RayC

Talking of broken promises, maybe we could re-run the Brexit referendum in that case.

Notwithstanding the fact that your reply is 'whataboutery' at its' finest, perhaps thousands of trans activists should be in jail for their comments towards Rowling. You would, no doubt, argue that the words of Connolly - and if you are being consistent, Jones - shouldn't be taken literally. The problem is that it only requires one nutter to actually take their words at face value and we are then talking about (attempted) murder being committed. No doubt, you would wash your hands of the matter by claiming that Connolly or Jones can't held accountability or responsibility for others' actions. Therein lies the problem with you absolute free-speech advocates; the notion that words can lead to actions and the concepts of accountability and responsibility are alien to you.

It is more than just an unpleasant thing to say, her tweet offers tacit approval to setting fire to the hotels. For that reason, imo she should have been prosecuted.

How am I gaslighting? If anything, those excusing Connolly by suggesting that it was only a figure of speech and people are being too sensitive are those guilty of gaslighting. I merely asked whether free speech should extend to allowing Connolly's rhetoric and there are 3 possible answers, 'Yes', 'No', 'Dont know/care'. I also believe that Jones should face prosecution and, if found guilty, be given similar punishment to Connolly. How about you, Jonny? Do you believe that both Connolly and Jones should be/have been prosecuted? Neither? Jones only?

I look forward to you providing a link to support that claim😂 Maybe one of your farmer friends can provide a new shovel. The one that you are currently using must be worn out by now😉

Anthropological speak. Applies to any country. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml Indeed they do, my good fellow. I'm well aware of that. What I don't understand is how your suggestion - which I admit I was somewhat taken aback by - that we built more mosques will help meet the target of 1.5m more new homes by 2030? Perhaps Reeves isn't the only one not thinking through their ideas?😉

Connolly's tweet with expletives deleted is shown below. You think that freedom of speech should extend to allowing the second phrase I e. " set fire ... I care" of that sentence? "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... "

I doubt that stealing from indigenous tribes of Britain will raise much revenue. How will that help achieve the goal of building 1.5m homes by 2030?

You're right. The selection process used by political parties to select their parliamentary candidates can be controversial https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckkkq4kx3l0o https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tory-candidate-selection-system-is-broken/

It's possible. I wouldn't believe everything that you read on Twitter. This story is untrue.

Cities such as London, Manchester, Newcastle, Belfast, Glasgow, etc. are quite interesting places. Maybe leave your village and see for yourself.

I believe that the usual process is as follows: The Reeves sisters put their names forward as potential Labour Party candidates for two Parliamentary constituencies. They are each successful in being adopted as Labour Party candidates for these constituencies. The electorate then vote in an election. The Reeves sisters each poll the most votes of any one candidate in their (two different) respective constituencies. The (two) returning officers announce that " ... And that < insert christian name> Reeves has been duly elected to serve as Member of Parliament for the <name of constituency>." The Reeves sisters then tip up to the House of Commons on the first day of the new Parliamentary session. After a first administrative necessities, they then start performing the functions of an MP.

See my comment from +/-21 hours ago. Imo that explains my mentalism clearly. If you disagree, please point out any ambiguity as I will try to correct it in the future.

(At least) two of us interpreted your post differently to what you intended. Whose fault is that? Us for being stupid or you for being ambiguous? Debatable (but let's not please).

The suspected serial killer is an 'undocumented' Cameroonian and my initial comment was in response to the following, ".. detain the illegal, bring him to airport prison cell and deport, and if they resist, transport in a dog style cage in cargo ...". JohnnyF's reply to me specifically mentioned" ... those entering the country illegally ...", so it's no surprise that some of us thought that you were referring to illegal migrants in particular, and not the population as a whole.

What are you suggesting? Each and every illegal migrant is capable of that sort of behaviour? Only illegal migrants commit those types of atrocities?

The same land of 'milk and honey' which you disparage on an almost daily basis as a crime ridden cesspit. Makes you wonder anyone would want to come to the UK voluntarily, let alone risk their life to reach it.

You apparently haven't noticed that there is a fundamental difference - in the UK at least - between a prison cell and a freight crate which transports livestock. Your humanity shines through.

This most pertinent but inconvenient of FACTS is never acknowledged by Putin's apologists.

What happened to your overriding concern for the poor widows and orphans of Ukraine? Showing your true colours by gloating.

The argument you employed to reject a premise is now the very same argument you use to support your preferred premise. I'll give you credit for realising your logical inconsistencies, but unfortunately shouting, "Strawman" on the occasions when this arises doesn't hide that inconsistency. As I pointed out, the referendum was over 8 years, and we formally left the EU 5 years ago. Of the major industrialised countries, to date we have signed new trade deals with Australia and NZ and an enhanced deal with Japan, none of whom are among our leading trading partners. You consider that 'plenty'? What may or may not have happened in Southport, or what may or may not happen to Starmer is tangential to this topic. The bottom line is the terms of any trade deal which the UK enters into with the US will be dictated by the US. How close that brings the UK to becoming the 51st state is the US's perogative.

Nice - but failed - attempt to twist my words. The timing of the cut in NI contributions was an election bribe. Nothing more, nothing less. What happened to your concerns about affordability? If the government can't afford to spend money on services, then it can't afford a cut in revenue. That may happen in time but at the moment 'No, it isn't', and and 'No, it's not'. Although I'll admit to disappointment at the start which Labour has made, unlike you I will let a reasonable amount of time elapse before I pass final judgement on it. Another reason for hoping that Labour can 'come good' is that the alternatives don't bear thinking about. Under Badenoch or Farage, we wouldn't just be a physical island. Being less reliant on imported energy seems like a sensible strategic objective. However, why would that preclude also adopting strategies which are more environmentally friendly?

Right. That'll be because - just like the EU - the US needs us more than we need them😂 Kier just needs to draw up a trade agreement and point out where Don needs to sign and that's it: Job done. The UK will continue to trade with the rest of the world without any interference from Washington. It's a mystery why the previous Tory administrations were unable to implement many trade deals. All the misplaced criticisms you levied about the EU imposing laws - laws which the UK were instrumental in formulating - might well come to pass if the UK enters into a trade deal with the US at the same time as the latter is imposing tariffs elsewhere.

Firstly, the EU does not have any legal jurisdiction in Africa (apart a couple of enclaves which Spain still has in what is Morocco) so there are practical problems .... ... secondly, there is something which can be called 'basic humanity'. Most of us find the idea of transporting dogs in cages distasteful - unless it is absolutely necessary - let alone humans.

I thought one of the major reasons for leaving the EU was this imo misplaced idea that the UK could become sovereign (in its' own right) i.e. being able to make our own laws and set our own agenda without worrying about what anyone else thought or did? Mr. Moore and you seem to be in favour of simply exchanging Brussels for Washington. Where's the sovereignty in that?