RayC

Everyone knows that dear, sweet Vlad wouldn't do anything like that. He wants nothing more than for everyone to live in peace and harmony.

Why would you think that three English individuals (Lammy, Abbott and myself) who live in London would meet at a rally held in the US, and that I would ask for their autographs? What a bizarre remark. I did indeed misquote you. (One of) your favourite sayings is not a sarcastic, "Diversity is our friend" as I stated in my previous post but a sarcastic, "Diversity is our greatest strength". One example given below. ---------------- From a thread entitled, 'Migrants in taxpayer-funded UK hotels accused of rape, assault, theft, and other crimes', your post dated July 20: "More likely caught but either not charged or not reported. It's all for the greater good. DIVERSITY IS OUR GREATEST STRENGTH (my caps). Nothing must interfere with the globalist narrative" ----------------- I withdraw my original comment unreservedly and apologise wholeheartedly. I do hope that my original error hasn't caused you too much discomfort. Yes, one of us is clearly trying to fool people, Jonny, but it's not me: You can't hide behind semantics, the truth is there for all to see.

I know a few black women and a few black blokes as well. Wasn't unusual being brought up in South London. Isn't about time you brought out your sarcastic 'Diversity is our friend' quote again? Not that you've got anything against minorities. Perish the thought. I'm not the one trying to fool people, Jonny.

Burnham may well be left-wing but he is not a communist. Communists reject capitalism and believe in common ownership of the means (and distribution) of production, basically a centrally planned economy. Where has Burnham stated that he rejects capitalism? As Brewster says, Burnham is a democratic socialist and believes in a mixed economy i.e. that some products and services are best produced by the private sector, others by the public sector.

Andy Burnham may be many things but he's not a communist

Could my question have been constructed better to avoid ambiguity? Would it benefited from better punctuation? Yes. Perhaps due to my poor sentence construction, you interpreted my question to have an unintended meaning. An excusable error. That should have been the end of it, but you insist that you are not mistaken. Apparently you know better than I do what I meant🤦

Bloody difficult to find though😁

Morning, Trans. Thanks. Hope you're well?

Then you have misinterpreted. I posed a question, " Why should people such as Owens be able to publish potentially libellous content with complete and utter contempt for the truth .... ?"

The champion of the minorities to the rescue😂 What next from you? A post outlining the positive attributes of Islam? For the record, my feelings towards Owens have nothing to do with her race, sex, religion, political inclination or any other personal attribute. If she has concrete evidence to support her claim, then she has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if she is simply throwing around libellous comments like confetti then I hope that she suffers significant financial pain. (Have you seen anyone about your obsession with Harry yet?)

Fair point. We would be paying higher tariffs if we were still in the EU. However, I don't think that this difference compensates for the problems caused by Brexit.

I can understand your sentiments but, on the other hand, why should people such as Owens be able to publish potentially libellous content with complete and utter contempt for the truth, or care for any distress that they may cause? Good luck to the Macrons with this case.

Hopefully, the Macron's case will not be dismissed on a legal technicality. If Owens isn't able to supply any evidence to support her libellous claims, hopefully she will have a very large financial penalty to pay.

How would you know? Have you spent more than a couple of weeks in either London or Pakistan in the last 10 years?

London occupies a much smaller area than Pakistan. Pakistan is 95%+ Muslim, London's Muslim population is 15%. Urdu is the official language of Pakistan, English is the official language of the UK (and therefore, London). The climate in Pakistan and London are completely different. Pakistanis don't drink much alcohol, Londoners drink more. I've never been to Pakistan but I don't think that I'd mistake it for London. However, many Pakistanis and some Londoners do share a love of cricket. Maybe that is what confused you?

We don't raise enough (tax) revenue. We are a low-tax country compared to most of those mentioned https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally

£150bn for food & lodgings for 2-days, bit of a party and a trip to the countryside. Pretty good deal.

Cheers. No problem. I'm pleased to help. I'm sure that both of us wouldn't want our overseas friends getting the wrong impression of London (and the UK) based on false information.

So there are no EU regulations which would have prevented these investments being made. Glad that we cleared that one up. Cameron's introduction of the Equality Act and Johnson's quick and unequivocal support of Ukraine were plus points, however overall I'd hardly call the 15 years of Tory rule a roaring success. You and your fellow right-wingers are quick enough to criticise this Labour administration - not without justification sometimes - when things go wrong, but you simply can't bring yourselves to acknowledge any success. A long time: 15 years perhaps? I don't doubt that UK and US civil servants are in regular contact about trade matters, etc but the plain fact is that no significant deals were completed under the previous administrations. It has taken this Starmer government and this Trump administration to set the conditions for these deals to take place and both can take credit for that.

The post in question: "All the new black, red, green and whites London City flags." These flags are not the official flag of "London City" (either 'Greater London' or the 'City of London'). I was correcting that false information.

I've little doubt that right-wing posters such as yourself will find something too liberal for your tastes.

Absolute tosh. What EU regulation(s) would have prevented these investments being made?

Despite your ungrateful response to my educational post yesterday, I will once again show my benevolence. Greater London ('London City') does not have an official flag, but the 'City of London' does. Even some Brits find this confusing, so your ignorance can be excused on this occasion. The links below help explain things. Feel free to use the 'Thanks' emoji. Have a nice day. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/about-the-city-of-london-corporation/our-role-in-london https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_City_of_London

Oh, Jonny. The truth has to be faced eventually, no matter how hard it is for you to swallow. Far from it being painful for Trump, he enjoys being in Starmer's company. I know that this fact causes you pain but there is it. I'm also surprised that you didn't mention the £150bn investment which this Labour government has secured. After all, this must be good news and we both want the UK to be successful no matter what party is in power, don't we?🤔 https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c9dxq447dwvo https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-breaking-150bn-investment-unveiled-during-us-state-visit

Hey, no complaints from this liberal. Roll out the red carpet, slap on a bit of bling and get Manzes to cook a bit of pie'n'mash for a few hundred people. What's that cost? A few million? In return, we get $42bn. Seems like a good deal to me. Btw: We got another bridge to sell if you're interested.