RayC

The crimes that Assange is/was accused of committing concern Sweden and the US. China, Russia or any other nation should have been irrelevant, although for reasons best known to themselves, Ecuador decided to intervene. To answer your question: No I don't think that Assange - or anyone else - should be forcibly extradited because they act irresponsibly and with an absence of accountability. I think that Assange should have been extradited to Sweden because he was accused of committing sexual assault and rape there. Whether Sweden subsequently extradited him to the US to face charges of committing episonade and 'hacking' related crimes would be a matter for the Swedish courts to decide. Personally, I would hope that they would have done so. You seem have already decided that Assange has committed no crime without hearing the evidence. Do you also believe that if someone flees a country where they are accused of committing a crime that should be the end of the matter? Wow indeed.

Welcome back, Trans. Where have you been? (Yes, I have missed the crystal ball😉).

Actions have consequences. It is clear from his behaviour over the years that Assange takes no responsibility or accountability for his actions.

I dread to think what the world would be like if you were the world's dictator, but tbf this isn't your worst idea. You should give the Kremlin a ring and float the idea with your mate Putin.

Fair enough. However, the fact that the self-serving Thai elite won't allow Pita to govern suggests to me that he can't be all bad. Although I admit that might just be a case of my anti (Thai) establishment bias showing.

We Brits have had more than our fair share of poor quality PMs lately, but we have - so far - managed to avoid installing a leader suffering from age-related cognitive decline which is unlikely to get better. Surely there must be better, younger candidates available in both parties? (Imo the imposition of an upper age limit for being a candidate, as suggested by retarius, makes a lot of sense).

Why should he - or any other politician for that matter - be overly concerned with improving things for foreigners living here? Foreigners form < 5% of the population and are, on the whole, wealthier than the vast majority of the remaining 95%. More importantly, very few foreigners have a vote. All politicians and parties will obviously focus their attention on the electorate. It's the same the world over.

1 in 6 of the population live in Bangkok and the Bangkok metropolitan area accounts for 45% of the country's GDP. I'd call that pretty large and significant.

Far too many self-satisfied, smug (misplaced) virtue signallers around nowadays for my liking.

If you look closely you can clearly see a 'Made in China' imprint on her dress where the recording device is 😂😂

It's a lovely philosophy but in circumstances such as Ukraine's imo it would do no good. I'm all in favour of discussion - imo 'jaw jaw' is far preferable to 'war war' - but when faced with naked aggression as demonstrated by Putin, a stark choice has to be made: 'Flight' - and effectively lose everything - or 'fight' for what is rightfully yours. I realise that it is easy to say from the comfort of my UK/ Thai home but imo that was - and remains - the choice facing Ukraine and it's allies.

I hope that the Abbot's temple wasn't attacked, and that those in his charge didn't follow his advice and abandon it; otherwise there are few Thai monks living on the streets of the UK.

Clearly you never think before embarking on one of your rants. Do you even remember what you have posted? Go back and re-read your original post; where do you differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants? Rhetorical question: You don't. In your original rant, you post a cutting from one of your favourite extreme right-wing sites/ rags lamenting the 'problems' created by diversity. Do you think that only illegal immigrants bring diversity? Are you under the impression that a newly arrived legal immigrant tips up in Newcastle and his first words are, "Howay, man. I'm gagging for a pint of Exhibition"? What your posts show is a lack of clarity of thought, and an inability to formulate a coherent and consistent argument on your part. Don't blame me for your failings. It's laughable that you think I do not understand the complexity of the problem when the only thing that you can offer is another rant. Wrt illegal immigration, yes it is a problem but how do you go about stopping it? Will the 'Rwanda' strategy stop illegal immigrants trying to reach the UK? Imo doubtful. And at what cost? Is it a feasible long-term strategy? Notwithstanding my comments in the previous paragraph, you clearly do not realise that illegal immigration forms only a small proportion (<5%) of total immigration to the UK (52k out of 1.2m in the year to June 2023). Dealing with illegal immigration is a necessity but is relatively unimportant in the wider context. For the record, I find anti-Semitism just as abhorrent as other forms of racism/ xenophobia. I can only conclude that trying to label me as anti-Semitic is your feeble attempt to divert attention away from your previous comments.

Which is precisely why I included reference to, and a definition, of xenophobia in my post. Either you're not very observant, or is it a case of being unwilling to admit to what is staring you in the face? Your post is racist/ xenophobic in nature.

You're right about one thing. There are "good folks all over Britain" I don't know enough to pass comment on the issues affecting Chicago, New York and Denver. You seem to suffer from a similar lack of information about UK cities. You complain about immigrants importing problems into the UK and US and freeloading on our welfare states while, at the same time, proposing that we adopt a modern day version of lmperialism with its' associated asset stripping of these countries' resources. Imo that's either hypocritical or inconsistent.

When it comes to "race baiting", remind me who posted the following: "We are seeing all of the social issues, crime, intolerance, prejudice that the immigrants are importing with them. We are seeing them daily. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jewish-friends-attacked-antisemitic-attack-leicester-square-west-end-police-b1133817.html For every problem they solve they create five. It's not a population "boom", it's a population crisis. Let's just keep burying our head in the sand and repeating the mantra "Diversity is our strength". Well, I beg to differ. The UK is a great example of the problems "diversity" brings. Racism can be defined as, "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." Xenophobia can be defined as, "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries" Your post identifies many of society's ills. You state that they are a result of immigration. Imo your post fits the description of racism and/or xenophobia. As the original post suggests, there is a debate to be had about the effects (good and bad) of immigration, who, why and how (many) immigrants should be allowed into the country. However, that discussion is a lot more nuanced than your simplistic 'immigration bad' approach.

