RayC

Interesting analogy. Trump seems a shoo-in for Chamberlain (although perhaps Starmer is making a late bid?). Daladier? Less clear. Maybe Kallas?

Why Ukrainians might think that this negotiation process differs from the norm is because the outrageous demands usually come from the other side (Russia) and not from one of your supposed allies (the US).

If this sale goes through it will mark the end of Telegraph's days as a serious newspaper.

Certain white English people are racist; certain brown Thai people are racist; certain black American people are racist. However, the fact that these people unfortunately exist does not mean that their views are representative of the rest of the populations.

Actually that's unfair. The first 1'46" is factually correct. The remaining +/-13' is, as you say, Bo llocks.

Untrue. You asked, I answered. You: "What were the excuses of Wales, N Ireland and Scotland?" Me: "I don't know. Maybe the First Ministers of the devolved governments weren't privy to all the information available to Johnson? Maybe they ignored the advice of their advisors? Maybe they were simply incompetent?" However, I note that you have not answered my questions regarding Johnson's behaviour, which I'll repeat here for ease of reference: "Don't you think that by ignoring the advice being given by his own health advisors, and continuing to shake hands with all and sundry, Johnson's actions might have lead to members of the public disregarding the health advice?" Once again, that may well be correct but it has no relevance to the point which I am making and which I will repeat here again (for the fourth time). Imo, the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted. Perhaps, perhaps not. Not at all. If you can highlight any leaders who displayed a similar cavalier attitude - be they right, left or centre politically - I will condemn them in the same way as I condemn Johnson for his initial flippant attitude to the pandemic. It is not my political bias which is getting in the way but your willingness to excuse Johnson for yet another of his many flaws.

That may well be true but it is all whataboutery. The point I made (twice) - and will make again - is that at the beginning of the pandemic Johnson displayed a cavalier attitude towards the pandemic. That is highlighted in the Guardian article. Don't you think that by ignoring the advice being given by his own health advisors, and continuing to shake hands with all and sundry, Johnson's actions might have lead to members of the public disregarding the health advice?

I don't know. Maybe the First Ministers of the devolved governments weren't privy to all the information available to Johnson? Maybe they ignored the advice of their advisors? Maybe they were simply incompetent? However, as far I can remember not one of them acted flippantly wrt the crisis and/or publicly undermined the advice of the health professionals by their actions. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/05/boris-johnson-boasted-of-shaking-hands-on-day-sage-warned-not-to

The UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted.

Not sure if this will make much difference to most living Brits if a prerequisite is that their lineage needs to be traced back to one of the indigenous tribes of Britain. Can't be that many full-blooded indigenous Brits around. Good luck to theis German person with her application but she might face an uphill battle. I would have thought the US has enough home-grown conspiracy theorists without needing to import more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Seibt

Get the Chinese to construct it. Laos' 400km high-speed railway was up and running in 5 years.

Yes, at this rate pretty soon you'll be very lucky to meet a full-blood Cantiaci, Demetae or Iceni person in the UK.

It would be more of a surprise if 'even' Jacob Rees-Mogg issued a statement supporting the BBC

Conveniently forgetting that it's been 5.5 years since we formally left the EU and 9.5 years since we voted to leave. You'd have thought that one of the administrations might have come u with a solution given that Brexit was going to be oh so easy to implement and was the pancea to all of the UK's woes.

11 examples covering 30 years, so that's 1 per 30*365+a bit*120/11 hours of news coverage. Doesn't exactly suggest a culture of bias and systematic lying.

Fair enough but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I still it hard to believe that Trump has spent anything like $300m directly countering the BBC misinformation: I also maintain that £75m - let alone £xbn - is an awful of 'emotional trauma'. However, as you rightly say, a court will decide if it goes that far. Again, to repeat: Imo the BBC and the individuals responsible for these errors need to be held accountable, but a counter argument to the precedent re the late Queen is to point out that the BBC produces +/-120 hours of content every day and the number of items which contain deliberate misinformation/ manipulation of the facts is tiny in comparison.

