RayC

Perhaps Tottenham's Japanese fans are worried about their team's precarious PL status?😁

For an organisation that operates on a not-for-profit basis FIFA makes a lot of non-profit. Although dated (2015), this article gives an indication of how wealthy FIFA is: https://www.dw.com/en/fifas-controversial-business-model/a-18479441

Didn't Trump declare victory last week? I think that you may getting your numbering, 'estates' and 'columns' mixed up.

I don't doubt that the proportions have changed since 2022, but it is extremely unlikely that they have changed so much that Muslims are now the largest single religious group in London: If that were the case, I've absolutely no doubt that Rupert Lowe (among others) would have mentioned it. Returning to the topic: I've no idea if Iran possess a bomb capable of reaching London but even if London was a predominantly 'Muslim City' (it isn't), I doubt that it would offer any protection. Just ask the other Gulf States

Well, that depends on your definition of "Muslim City". I'd say it's when Muslims formed an overall majority, but I guess that you could argue it's when they form the largest single religious group. Either way, London is not currently a 'Muslim City'. Happy to help. Key Facts on Religion in London (2021 Census): Christian: 40.7% No Religion: 27.1% Muslim: 15.0% Hindu: 5.1% Other/Not Stated: 12.1%

With any luck Orban and Fidesz will be out of power by 13 April.

What or who are the Third Column? Guess shares are up. And?

For an adversary with "no cards to play", Iran isn't doing too badly in causing unease in the region and economic instability throughout the world, although I accept the counter argument that Trump can manage to create havoc without any assistance is a very strong one.

Apparently, according to some pundits, Trump does have a strategy. He is following the Madman theory: "The madman theory is a foreign policy strategy where a leader projects irrationality and volatility to make adversaries believe they might take extreme, unpredictable action—such as nuclear war—thereby forcing concessions. Popularized by Richard Nixon to end the Vietnam War, this approach aims to make threats more credible by appearing unconstrained by rational deterrence." (Source: Google AI) Imo one fundamental problem with this theory is that, "(It was) Popularized by Richard Nixon to end the Vietnam War ...". That's meant to be supporting evidence?

What happened? Have you been infused with the spirit of John Lennon ('Give Peace a Chance')? I thought that you were all in favour of bombing Iran into oblivion?

A bit of context might help. The UK could (probably) have got any deal that it wanted (for a price), but had no idea itself what it wanted because Brexit was so ill-conceived and lacked any sort of coherent plan other than a lame meaningless slogan: 'Brexit means Brexit'. During the negotiations, the UK tried to drive a wedge between the EU member states. The move failed but, fair enough, it was a negotiating ploy. Why then be surprised if the EU negotiators sought to exploit their advantages? Having ruled out remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union, the border on the island of Ireland presented an enormous problem: Obviously you can't have a border and not have a border simultaneously, but that seemingly obvious truism escaped Brexiter's notice, as did the possibility that the 'Good Friday Agreement' might be affected. The Brexiters' solutions? The RoI can adjust it's relationship within the EU. Needless to say, neither the RoI nor the EU agreed to that. Another "solution": Move the physical border! I think that this emoji says everything about that idea🤦. The responsibility for the whole farce that is Brexit - and its' negative effects on the UK - rests squarely with no one else than those who argued for it.

Presumably you missed this bit in the article: "Hungary, which relies heavily on Russian energy, has been pressing for the pipeline to be restored. Budapest has blocked both new European Union sanctions against Russia and a proposed €90bn loan package for Ukraine while the issue remains unresolved". Basically, your mate Orban - the cuckoo in the EU nest - is effectively blackmailing the EU into doing his bidding on this issue. But never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to have a dig at the EU, eh?

Unfortunately you are wasting your time in posting such truths. The old proverb, "None so blind as those who will not see", could have coined for some of the more extreme Brexiters.

Don't be surprised if you are charged with 'Involuntary Manslaughter'. Your last sentence has led to the demise of over half of AN's readership.

