RayC

Fortunately and belatedly, the EU is no longer dependent on Russian energy. The EU currently imports 13% of its energy from Russia with aim of reducing it to virtually zero by 2028 (Source: Google AI). Therefore - not that I accept the premise - if this war was ever in the EU's economic interest, the goal has surely now been achieved and prolonging the war is now nothing more than a drain on the EU's time and resources, and not in its interests.

Does that paragraph refer to illegal immigrants? Answer: No. As I said, you are proposing a 2-tier system.

And you're the one complaining about a two-tier UK🤦😂

That doesn't answer the real question. Russia poses no economic threat to the EU, so the threat must be militarily. If this threat isn't real, why would the EU need to address it? Paranoia? And why now?

It remains to be seen whether this initiative meets its targets but what exactly are your objections to this plan? Given Russia's recent behaviour, don't you think that Western European countries should build up their defence forces? What alternative initiatives would you suggest?

Why would the EU feel the need to weaken Russia? It posed/ poses no economic threat to the EU.

So sling all the immigrants - legal or not - back to where they came from, then eh?

In general, as long as they are now being honest and the offence isn't too severe (see below), I tend to give politicians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to schoolboy indiscretions and imo there isn't much to be seen here. However, I disagree with your implication that the BBC shouldn't be using the licence fee in this way. Using hurtful words as a schoolboy is one thing, but what if a similar investigation uncovered that an individual - and I'm not pointing the finger at Farage - had a background in far-right or far-left revolutionary politics or was involved in organised crime. Surely that is in the public interest and a good use of the licence fee?

Yes you answered but no, you did not answer my questions and no, I am not hard of hearing but you are obviously hard of understanding, whether through choice only you know. In addition, you are now coupling pedantry with irrelevance. I have not denied that the devolved governments made their own decisions wrt COVID but the fact is that the policies of the four governments were identical during the initial phase of the pandemic. Moreover, irrespective of all that, Boris Johnson remained PM of all of the UK - not just England - during the pandemic and his daily TV addresses were televised across all the UK, not just England. Do you therefore not think that Johnson's decisions and actions would be viewed (no pun intended) with interest by those in N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales and maybe have some effect on individuals' behaviour in those countries? However, notwithstanding all that, I will rephrase my opinion slightly and restate it: Imo, ENGLAND'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. The Guardian article (reposted for ease of reference) highlights Johnson's flippant attitude at the time e.g. wash your hands twice and sing 'Happy Birthday', and the fact that he disregarded the advice of his health advisors. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/05/boris-johnson-boasted-of-shaking-hands-on-day-sage-warned-not-to So, back to my unanswered question: 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 - or if you prefer, English public - disregarding the health advice?

Having been thrown out of court, I guess that the Judge will find a new place to dwell? Down at the end of Lonely Street? Heartbreak Hotel?

I'm still here you know 😤 I'm not sure which bit of, "Never much of a fan of The Guardian. Prefer the FT myself ..." is unclear🤷

I rest my case😁 Wrong bloke Jonny. Never much of a fan of The Guardian. Prefer the FT myself, although that's gone downhill since Lionel Barber left.

I agree that the heydays of traditional newspapers are over but I hope that there is still a place for them. Wrt The Telegraph in particular, in times past it could be relied upon to offer a serious right-of-centre analysis of current affairs. Unfortunately, those days are gone and the depth of its analysis now amounts to little more than, 'Reform good Labour bad'. However, imo that 'little' is still substantially more than the analyses offered by the likes of the Mail and Express

Don't change the subject. Stick to the point. Answer my questions. If you think that the report contradicts my opinion that, " ... 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", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to highlight the relevant sections for me.

Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor's poor judgment, self-entitlement, and lack of awareness suggest that he might not be the brightest light around.

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