RayC

"Asked about the new guidelines on LBC radio, Jones said: “We disagree with this decision. I think it’s really important in the country that people are trusting in the justice system that we have and that means you can’t have a two-tier system, it has to be fair, it has to be equal to everybody and so we have asked them to think again about this guidance.” Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, said overnight that she would write to the Sentencing Council to “register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance”." Could the government's opposition to this guidance be any clearer? The only fools are those who cannot think logically due to their irrational hatred of anything that doesn't fit in neatly with their narrow, blinkered view of what the UK should look like. You're right for a change, I did know that. But equally, the system shouldn't impose harsher sentences on black people for committing the same crime as whites. However, apparently you can't bring yourself to condemn that two-tier application of justice. Where did I defend it? That's right I didn't. Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. For the record, of course there should not be a two-tier justice system.

I'll admit that I was irritated by your previous post, but I don't see anything contemptuous in my reply. I'm sorry if you saw it otherwise. If you are suggesting that those who have little recent experience of living in a country are less qualified to pass opinion on day-to-day life there than those who have/ do, then I would agree with you. All the best.

Did you even read the article? The government - and opposition - is opposed to the guidance. Who knows, maybe the guidance will be reversed by legislation? However, I understand your grievance. As a black male living outside the country with (apparently) no personal experience of the UK justice system, it must be difficult for you. "At present black and minority ethnic communities are overrepresented at almost all stages of the criminal justice process in England and Wales, and are more likely to be imprisoned and receive longer sentences than white people".

Serious question. I'm intrigued. How has the UK justice system discriminated against you personally? Again, seriously, I will understand if you don't want to discuss this matter on a public forum.

Not from where? I was born and raised in South London and have lived or worked in a number of EU countries so, by those criteria, I'd say that I'm more qualified than most - probably including yourself -to comment on these matters. It's nonsense to suggest that no countries have benefitted from the EU (or its' predecessors). For example, by almost any criteria, things in the former Warsaw Pact nations have greatly improved since they joined the EU. Going further back, the ECSC helped ensure that the regular, centuries old dust-ups between France and Germany became a thing of the past. Germany's economic problems are mainly structural and, if there is blame to assign, it rests with successive German governments not the EU: Likewise, Merkel's well-meaning, but ill conceived 'open doors' policy regarding refugees, was a German government decision not the EU's, albeit the rest of Europe are dealing with the consequences. Although the EU lays down targets wrt energy - targets agreed to by the member states - energy policy and strategy are largely the responsibility of the individual EU states.

Hope for you yet? Good to see you offering a tacit admission that Russia is more of a threat to its' neighbours than vice versa. Is it too much to hope that you might eventually admit that Russia was the instigator of this war and that you condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Another fallacy. Stabbings in the UK are, fortunately, relatively rare events, are largely confined to the big cities and are more often than not, the result of gang violence: That's why when they do occur, the event makes the news. Only 9 countries in the world where you have less chance of getting stabbed to death per head of population than the UK. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country

Not sure what you mean by 'hollowing out'? The US surpassed the UK as the world's foremost economic power over 100 years ago. China and India's economies have also now overtaken the UK's and will, no doubt, overtake the EU's in time. Nevertheless by most criteria, the overwhelming majority of countries in Western Europe remain affordable and good places to live for the majority of the population. However there are, no doubt, some individuals/ groups experiencing difficulties, and imo it is a mark of a society's civility how we deal with these unfortunate individuals.

Couldn't resist a bit of gloating. Underneath your 'Peacenik' posturing, there is nothing but admiration for Putin and his methods.

Congratulations and welcome to 'TBL Ignore' club. I'd like to claim that it is exclusive but membership must be in the hundreds by now.

Many people don't have a choice and for all its' faults, the UK still - relative to most other countries - offers a good quality of life for most residents. Free, good quality education to the age of 18; a free - albeit struggling - health service; decent standard of living; good leisure facilities; etc. And next-to-no chance of getting shot.

It appears that you are confused about the origins of the EU. This should help your understanding: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_Declaration

We have had 4 PMs (3 Tories) since we left the EU and not one of them has been successful in stopping illegal immigration, so that blows the theory that it is solely down to Labour sky high. Unless you want to go down the avenue of blowing the boats out of the water and all that entails, then it's difficult to see what deterrents can be effective. Farage may be many things, but I doubt that he is a cold-blooded killer. As for dealing with the root cause(s) of the problem, I very much doubt that Farage has any more idea than anyone else in Europe. Labour is not anti-Britain. Most of the voices that are seem to originate from disgruntled expats.

