RayC

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.

I think that tensions between the EU/ NATO and Russia are taut enough without the need to engage in any 'false flag' activities of this type. Did the C-UAS systems fail to track the drones, or is it more a case that it is extremely difficult (impossible?) to prevent drones taking off? Worryingly, it is all too easy to set off drones relatively close to many airports (I used to live in Brussels. Unless the layout of the airport has changed greatly over the past few years, this would be true of Zaventem). Belgium is, in principle, in favour of unlocking frozen Russian assets on Euroclear. What Belgium is seeking is an assurance from other EU member states that liabilities will be shared if Russia were to successfully sue Belgium in an international court. I do not understand why this assurance can't be offered.

A debate could take place if you could offer a rational counter-argument to my contention that this war was instigated by Russia and is economic in nature. However, you are seemingly incapable of doing so and instead merely regurgitate lazy rhetoric about MSM bias, Western propaganda, etc - for which you provide little or no evidence - ad infinitum. There is little doubt that corruption and extreme right-wing elements have been present in Ukraine ever since its independence, however that in itself was not sufficient justification for Russia to interfere in Ukraine's internal affairs and even less of a justification for invasion. I guess that makes some sort of sense to you if not the rest of us. Shallow minds are more likely to believe any ridiculous conspiracy theory. My advice is to try to think critically if you can. You say that you are a Pole. If so, then you should be well aware of the benefits that EU membership has brought to your country and yet, you would deny Ukraine the opportunity to seek similar benefit. Shame on you. (To be clear. I am not suggesting that Ukraine should have become a member of the EU in 2014 - the issue of corruption amongst other things needed to be tackled before membership could be granted - merely that she should have been shown the pathway to membership)

It will probably come as a surprise that I agree with something you have written: Some people do lack BASIC background knowledge; you are one of them. You cannot counter facts and lack the intellect and/or will to engage in debate; instead you post empty, meaningless rhetoric. You are nothing more than a Russian apologist and propagandist.

Far too soon to be calling the result of an election which will probably not be held before Autumn 2028.

Long list follow-up to 'Fairytale of New York'?😁

"Anyone reading this thread might think that the Ruskies started the conflict." Good. Then they will have employed rational thought and reached the correct, logical conclusion. "Are some people still unaware that is started in 2014?" Hopefully not. I agree 2014 was a milestone in this conflict e.g. for the annexation of Crimea, Russia's increased involvement in Donetsk and ultimately the invasion of Ukraine. These events were the direct result of Putin's refusal to accept that Ukraine saw its' economic future aligned with the West - in particular the EU - rather than Russia. "With a (not so) little help from the - not so deep state either - US." Imo there's no doubt that the US favoured a pro-Western Ukraine rather than a Russia-centred one, however, the Maidan revolution was a popular uprising by the Ukrainian people who objected to their elected government - under pressure from Moscow - refusing to sign the EU/ Ukraine Association Agreement, the central point in its manifesto, and instead attempt to tie Ukraine economically to Russia. (Yes, I'm aware of the Nuland phone call. All that proves is that the US favoured a pro-EU Ukraine. In no way, does it prove that the US instigated the Maidan uprising).

Hardly a Strawman unless you think that renumeration, welfare provision, etc plays no part in a prospective migrant's choice of location. In the case of surgeons, salaries in both the US on average, much higher than those in the UK; they are also higher in much of the EU. Also true for engineers and IT professionals. Countries compete with each other for talent. It's difficult to see what would entice skilled individuals to choose the UK over the US or other English speaking countries given the current attitudes and rules governing immigration. I am pleasantly surprised by these comments. I did you an injustice; my apologies. I would never have thought that you would be in favour of allowing an immigrant to the UK who loses - or voluntarily gives up his job - being allowed to remain in the UK indefinitely under the same conditions as a native-born Brit e.g. full access to the welfare state for him/her and his family (I assume that you are happy for the immigrants' family to have accompanied him/ her?). If AI is correct, in many ways the Australian system is much more liberal than the one that currently exists in the UK. For example, unlike the UK a job offer is not always needed in order to immigrate to Australia, nor is the visa tied to the job e.g. a surgeon who decides that he wants to become a full-time musician is perfectly entitled to do so. In addition, permanent residency can be granted to an immigrant immediately in Australia (unlike the UK and EU (and US?)). It's good to know that you are in favour of these liberal provisions. More my making false assumptions. As I implied above, I am delighted to be corrected and welcome your liberal outlook to immigration. It's touching that you care so much about the UK, but regrettable that this concern is not enough for you to return and help turn it back to the idyll you remember. Nevertheless, l'm pleased that you are enjoying life in Thailand. You are no doubt aware that certain categories of "foreign residents" in the UK suffer from a bad reputation by association. Because a minority with whom they share certain attributes e.g. religious beliefs, behave in an anti social way (and a very small number are outright evil and seek to harm others) all members of this grouping are st abuse and worse by a small minority of the "indigenous" population. I do hope that you don't suffer similar treatment at the hands of the locals as a foreigner because of the misdemeanors and criminal acts committed by the small number of our fellow countrymen who are resident in Thailand. So I'm a killjoy as my "ideology" has taken the fun out of the UK? Well, I don't know what you think my ideology is, and I certainly don't know how I've removed the fun. As far as I'm concerned as long as your antics don't break the law, or impinge directly upon me or my family, you can entertain yourself in whatever way you see fit.

You obviously didn't read my post containing the following paragraph: "Very few people - myself included - support illegal economic migrants being allowed into the country. Asylum for genuine refugees is another matter".

The whole thing was fabricated, right? There was no attacker or even passengers because the train didn't exist. In fact, this post, thread, AN, me and you don't exist🤦

Incorrect? When can we expect you back from Thailand then, Jonathan? I'll amend the last phrase in the first paragraph "(who) romanticises a UK with as few immigrants as possible" Better? As for your policy. I'm afraid that has little chance of working. Let's say the UK, US and EU countries all want some brain surgeons. (1) The UK says we'll offer you a salary of X for 2 years and then you go back home. We may extend your contract but no guarantees and we'll decide nearer the time. You can't bring any dependents with you unless you cover all the costs e.g. health, education, etc (I'm making an assumption here that you wouldn't want people sponging off of the state). (2) The US says 2-year contract; no guarantee of extension; 4x salary; health and welfare benefits covered by company (not an unreasonable scenario given that health care is in large part a commercial operation in the US). (3) An EU country says 2 year contract; salary X; no guarantee of extension but likely; dependents welcome; health and welfare benefits provided by the state; after 5 years permanent residency granted with the possibility of citizenship available. Now, Jonny, which option is our brain surgeon likely to pick? Highly unlikely it will be the UK one, don't you agree. Very few people - myself included - support illegal economic migrants being allowed into the country. Asylum for genuine refugees is another matter. However, I'll end on a note of agreement. You're right: My memory isn't what it was 10 years however, fortunately my ability to see through thinly disguised rhetoric and overly simplistic solutions to complex problems remains largely unimpaired.