"All over social media and on the National news". Not until this last month. I very much doubt that anything like $300m has been spent by Trump in countering this misinformation. I disagree. Outside of medical bills to cope with the stress caused which is easily quantifiable, any award will be based on subjective factors, although I assume that a judgement will be based on precedent if it exists. As I said previously, £75m is an awful lot of emotional stress If it does go to court - which I doubt - presumably Trump may need to testify? Cross-examination could prove embarrassing for him (although I accept that Trump doesn't seem to be easily embarrassed). Airing these misleading programmes was wrong and the BBC (and the individuals involved) need to be held to account, however, imo the financial punishments being banded about seem excessive. As is the case more often than not, time will time.

There was a time when The Telegraph was a newspaper offering serious political analysis from a right-of-centre perspective. Unfortunately, that time has long since past and it is now no more than a broadsheet version of the Express and Mail i.e. 'news' that amounts to little more than (often misleading) headlines devoid of any detailed or serious analysis plus vacuous articles about 'news' such as a cat which found its way back home from John O'Groats to Land's End. The Sports section is still decent and some of the cultural pieces e.g. film reviews aren't bad. Other than that, it won't be a great loss if it goes under.

Libel is a rich man's game and Trump is a rich man with what appears to be a cast-iron case; however, the idea that damages will be anything like $1bn must be pie in the sky. Even a settlement figure of £75m seems excessive. If my understanding is correct, damages will be based largely on three factors: (1) Actual harm to reputation (2) Financial losses (3) Emotional distress caused. (1) Has Trump's reputation suffered? These programmes - aired +/-2 years ago - were effectively unknown in the US until recently. Did Trump's reputation suffer since they were aired - or will it in the future - as a direct result of these programmes? Extremely unlikely. Moreover, not that Trump will probably care much, but if the case does go to court, Trump's previous 'inconsistencies' will be brought to light which presumably will be a mitigating factor in any award. (2) Financial losses: Have there been any to date? Trump won the presidency so the programmes had no direct effect on his career (or earnings). Damage to future earnings? Hard one to prove. (3) Emotional distress: More contentious and subjective, but £75m, let alone $1bn, is an awful lot of distress.

A late change of direction? His profligacy is currently being used at Tottenham Hotspur FC

😂 Credit where credit is due. Irrespective of the veracity of the statement, that's quite good👍

BBC management and journalists come from both left-of-centre and right-of-centre backgrounds. Most are able to suppress their personal bias, some are not. Those that are not, need to change their ways or find an alternative employer. BBC News produces 120 hours of content every day. Unsurprisingly, there are occasions when it gets things badly wrong. When it does so, as in this Trump case, the BBC - or more particularly, the individuals responsible - needs to be held accountable.

You're deflecting/ backtracking call it what you will. You had yet another unfounded snide dig at the EU by implying - without any evidence - that immigration problems are worse in Germany than the UK as a result of the former being a member of the EU: The truth of the matter is that the UK and Germany face the same problem wrt illegal immigration. When it comes to legal immigration, Germany has the advantage of being part of the Single Market which allows it to fill job vacancies without too much cost and bureaucracy. The UK was, of course, also previously part of the EU Single Market but decided to jettison this practice in favour of an immigration system which is more expensive, time-consuming and bureaucratic for both employers and employees. Yes, a real Brexit benefit.

Absolutely. It's because of Brexit that successive UK governments have been able to take a firm hold on immigration, both legal and illegal. Errr ....

Really? Bigger in what way? The US is any number of degrees more economically powerful than Russia. True, Russia occupies a significantly larger land mass, but do you seriously think the US wants to grab Russian territory just to simply boast that has the biggest land mass? Why? Many areas of Russia are nothing but a drain on the economy. It's not being asked to 'bend the knee'. It's being asked to get out of a sovereign country which it invaded. I'm sure that the US (and others) would like access to Russia's energy resources and mineral riches. The way to achieve that is through trade, something that was the norm until Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Quite possibly true but there is/was nothing to suggest that the US is/was willing to go to war with Russia to achieve that outcome. Well the tensions were there before then but I agree that 2014 was a pivotal point in time, notably when Moscow forced the Yanukovych government to abandon the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement - the major element in the platform on which Yanukovych was elected - in favour of closer ties with Russia. A popular uprising (The Maidan Revolution) followed which resulted in the removal of Yanukovych. Putin could not accept this outcome and the rest, unfortunately, is history.