RayC

That may well be the case, but that doesn't change my opinion that Spain will be more inclined to raise the issue of Gibraltar's sovereignity once again now that the UK is outside the EU.

Posters should be more sympathetic. Mr Seagal clearly took too many blows to the head while filming his 'blockbusters'. Very sad.

And that will be because I made no reference to Gibraltar's sovereignity, other than to say that imo it is easier for Spain to raise it as an issue now that the UK has left the EU.

Where have I suggested that the views of the people of Gibraltar should be ignored?

Johnson's attitude to the EU antagonised the member states and it is intuitively obvious that it is a lot easier for Spain to raise the question of Gibraltar's sovereign with the UK outside, rather than within, the EU. However, I agree with the rest of your post. Moreover, one has to question Starmer's nous if he thinks the timing of the announcements of the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance closely followed by the ceding of sovereignty of the Chaos Island was good politics

Seems to be hit and miss with DWP. Some people - like me - have no problems whatsoever; others - like you - experience problems and delays. Luck of the draw, I guess🤷

I can't answer that because I don't accept the assumption that Russia has been lied to for 34 years. There is no point us discussing this particular issue any further. An irrational fear ... ... but playing 'Devils Advocate' and accepting that NATO forces would occupy Russia, what is worse 1) almost certain annihilation as a result of nuclear war, or 2) living under NATO occupation? Surely the only rational choice is 2)?

I understand exactly what I am saying. I don't doubt that it is an escalation, but if NATO states that it's troops will not venture into Russian territory why would Russia feel that their sovereignty is threatened and initiate a 'first strike' nuclear attack? You did, in fact, answer my original question - "So (from a Russian perspective) better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia?" - was 'Yes'. There was no need for me to probe further. I should have been more attentive. My apologies.

NATO could simply give a deadline for Russia to withdrew her troops from within Ukraine's internationally recognised borders. If that deadline wasn't met then NATO could state that they will put troops on the ground in order to forcibly push back Russian troops to their side of the border, but that NATO troops would not themselves cross the border into Russian territory. Why would Russia feel that she had backed into a corner by such a scenario? How would it justify Russia initiating a 'first strike' nuclear conflict?

In that case, no reason why NATO shouldn't increase its' support in the field for Ukraine.

So better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia? Yep, that makes sense.

Not that my individual experience proves anything one way or the other, but I have crossed that border twice (once in each direction). If I remember correctly, it was in 2011, and it was about as complicated as crossing the border between Belgium and France i.e. it was pretty much seamless. I wonder if that is still - and will remain - the case? Yes, ultimately it will be the UK government's decision whether to relinquish ownership of Gibraltar. I was pointing out that 1) Spain is more likely to raise questions about Gibraltar's sovereignty now that the UK is outside of the EU and 2) imo adopting a cordial, co-operative attitude with the EU is likely to prove more productive than the hostile, confrontational attitude employed by Johnson. You might disagree but good luck in trying to find any evidence to support the idea that Johnston's approach proved beneficial to the UK.

MAD, that's the theory isn't it? Therefore, neither side will be willing to use nuclear weapons. You're not suggesting that the Blessed Vlad would be mad enough to initiate a first strike nuclear attack are you?

I wonder what approach is best for the UK and more likely to be successful? Starmer's attempts to forge a peaceful, friendly, constructive relationship with the EU, or Johnson's hostile, confrontational, isolationist stance? Hummmm .... There was never a problem crossing between Gibraltar and Spain whilst the UK was a member of the EU. Moreover, any discussions about Gibraltar's sovereignty were effectively off the table while we were an EU member. The Commission remained impartial on the matter and no other EU member state was going to take sides. Now, who knows? As I said, another Brexit "benefit".

So the MSM such as the BBC, CNN, etc with all its' resources is unable to verify and validate its' articles, and is thus unable to produce "the truth", while the alternative media e.g. the one man behind "Buster's blog", has immediate access to verifiable and validity data and is therefore able to publish unquestionable facts. Quite the conundrum.

It's an interesting article but the study relates to hospitals in Belgium and says nothing about the UK.

Another Brexit "benefit".

I'll cut this branch short, as we are now going over the same ground for the umpteenth time which imo is pointless. We have opposing opinions and l strongly suspect that whatever is said by one of us, we are not going to change the other's mind.

It is an insult to all those who fell or suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Their nationality is irrelevant. As usual, you completely ignore pertinent facts. The UK and Commonwealth forces stood alone (as nations) against Nazi Germany in 1940/41. If the UK had been defeated during this period, things may well have turned out a lot differently for Russia. Not that I expect you to acknowledge that possibility.

Absolutely and utter nonsense and an insult to many brave men and women. Unlike you, I won't downplay the contribution by any of those brave individuals who fought against Nazism irrespective of their nationality, I'll merely ask where was the Russian army in 1939 - 41? Rhetorical question: Answer is they were in cahoots with the Wehrmacht and were busy carving up Poland. Russia's role in the fight against Nazism from mid-1941 onwards should not be under-estimated or forgotten, but then neither should her previous collusion with the Nazis.

Not sure if this helps? If you have made voluntary contributions in the past, then you should be able to by-pass the initial phrase by making a payment(s) using the same reference as before. Your 'new' contributions will then be credited to your account a couple of months later. I've made 3 sets of payments like this over the past 5 or so years.

The inference being that no one but Russia opposed Nazi Germany? If so, that is an insult to all those non-Russians who fought for the allies during WW2. And no, I am not trying to downplay the contribution and sacrifice made by the Russian people in WW2; I'll willingly acknowledge that. I am pointing out the indisputable fact that others played their full part as well.

How many times do I have to repeat this? 97 women being raped is 97 too many: I don't know how to make this any clearer. Argo .... A series of words arranged in an apparent random order, unsurprisingly, results in gibberish. I suggest that you act on my previous advice and seek help.

If you are being sarcastic then have a 😂. If you are being serious, I suggest that you seek help from a psychiatrist or psychologist asap.

Point out where I implied/ inferred anything of the sort: A deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written. Still, naïve of me to expect any better of you. You'll try anything in an attempt to justify your bigotry.