There was an old saying about Norwich: "A church for every Sunday and a pub for every day" although I doubt that there are 365 pubs or 52 churches still in operation in Norwich nowadays.

But if you weren't there, your company would simply find someone else to spend THEIR money in London on THEIR behalf, so actually there wouldn't be any loss of revenue to London unless, of course, the only reason your company uses a London-based organisation is because of your deep affection for our fair city, and/or you are so indispensable that your company couldn't survive without you. (This also assumes that your company's spending in London is significant enough to be noticed). Even by your standards of avoidance, introducing a completely unrelated, illogical argument about the value of an individual vote within the aggregated whole is desperate. Personally I welcome any spending that benefits London's economy, but I very much doubt that the withdrawal of your personal expenditure would cause us any problem although, as I say, every little helps.

Norwich: Best place to live in the UK? Maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly 'A Fine City'.

My dear Jonny, I am genuinely concerned for your welfare. You seem to be awfully forgetful nowadays. Don't you remember writing this: "Actually it would be (a loss to London) given MY spending habits when there". (My caps and parentheses). MY is not usually interchangable with OUR. In this case, the former implies individual personal spending, not collective spending on behalf of the company (OUR). It is ambiguous at best: I do hope that you are more precise when drawing up contracts. Given that we have known each other - albeit remotely - for a number of years now, I'd be grateful for a heads-up (which I'll pass on to the Mayor) if you ever decide to withdraw your largesse from London: OUR great city will obviously need to make provisions to ensure that our £618bn economy - 2023 estimated value of London's economy - can survive the shock.

UK traders are based in other places than London and hospitality is available throughout the UK so the question remains, "Why do you spend so much money and time in a place (London) that you so clearly abhor?"

You state that, "The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA" To state the obvious, that was the IAEA's mandate: No more, no less. Why expect either the IAEA and/or Iran to go over and beyond the terms of the Agreement? The JCPOA had the support of the UN PS plus Germany and the EU, and had the effect of halting Iran's progress towards attaining nuclear weapons. I'd call that success and far from flawed. Moreover, although the Agreement was time-stamped, there was nothing to prevent negotiations continuing - or strengthening - the Agreement. Nothing that is until Trump's withdrawal of the US. The idea that Iran would effectively leave itself at the mercy of Israel and Saudi Arabia by agreeing to voluntarily giving up any military deterrent (it's missile systems, etc) as you suggest was - and is - a complete non-starter. No other nation would be expected to agree to such terms so why expect Iran to do so? Although sanctions make things more financially difficult for Iran, it still continues to fund Hezbollah. The presence or absence of a JCPOA type deal does not prevent it. Indeed, how exactly could Iran be preventing from sending funds to Lebanon and Palestine unless their budget was managed by, and, from a third party (presumably the US). In reality, we had a deal. While it couldn't be claimed to have been perfect or to have permanently solved any major problems, it did at least prevent existing problems from getting worse which was a lot better than the situation since 2018. The irresponsible behaviour of Trump by withdrawing from the Agreement and his behaviour now - without seemingly having any idea of what the final outcome either should look like or is likely to be - is unfortunately proof of that.

I saw him and the Glitter band in 1981. For sheer entertainment, It remains one of the best gigs I've ever been to. The Glitter band were excellent musicians and a very tight backing band.

Public protection is not the only reason for jailing individuals, although who's to know whether Glitter no longer presents a danger to young children in some perverted way; there are also the elements of rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment to consider. Glitter reoffended when released and looks past rehabilitation. Unfortunately, there are others like him at large and imo a strong deterrent message needs to be sent. Wrt punishment, I find it difficult to have much sympathy for Glitter and to use the old saying, 'He's got what he deserved'. I agree with @Effective altruism ; he should spend the rest of his days in a cell.

Why do you spend so much money (and time?) in a place that you so clearly abhor?

Did you lose your old one? For that price, I'd expect it to last a lifetime.

The mixed messaging continues. Will those ar Labour's central office never learn?