RayC

An idiot is a person of low intelligence. Whether you accept Horowitz's premise or conclusion, he presents a coherent argument which suggests that he is not an idiot. I do not want to believe anything. It's simply that I find the counter arguments such as this war all being part of some US attempt to solidify its' unipolar hegemony; Russia having no choice; Putin saving Ukraine from corruption; Putin ridding us of Nazism, etc altogether less convincing. We all have bias. We need to recognise that and mitigate against as best we can.

The process governing audience selection for programmes such as QT would suggest otherwise https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5HrMm77Yz7vwzCZZ570nTdp/frequently-asked-questions

Imo Horowitz makes a compelling argument in support of the premise is, " ... Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is driven by Putin’s desire to expand Russian influence and power". He is far from being an idiot.

Why do you consider Horowitz to be an idiot? He presents a well-reasoned argument. Churchill never met Hitler, but that didn't prevent Churchill forming the correct opinion of Hitler.

I agree with your sentiments but in Assange's case his confinement was, for the most part, of his own volition. Assange had the choice between facing charges of sexual assault in Sweden or breaking his UK bail conditions and escaping to the Ecuadorian embassy. He chose the latter course of action. He has no one to blame for those 'lost' 15 years but himself.

Biden's going after the bird and cattle vote? (No sheep quips please. Thank you).

... said the editor of the 'Bigot and Misogynist weekly'

Cherry orchard located. Plenty of pickings. Other fruits also available. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reports/

@Hawaiian is correct. Although some anti-biotics are 'targeted', many are not and they can therefore eliminate friendly gut bacteria. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/247213/antibiotics-promote-growth-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/#:~:text=Some antibiotics target specific bacteria,with digestion and other processes.

Is there any meaning attached to these sentences? Rhetorical question: Answer is 'No'.

I would agree with most of that but would argue that this shift in power has been recognised in mainland Europe with the realisation that it needs to act as a bloc to remain relevant. However, unfortunately imo 52% of those voting in a referendum in the UK had a different view.

Are you suggesting that a British expat who has lived in Thailand for say 4 years, speaks no more than very basic Thai, cannot read Thai and spends most of his time in an expat bubble is not being inconsistent when he demands that immigrants to the UK integrate themselves into UK society by embracing British culture, simply because the stamp in his passport states "Non-Imm" whilst that of the immigrant to the UK reads "Imm"? It's a semantic justification for hypocrisy.

Not that I am aware of.

I don't understand your point? Legal immigrants to the UK need to have a passport and visa. Illegal immigrants to the UK and Thailand will either be treated as refugees or deported. Anyway, that is tangential to the point which was I was making i.e. that those calling for immigrants to fully integrate into UK society should, if they are being consistent, apply the same requirement to UK expats who have made Thailand their home. So far the only attempt to counter my contention relies on semantics.

If Labour initiatives to reduce the number of boats landing are successful, the question of deporting those who do arrive becomes less of an issue.

Could of been worse. I've indirectly fallen foul of the Arabic grammar police. Where's the justice in that?

I'll bet my bottom dollar that whatever is the verdict, you'll take umbrage with it. If the person is acquitted or receives a "light" sentence it will be because of her gender. If she receives a long sentence it will be because she is white.

Did you miss the bit where it says that she is standing trial for her alleged crimes? You imply that this case is an example of misandry despite the fact that there is zero evidence to suggest this while at the same time displaying your usual misogyny. For good measure, you top it off with a bit of "nudge, nudge, get in there my son". Nice going.

So the white man living in the UK is now a 2nd class citizens? The evidence suggests otherwise. "Allaha Akbar" (God is great). A view held by followers of most deities. I assume that the councillor believed that God was responsible for his victory. Personally, I'd have thanked the voters in my ward.

The discrepancy still exists. You require that those living in the UK should integrate while not demanding the same of Brits living in Thailand.

Powell was talking about "Black immigration" and got it completely wrong. Whites aren't subservient to blacks; the black man doesn't have 'the whip hand' in the UK as he predicted. Instead, what we have is a society in which all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and where second and third generation, British born black men and women play their full part in society, be that as judges, MPs, bus drivers, bin men or whatever.

And immigrants to the UK are only allowed to stay for the duration of their visas. If they want to stay longer then they have to get it renewed which is not automatic. After 5 years an immigrant can then apply for leave to remain in the UK but, again, this is not automatically granted. So little real difference between immigrants to the UK (certainly for the first five years) and those on Non-O 'visas' in Thailand. Seems like double standards if ex-pat Brits expect immigrants to fully integrate into UK society whilst at the same time thinking that shouldn't be expected of them in Thailand. If I lived in a country where the locals didn't want me I'd move but, of course, that's up to the individual.

No. I mean immigrants who enter on a student or work related visa.

So then you have no problem with immigrants not fully integrating into UK society given that they don't have the same rights as UK citizens e.g they have no rights to remain in the country indefinitely, they cannot vote in general elections?

Thinly disguised racist claptrap wrapped up in a conspiracy theory. Too much there to pick apart piece by piece, but suffice to say that she clearly knows little about London as a city and even less about Brussels.