RayC

22 minutes ago, connda said:

The West wants a war with both Russia and China and have been engaged in provocative rhetoric for year.

Will we have WW3?  Yeah probably.  Started by the US and NATO. 

Perhaps an American can explain why the US would want a war with China and Russia, but from a European perspective why would we want a war with either? What advantage has it for Europe? And why risk it given that there is no guarantee that we would be successful?

On 7/4/2025 at 2:17 PM, KhunLA said:

An agreed upon peace, instead of the now inevitable surrender with more loss of life on both sides.

 

Personally, it think he's just holding on to power as long as possible (elections banned) until he can squirrel away millions more USD.

 

He's an actor, a puppet of the EU, playing a president, while the generals do what they do, send others to die.  All while 100's of billions are given to him.

 

How is Zelensky a puppet of the EU? What do the EU gained by providing €132bn (and counting) in aid to Ukraine?

7 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Show the links then, remember actual proof, not just speculation or propaganda. The link above shows the raids in Germany, where they have also banned the opposition.

Are these examples of the freedom afforded to those who oppose Putin, Frank?

Let me hazard a guess at your reply: It's MSM propaganda 

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/11/21/political-persecution-in-russia-by-the-numbers

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/jailed-russian-dissidents-call-mass-prisoner-release-part-peace-deal-with-2025-07-03/

https://www.voanews.com/a/russian-repression-of-dissidents-civil-society-reaches-unprecedented-levels/7279656.html

38 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

To take your education a step further, and in direct reference to yesterdays Court ruling.

 

This was a legal challenge, which was thrown out

I have made no comment about yesterday's court ruling and have no wish to learn anything more about it.

38 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

1. GCHQ is not Government

Agreed. (see my reply to Nauseus)

38 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Single aspects of GCHQ's actions should be subject  to a Judicial review..

Fine and dandy

38 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

2. A Judical Review is not the same as a legal challenge.

 

Two very distinct and two very different processes.

Not according to Google AI they aren't: "A judicial review is a specific type of legal challenge ..." i.e. the latter is a subset of the former

You seem to be obsessed with making

a distinction between the phrases. If you provide a legal definition of both phrases from a reputable source then that can be used in future although, as I said at the outset, I have no comment to make about yesterday's ruling

38 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

No, you don't, and never have done.

Memory loss? Happens to all sometimes

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

No comparison - GCHQ is a government agency - it does not determine law.

Agreed. GCHQ does not determine law but, as you say, it is a government agency and therefore, by definition, is acting on the government's behalf.

For whatever reason, the judiciary determined that it broke the law.

7 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

@RayC

 

A real time example, of where I previously tried to advise you that the UK Judiciary will never rule against the UK Government on matters of National Security or matters of Domestic Terrorism.

 

You, and google, apparently know better 😀😀

A completely separate and different issue to the one which we were discussing.

In any event, here are two examples where the UK judiciary have ruled against GCHQ (I have assumed that GCHQ was acting on the UK government's behalf).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/government-security-gchq-decisions-can-be-challenged-in-court-judges-rule

https://www.channel4.com/news/gchq-nsa-broke-law-surveillance-prism-snowdown

Nice to be able to agree on something: Apparently Google and me do know better😉

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

No. not countless.

Somewhat pedantic but replace 'countless' with 'numerous' if you wish.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

 

By the way, who founded Donetsk?

Russia.

Btw who founded Louisiana? The New England States, etc?

38 minutes ago, DezLez said:

Not when the Romanovs were in charge!!

It might have been for the Romanovs, but it wasn't for the vast majority of ordinary Russians.

4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

"Not an inch to the East."

 

Trust us.

If James Baker did utter those words then it was not reflective of the US (and European) strategy at the time

https://on.ft.com/3ZgBehl

4 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You are beginning to stutter.

 

You might want to take a deep breath and step away from your keyboard.

 

And accept that someone with over 2 decades of experience - It might be fair to say that my big toe has forgotten more than you will ever learn from google.

Over two decades experience of what? Getting angry when someone has the nerve to disagree with one of your pronouncements? Misplaced, self-important arrogance doesn't cut it with me.

Maybe you should take your own advice re deep breaths and posting.

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Just a mentalist then.

Not not that either. And you?

20 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Are you bi-polar ?

No. Are you?

12 minutes ago, annotator said:

This is what Chatgpt says. It's good enough for me:

Blaming Ukraine: In February and April 2025, Trump referred to the war as “Ukraine’s war” or even “Biden’s war,” claiming Ukraine started the conflict or that Ukraine “should have never started it” and should have made a deal instead 
.

