lost the final. However, I do have some sympathy with the idea that coverage of the women's game, especially the WSL is over-blown. If anything, interest in the domestic English women's game was declining - attendances in the WSL were down last season - not that you would have known that from the number of articles extolling it's virtues on the BBC website. My grievance here is that this coverage - and the equally overblown coverage of the EPL - is at the expense of the EFL, which is much more competitive and is thriving (attendances up in all three divisions).

If you are English, yours should be the simple message. If you are Spanish, then you should be proud of a team that performed brilliantly throughout the tournament. Sadly, some male posters are using the opportunity to proclaim their superiority - simply by dint of their gender - while, at the same time, lamenting their fate as again - by dint of their gender - that they are victims of discrimination. Square that circle?

You obviously didn't watch the final, otherwise you would have seen an event which had all the twists and turns needed for a great spectacle; tension, the result in doubt until the last minute, one team getting on top and then losing the initiative, unforeseen events e.g. injuries and no small amount of skill displayed by both teams. Would either team had a chance against their male counterparts? Of course not, but no ASEAN country would beat England or Spain's male teams so would you also we simply dismiss Thai footballers by suggesting that stick to Muay Thai? This women's Euro final was a sporting event enjoyed by millions; that's the main takeaway from it (and if you are English, we get to celebrate a win). As for your belief that women are "mentally inferior" to men, maybe familiarise yourself with the scientific literature on the subject.

You forgot to mention the victimised, "indigenous" Brits. Unlikely but maybe one or two aren't also misogynists.

The EU Single (Internal) market and Customs Union operate efficiently. The EU - like the UK and the US - is a member of the WTO. Like the UK, the EU abides by WTO rules. Unfortunately, the US has chosen not to. That suggests that if any country (bloc) is guilty of protectionism, it is the US and not the EU (or UK). According to World Bank figures, the average weighted mean tariff rate in 2021 was 1.47% for the US, 1.38% for the EU and 0.74% for the UK. Once again, hardly indicative of protectionism on the part of the EU. (Note: 2021 figures were the latest figures which I could easily find). I'll pre-empt the objection that EU regulation on such niceties as animal welfare and safety standards act as non-tariff barriers by pointing out the obvious fact that EU companies have to abide by these exact same regulations. I don't expect these facts to make a blind bit of difference to your opinion as your irrational, ill-informed hatred of the EU appears to know no bounds.

Fine. But until a figure is released and details of what products are to be purchased, the value to the US economy remains unknown.

Trump's words were , " ... we don't know what the exact figure is (yet) .." It is pure conjecture to suggest that a major proportion (>€400bn) will now go to US defence companies.

All the major EU states except France appear to have accepted it. The French PM is vocal in his disapproval; nothing from Macron but he needs all the friends he can get, so I can't see him picking a fight with the Commission and Germany over this. Actually, I agree with the critics: It is a bad deal for the EU but I can't see it being blocked.

True but it's just a rubber-stamping exercise. It's inconceivable that v.d. Leyen could have agreed to this deal without prior approval from the member states.

The Reuters Press Release states that, "the EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases, covering oil, gas, nuclear, fuel and chips during U.S. President Donald Trump's term in office. The EU pledged to buy U.S. military equipment" (Comment: No mention of anything like €800bn being spent on US arms alone).. Reuters went on to say, "European companies are to invest $600 billion in the U.S. over the course of Trump's second term ..... EU officials said the Europe's $600 billion investment pledge is based on private sector projects already in the pipeline". I have not tried to disguise the fact that imo this is a bad deal for the EU, but it is nowhere near as catastrophic as you portray it. We have had - and almost certainly will continue to have - many disagreements about Russia and her motives. This is not the place to restart that discussion. Suffice to say, replacing Russian-sourced energy with US-sourced energy is imo to be welcomed. Once again, from Reuters: "Tariffs on European steel and aluminium will stay at 50%, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said these would later be cut and replaced by a quota system." " ...the EU-U.S. deal already secures a 15% tariff for European chips and pharmaceuticals, so the results of the investigations will not change that, U.S. officials said" A bad deal for the EU? Certainly. A really terrible deal? No.