I'd hazard a guess that racists (and xenophobes) wouldn't disagree with any of that.

Few myths exposed in the attached article. Although this is obviously a serious subject, I couldn't help laughing at the final paragraph of 'Dublin system' section. Oh the irony. Another Brexit benefit. (Guilty as charged if accused of not letting go of Brexit). https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

Sounds like a good argument against imperialism in general.

Most illegal immigrants to Europe arrive via Italy, Greece or Turkey. Using your rationale, you would support the other European nations pushing these people back to one of those three countries and leave it to them to a) sort out the genuine refugees b) be responsible for the ongoing welfare of these individuals. The "I'm alright Jack solution".

I've had regular exchanges with around half a dozen posters. More often than not, we hold different opinions and these exchanges can be robust. However, I can't recall accusing any of them of being racist. The reason being that they have never posted anything which I would construe as being racist. However, you're correct. 'Religious discrimination' and xenophobia are both different from racism although imo no more attractive. As I said before. If the cap fits ...

It may be difficult but that is exactly what the various studies attempt to do. Imo the criticism of these studies is rarely more than a tautology: It's difficult to separate the effects of Brexit, therefore you can't conclude anything about the effects of Brexit. Imo poor and lazy criticism. The original report was indeed a few years ago but it is regularly updated. I disagree. A few examples: The UK was one of the major influences in the formation of the Single Market and a strong supporter of the EU's attempts to forge trade deals. It can be argued be that the UK - together with France - largely dictated the EU foreign policy and diplomatic efforts. This was especially true when it came to defence issues. It's true that with the expansion of the membership and more QMV, the influence of any one individual member state is lessened .... at least, in theory ... but let's not pretend all member states are equal. France and Germany have more influence and power than Cyprus and Malta. When the UK was a member, it was one of the 'Big 3'. Perhaps not. But the UK likes to think of itself as having a significant presence and influence on the world stage. In terms of size of the economy and population, the UK is somewhat smaller than Japan. As an individual nation, what real influence does Japan wield on the world state? Imo any influence that the UK had on the world stage was dependent on our membership of the larger bloc i.e. EU. Moreover, inside the EU we were of use to the US, outside of it less so. I'm about to board a flight. You'll be pleased to know that I'll return to this point😂😉

The one doing the race baiting is you. Irrespective of whether religion and/or ethnicity is relevant to the story, you never hesitate to mention it if it portrays Islam in a negative sense. You're never slow to use 'Irish' or 'Oirish' in a derogatory sense when referring to Biden. You profess to having nothing against Europeans but, hey, here's a negative story about France or Germany. If the cap fits ....

I assume that you are referring to this paragraph: "Whenever a report or poll appears showing Brexit in a negative light you raise two objections: Firstly, it is not possible to separate the effects of the various other issues which have affected the UK over the past five years."? If so, it's unclear to me what you agree/ disagree with? Regarding "pressing": I have repeatedly challenged you, and others who refuse to accept the conclusions of reports such as the OBR's, to state precisely their objections. Imo simply objecting because the conclusions do not fit your narrative is not a valid reason. Take this as another such challenge. It is undeniable that events such as the pandemic, war in Ukraine, etc have had a negative effect on the UK, but in what way does that explain away the negative impact of Brexit? It's a shame that more 'Leave' voters did not realise this pre, rather than post, referendum. If they had, perhaps the result would have been different. I don't accept the premise but, even if true, the conclusion doesn't follow. Surely there is more chance of influencing the direction of an organisation from within, rather than from the outside? Nevertheless others may have been influenced by, and believed, false claims such as 'their need of us is greater', 'easier deal in history', etc. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the data offered by 'Leave' was based on wishful thinking, and some outright lies, they run a much more effective campaign than 'Remain' who seemed very blasé. And 'No deal' would have been even more of a disaster. By 'easy and amicable' I assume that you mean that the EU could have offered the UK a better deal? Well, it did. Remain (sic) much as we were but the UK government did not want to know. In any event, why expect any favours? The EU acted in what it saw as it's members own best interests. How else was it meant to act?

Unlike you and many of your fellow right-wing, Brexiter supporters who seemingly dismiss anything appearing in newspapers such as The Guardian as biased, left-wing propaganda, I am prepared to believe the right-wing, Brexiter, Tory supporting 'Daily Telegraph' is capable of reporting objectively on a serious statistical report. Sadly, in this instance, this article is not objective - although tbf it is simply the author's opinion so there is no reason why it should be - and the survey appears to have little statistical validity. According to the article, "News-watch put every speaker in every item into one of three categories: either "pro-EU/anti-Brexit" or "anti-EU/pro-Brexit" or "neutral". And – in broad terms – what this scrupulous (🤦: my disbelief) investigation shows is that there was a pro-EU bias in roughly a 2:1 ratio". Presumably the author of this opinion piece believes that this is an example of what he claims is News-week employing "best practice social science" research techniques? Some of us would suggest otherwise.