RayC

That is a very important question and one that requires answering. Ukraine was corrupt prior to the war. However, what it looks like - territorially, politically, institutionally, morally, etc - when the conflict ends, is anyone's guess at this stage. In the absence of any supporting evidence, that is just idle speculation.

Never let it be said that you allow facts to get in the way of your opinion. I'm no military strategist but this map suggests to me that it won't be that easy for the Houthis to simply move around Yemen as they see fit. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-67952029?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65a098d2a860e05c542a298e%26Map showing Houthi-controlled territory%262024-01-12T02%3A53%3A57.314Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:2bc0b6d9-7e0f-4d71-9716-badfcfb27cb2&pinned_post_asset_id=65a098d2a860e05c542a298e&pinned_post_type=share

The EU would like a trade deal with the US. However, unlike the UK it doesn't need one and it certainly doesn't need to accept a US-dictated 'take it or leave it' deal, which is the most that the UK can hope for.

In what seems like an ever changing world, there are some things which remain constant. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1ZQ114/ A meaningful UK - US trade deal any time soon? No, I don't think so, no matter who ends up in the White House.

An "interesting" foreign policy strategy. Having alienated our geographically closest allies, you suggest that we should now alienate our most powerful diplomatic, economic and military ally. Are we trying to emulate North Korea or are we going 'all in' and aiming to be Cambodia circa 1975?

We've had our disagreements in the past and probably will again in the future but you are spot on here. Well said.

Well you've certainly got form yourself when it comes to faux concern, as anyone who has read your comments about the Ukraine war will know.

Andrew thought that paying £12m in an out-of-court settlement would avoid publicity?

Well, that highlights one of the things wrong with UK judicial system. I agree that it's difficult to prove that someone is lying when they say, "I don't remember" and this difficulty increases over time. However, I'm not sure the 'Yesterday's breakfast defence' would stand up to examination unless you had an underlying medical condition. You're correct on both counts which rather makes a mockery of the idea that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

I agree but that's different to saying, "I don't remember". I accept that proving that someone is lying when they say that "I don't remember being there" is often very difficult/ impossible, but I'd suggest that if a suspect is answering questions within a day or two of a crime being committed and used that defence when there is photographic evidence linking them to the place in question, then there might be grounds to prosecute for perjury, etc.

If that is blanket advice from your brief irrespective of the truth of the statement, then both of you have committed (additional) crimes: Perjury, perverting the course of justice, etc. if it is subsequently shown that you were lying.

Harris was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault (one later overturned) against 4 different women. I can't be sure - and can't be bothered to look into the cases - but I doubt that a jury would have considered a letter to one of the victims sufficient evidence to convict Harris on all counts. A number of other women (some well known) subsequently alleged that Harris had assaulted them. Everything points to Harris' guilt.

There's plenty of 'cheap' French plonk here already. Hopefully, this reduction in taxes will make decent mid-range French wine more affordable.

TBF he has admitted that ordering a Hawaiian was a mistake. He now realises that pineapple has no place on a pizza.

With apologies to ScottieJohn🙏, this should keep you going for a while. https://upjoke.com/prince-andrew-jokes

Sorry, can't help. Haven't really followed the case that closely. Just thought that it was a good joke😁

Given that Andrew settled the original case against him out-of-court, I'd suggest that it's extremely unlikely that he would want to instigate a case of his own where the evidence will be identical.

As we are in what is likely to be an election year, I'd suggest that probably isn't a vote winning policy.

I don't really understand your question? If renters can afford the rent demanded, then there is no problem. The problem occurs when that is not the case hence, the need for (a focus on) affordable housing. Again, I'm afraid that I don't understand your point. If a landlord charges the market rent for the property how will it "... really be a place for people on housing benefit"? For the record: My original comment was tongue-in-cheek. Imo the chances of the Royal Lodge and surrounds being turned into housing for the community (council or private) are pretty slim.

(I am making an assumption that once the current sitting tenant is removed, the landlord will donate the land to the local authority). Allowing private development of the land will do nothing to help the solve the problem of affordable housing. Private landlords will obviously expect the market rate for their properties, which means the local authority will need to subside the rent paid by any tenants placed their by the local authority. The availability and cost of purchasing land is the biggest problem for local authorities. Development costs might be significant but, at least, local authority funds will not be used to support private landlords and units would be added to the stock of available social housing.

Given the circumstances, that is incredibly orderly, although TBF I don't think the US incident was too bad. I've been on many a flight where a normal disembarkation is more chaotic.

Turn it into social housing and develop the grounds. Should be able to house a fair number of families.

You're right. I don't know (although what I don't know I don't know). "Now was that so hard?" It was bloody torture!

You are certainly not lacking in persistence yourself!! Good. I'm pleased that you find my comment comforting. As I have explained countless times, I believe that the link which I posted answers your question. Imo it offers a detailed, but understandable, explanation of how to conduct a randomised survey; the process and techniques. Again, for the umpteenth time: I am unable to improve upon it and therefore, will not spend time and effort in attempting to do so. Why it is that so difficult for you to understand? If you believe that my unwillingness to answer your question in my own words - which would require considerable time and effort on my part - means that I do not understand the contents of the link myself, then fine, continue to believe that. I am not going to spend time trying to convince you otherwise: To do so would be tedious, time-consuming, frustrating and probably ultimately, unsuccessful. I have never claimed to be a Statistical expert as you imply. I believe that I have an understanding of the basic concepts and how they can be applied. However, as I have repeatedly stated, my knowledge is limited. I do not understand the mathematical principles which underline the concepts. For example, I could plug values into the statistical equation to determine the necessary sample size but I would not be able to explain the (mathematical) logic which 'proves' the equation. I don't see this as a problem: Governments and industries throughout the world use such formulas in their surveys and that's proof enough for me. I have given up trying to understand what you think that I don't know! To be clear, I don't think that I have accused you of saying that the poll was inaccurate so why address that comment to me? Can there be true randomness in a survey? If a sound process is followed then I would suggest the answer is 'Yes' but I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. Can a sample used in a social survey ever completely eliminate bias and thus be truly wholly representative of the wider population? Imo, the answer is 'No' but, again, I could be persuaded otherwise. In any event, this is one of the reasons why concepts such as 'confidence limits' and 'margin of error' are used in surveys. Imo Newspapers should mention these factors rather than presenting findings as absolutes. Imo the link which I presented answers your question. Even if it doesn't, it is informative. In any event, we are simply going round in circles. I've said all that I'm going to say on the matter. If that is not sufficient for you then it's unfortunate. If you think that you have achieved some sort of victory then, fine, go celebrate.