Bravo for Putin: He described Putin’s invasion as “very smart” or “genius,” going so far as to say Putin “played Biden like a drum” and that the annexation was done for “$2 worth of sanctions” – comments widely interpreted as praise 
washingtonpost.com
.

Kremlin Echoes: His narrative closely mirrors Russian propaganda, e.g. claiming the war was provoked by NATO expansion or Ukrainian actions—positions echoed without challenge, and sometimes repeated by Trump officials .

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Imo Trump is ill-advised and/or ill-informed on this matter.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I never retired with a big fat, gold plated, index linked Government pension, because I worked in the DWP or similar.

Where did that one come from? And what has it got to do with anything?

I've never mentioned anything about the sources of your income.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

There is a world of difference between a legal challenge and a Judicial Review.

Semantics.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

A Judicial review will always side with the Government when it comes to matters of National Security.

Once again, you cannot possibly know that for a fact.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

How is that for speculation ?

It's good. You're right. It's speculation.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

 

Are you struggling ?
 

No but you appear to be.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

You intimated that I suggested setting up camps on the South Coast

 

 

You invented an issue that did not exist.

As I explained the location is irrelevant to my questions.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

Just like you invent excuses as to why something cannot, or will not work.

No. I invented questions, not excuses, which you are unable and/or unwilling to answer.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

 

No, it's not a hypothetical, its a very simple solution, by invoking the National Security Act and drafting in the Military under Military Aid to the ( failing ) Civil Authorities.

It is hypothetical by definition. Your proposed solution is not currently operational.

Meanwhile, my questions about your proposed solution go unanswered.

Just now, The Cyclist said:

Because you are not familiar with what can be done, does not make it untrue.

Because you wish something to be true does not make it true.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Check it out for yourself then.

 

You know, sometimes people actually know what they are talking about.

 

Amazing eh

Are you are a lawyer specialising in constitutional or 'security' law? If so, then your replies might carry a bit more weight than the opinions of a layman like myself.

However, even if that is the case, you cannot possibly know that any legal challenge is doomed to fail. As I said, it is pure speculation.

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I see your issue. I never mentioned the South Coast.

 

I specifically said set up camps on military Training Areas. There is 1000's of acres to choose from.

The location of the camps is totally irrelevant to my questions

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I don't answer questions on your hypothetheticals.

 

I asked you to answer a factual question.

Your solution is a hypothetical so, of course, my questions about it are hypothetical.

15 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Have no doubt the money will be spent. It's more a question of what on. A pay rise for the big wigs might very well be the first point of order. NATO is no where as strong militarily as it could be and a big part of this is decades of US reliance. This is what Trump has been going on about for quite some time. Will the extra money result in an increase in lethality where NATO could protect itself without the US? I doubt it but Trump wanted them to pay a bigger portion of the pie and this would appear to have been achieved.

I have no doubt that some more money will be spent but I very much doubt whether that will equate to 5% of GDP for each and every NATO member, although I suppose an accounting sleight of hand might make it appear so.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Nope

 

It may be subjected to a Judicial Review, which would most likely side with the Government.

 

No vexatious lawfare allowed.

That is pure speculation. You cannot possibly know for a fact.

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Then do not try and criticize what is a simple solution, and whining that it is unworkable.

Even if the National Security Act were to be invoked that does not solve the problem. My issues are with your solution concerning the setting up of camps on the south coast. 

I have posed questions to you about this potential solution throughout this thread and they remain unanswered.

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

How about answering why arrivals are up 50% since Starmer killed the Rwanda Act, which became British Law on the 25 April 2024 ?

How about addressing my unanswered questions contained throughout this thread before I address any more of yours?

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You can point out flaws in my solution, when you have read and understood the UK's National Security Act.

 

You might also want read into Military Aid to the Civil Authorities and when it can be invoked

 

If someone had a spine and a set of hairy swingers, the solution is easy.

 

Which is an abject failure

 

Need a bit more reading, you missed this

 

Arguably, all 3 are under attack. Except if your name is Starmer and those like him.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read the National Security Act in its' original form but working on the assumption that AI has produced a good summation of it, I remain unconvinced that it would be the correct mechanism to enact your solution. At the very least, I'd imagine that its' use in this context  would be the subject of a legal challenge.

I didn't miss that statement i.e. "To protect the UK's democracy, economy, and values from foreign interference", I think that using this clause in the context of 'stopping the boats' would also be subject to a legal challenge.

I assume that my other questions posted throughout this thread will remain unanswered?