RayC

Perhaps you should direct your comment to the right person: GOAT mentioned the Commonwealth Games. I simply replied with facts showing the UK's superiority over Australia at a similar, but larger, global event where medals are harder to come by. As you raised the subject of acting, you might be interested to know that the 'Best Actor' or 'Best Actress' Oscar has been won by a Brit on 42 occasions: Australian actors have won these awards on a mere 6 occasions with only 3 of the actors actually born in Australia. (Source: Wikipedia)

While we're doing other sports and 'Whataboutary'. Performance at the Summer Olympics: GB&NI: Gold 284 Silver 318 Bronze 314 Australia: Gold 164 Silver 173 Bronze 210

I wouldn't like to call the world whinging team championship but I reckon that you've got the individual title sewn up.

Just offering a counter-example to your comment that all the UK has to offer is 'Old comedy and beer'. Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment and you were instead inferring that UK (old) comedy and beer' are the best in the world.

Apart from Nobel prize winners, thriving cultural artists, Olympic champions, etc.

Fair point re Stokes' comment. In an ideal world, I'd agree that as far as far as possible nature - with a limited helping hand from the groundsman - should define the pitch. However, we both know that home captains have 'had a word' re the pitch since the year dot. In any event, imo the pitches haven't favoured either side. Before the series started, Australia looked to have the quicker (and better) bowling unit. However, imo so far that hasn't proven to be the case. Wood is the fastest bowler on show and both attacks have been evenly matched. Lyon is by far and away the best spinner on either side and his absence has meant that even if the pitch had broken up at Trent Bridge, it probably wouldn't have benefited either side nor will it do so at the Oval.

Then you'd be sounding the death knell for Test cricket. India are the major financial power in cricket but their interest centres around 20-20. Australia test matches against the likes of SL, BL, WI, Ireland, Zimbabwe get next to no one attending either home or away: Matches against England (both home and away) are the only Test series that are financially viable for those nations. Re the doctored pitches: What a load of old <deleted>. QED.

If the Irish experience is anything to go by then it will be a lot cheaper https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40729734.html That would depend and need to be agreed, but imo it should be largely limited to protecting the constitution and shaking hands at sporting events and diplomatic functions. There are many Commonwealth countries e.g. India who do not have the King as HoS. I struggle to see what purpose the Commonwealth serves today. It just seems to be something that's there.

It should be possible for the government of the day to tackle the (cost of the) refugee crisis and have a debate on constitutional reform simultaneously. According to Republic, the monarchy costs £345 m/ year. That should knock +/-10% off the current cost of processing refugees. https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

I can only repeat what I posted previously. By that line of argument every pressure group in the UK should therefore be expected to do something to address homelessness. In any event, why just homelessness? There are, unfortunately, almost an endless number of other problems which need addressing e.g. substance abuse, food poverty, etc. Democracy is not the reason. One criterion for democracy is freedom of choice. Individuals/ groups can choose not to participate in/ to a cause if they so choose. Once again, repeating myself, Republic is a pressure group. As the title suggests, groups such as Republic try to exert pressure to elicit change. This is usually - but not always - on a single issue and often - not always - their campaigns are aimed at getting the government to change the law. Pressure groups are not political parties in their own right. See previous paragraph. What rules/ laws (as an organisation) have/ are Republic breaking? Both the subject and the context are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Spot on. Just as any idiot should be able to understand the following: "Republic is a membership-based pressure group campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement with a directly elected head of state." (Source: Republic website). The RSPCA and Republic have one thing in common: They are single issue pressure groups not political parties. I disagree with your position on other things but, usually, your arguments are coherent. Unfortunately in this instance, you are letting your unswerving loyalty to the Crown cloud your ability to think rationally.

Republic is a pressure group with one aim; the replacement of the UK monarchy with an elected head of state. Why - as a group - should they be expected to campaign/ contribute to schemes aimed at helping Britain's homeless? You might as well criticise the RSPCA. As far as I'm aware they do nothing to aid the homeless (humans) either.

I do wish that people wouldn't introduce empirical evidence into the discussion!????

Entirely relevant. There may be instances like yours where the distance between buyer and seller does not matter, but it is a generally accepted principle that being closer to the market is an advantage: This seems to apply not only to goods, but also to financial services. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/23/why-distance-matters-in-trade/ https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2252~ff1d083655.en.pdf

On the assumption that the conditions attached to this deal are favourable, then this is good news. However, a bit of perspective is needed. As the article says, "It remains to be seen how much the deal actually benefits Britain’s growth prospects. Based on the government’s own estimates, the deal will raise long-term domestic GDP by just 0.08%, which will have little impact to offset European trade losses as a result of Brexit".

More from the man. I hope that something has been lost in translation; sadly, I doubt it. What hope for Thailand while these unelected "guardians" of Thailand pull the strings? "If there is condition to lead our country to conflict, like amending or abolishing Section 112 and the constitution, we can't allow that to happen," senator Somchai Sawangkarn said in a social media video ahead of the vote. "We will vote to protect people of the whole country because that is better than letting Thailand get a prime minister and coalition government who will be a danger and a threat to the country." (Source: Australian Broadcasting Corporation website)

Pita is the chosen PM candidate of Move Forward and Pheu Thai. Between them, these two parties achieved 67% of 'Party List' votes cast and 49.9% of the 'Constituency' vote. Throw in the votes for the other parties in the coalition and I'd suggest that's a pretty compelling argument in support of Pita's nomination as PM.

You raise a good point. My opinion is that if this escalates into a nationwide protest - e.g. protests in Pattaya, Phuket, etc. as well as Bangkok - then tourist numbers will drop; otherwise, probably (tourism) business as normal.

Probably better off buying them in Margate unless you want to involve yourself in a lot of red tape????

If you can show where I have misinterpreted your comments, I will withdraw my remarks and apologise.

Nothing like taking quotes out of context, is there? Firstly, you questioned why EU nationals should be put off from mitigating to the UK post-Brexit. I pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that the withdrawal of freedom of movement had created a barrier to entry which did not previously exist. In the same post, you stated that, ".. a bit more scrutiny on tax and NI payments required when working". The implication being that this was not possible and/or more difficult pre-Brexit. I replied that there was nothing to prevent the UK authorities increasing their focus on tax avoidance pre-Brexit and that, moreover, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that their employees are made known to HMRC. Again, this is no different pre- and post-Brexit. Finally, you state that, "nationality of employees is irrelevant. That is until non-UK nationals need a new visa." When I ask you to explain this somewhat cryptic comment, you accuse me of creating ".. obstacles that are simply not there"!!! (huh?). I'm not going round in circles. I'm trying to navigate the 'Alice in Wonderland' environment which you create.

???? Same old, same old. When it is clearly shown - and you realise - that your premise and/or argument is flawed, you accuse the person who has challenged you of being disingenuous, rather than either admit your mistake or simply let it drop.

If this is what it's like when Australia win, Christ knows what it will be like if they lose!

If they are caught then they should be prosecuted. Why is that relevant? And if it is, what is the difference between the situation pre- and post-Brexit?

Police officers killing individuals for avoiding arrest for an apparently minor offence does not bode well for society

If an employer is honest, they are obliged to deduct tax and NI contributions from their employees. The nationality of the employee is therefore irrelevant. Verstappen won another Grand Prix and England lost another cricket test yesterday. Just a simple comparison.