So yet another non-answer. 'In Nigel, we trust'. Let's face it, (almost?) all you 'hard' Brexiters don't have the foggiest idea what you want and even if you did, you wouldn't have a clue about how to achieve it.

If you are referring to dealing with illegal migrants then, arguably, things have become worse since we left the EU and opted out of the Dublin Agreement. Moreover, if membership of the EU was the sole reason preventing the UK from solving the problem of illegal immigration, why haven't successive UK governments been able to introduce measures which would do the trick? If you are referring to legal immigration then the UK is more reliant than ever on overseas labour. Membership of the EU - in particular, freedom of movement - was beneficial in so many ways. Not only did UK employers have a vastly increased workforce to choose from, they were no bureaucratic hurdles to hiring EU nationals; part-time, fixed contract jobs were easy to fill with workers who were also transient, many of whom had no desire to immigrate permanently to the UK. These benefits were also available to Brits wanting to broaden their experience by living and working in the EU. Sadly, these benefits are no longer available to either Brits/EU workers or employers without firstly having to complete a lot of previously unnecessary red tape. The throwaway line about "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels" is just that a throwaway line without any substance. As Michel Barnier said, "There are no winners with Brexit".

By that rationale, the rest of Europe should lay back and do nothing if Putin decides, for example, that he wants to reclaim the parts of Poland that were formally Russian. 1930's style appeasement. Nothing more, nothing like.

So May ruined Brexit? So, usual question(s), Jonny, which I expect you will avoid answering once again. What does this utopian Brexit look like, and how should/ could it (have) be(en) achieved?

The laws you quoted may well stand but BahtSimpson is not incorrect as you stated. The terms of the Dublin Agreement - which the UK opted out of after Brexit - allowed for the return of illegal immigrants.

Clearly you know Sweet Fanny Adams about WW2. The US entry into WW2 was a turning point as was Russia changing sides however, no one saved the UK's ass in 1940; we - together with the help of Commonwealth troops - stood alone against the Nazi evil. A major reason for that was Churchill. Many in the British cabinet wanted to sue for peace but Churchill held firm. Whatever Churchill's political failures - and there were many - he was a pivotal figure in WW2.

Annoying for you but tbh not altogether surprising. I'm sure that you know as well as me that the level of competence varies greatly by branch. I hope that this is not tempting fate but the Khao San Road branch of KTB are usually on the ball. However, the branch on Thanon Phra Sumen less than 800m away is effectively useless: I once made the mistake of going into the branch on Thanon Samsen (+/-1km away). Once the staff had recovered from the shock of seeing a farang enter their branch, they all dived for cover!😁

What an absolute lot of old tosh. This is, never was and given the current political climate won't be in the foreseeable future, any prospect of a US-UK free-trade deal being put on the table. Trump offered warm words about a post-Brexit free-trade arrangement first time round and nothing happened. Given that the US is becoming increasingly protectionist, the chances of a substantial deal this time round is slim. Starmer was attempting a damage limitation exercise in Washington i.e. trying to avoid US tariffs being imposed on the UK. Time will tell, but to that end he might be successful. Wrt the EU, Starmer - and to be fair, Sunak before him - are merely trying to resume normal relations and repair the damage done to our relationship with our closest trading partner following the catastrophic confrontational agenda pursued by the buffoon, Johnson. It is ridiculous to suggest that any UK PM - whatever their political persuasion - actually hates Britain.

As expected. Not so great.

I'm not sure if it's common but it certainly isn't unprecedented. I suspect that it depends on the individual nation's constitution. For example, the 2010 UK General Election resulted in a 'hung' parliament i.e. no one party had an overall majority. The Conservatives won the most seats, however, Labour were the incumbent government and had first chance to form a new coalition government with the third party, the Liberal Democrats. It turned out that the Lib-Dems rejected Labour's overtures and formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. I think that you need to delve a bit deeper into the FP's recent past. They have 'form' as the saying goes. Many of their leading figures in the past had Nazi connections. It might be argued that most of these individuals are no longer around, however, when they were last in power in 2017, the Chancellor was caught on tape stating that he would effectively try to suppress any anti-government reporting (search for 'Ibiza Affair'). I don't think that it is a surprise that other parties are unwilling to engage with the FP.

That's for adding more evidence to support my view👍

Now calm down, dear. Just sit there quietly for a little while. I'll get you a nice drink. "I've given him a sedative, nurse. Hopefully, it will give us some respite".