RayC

And that's all the thanks I get for educating you. I must say that I am disappointed.

Getting enough servers was a problem. They had to get people in from the local pizza restaurants which obviously caused them a problem. As an aside, unfortunately they couldn't find room for Prince Andrew at that table so he had to eat elsewhere. He was extremely disappointed to find the Woking branch of Pizza Hut was closed for the day due to staff being seconded to Windsor Palace. Apparently - although this cannot be verified - he broke out in a cold sweat at the news. Unfortunately, this labour shortage problem was self-inflicted. When the UK was a member of the EU, we could simply whistle-up a few hundred European students on their gap year to lend a hand. It solved our labour problem and gave them a bit of cash. A win-win situation. Sadly, we've now closed our doors to Europe and that solution was no longer unavailable. I believe that this is called a Brexit benefit😉

In the interests of adding to your body of knowledge, I'll break my promise to myself and reply to another of your posts. I'll limit my reply to the UK. In the UK, a centre-left government - headed by Kier Starmer - is in charge. Paradoxically, this means that so far as comments here are on AN are concerned, the result is both different and the same. It's the same in that there is still an obsession with Trump, but this time it is from some right-wing posters who enter a state of delirious ecstasy at the very mention of his name. However, mention of the word, 'Starmer' has this right-wing cohort frothing at the mouth, and calling down fire from heaven, in attempt to quell their raging hatred. Hope this helps.

I can't see any other reason to bow down at this particular altar.

Imo most people don't care one way or the other.

It's obvious that I have no time for your views, however, I put your many factual errors down to carelessness and lack of knowledge, not outright lying. Sadly, it appears that I was mistaken.

Given that it might well help secure £31bn in inward investment, it's worth biting our collective lip and fuel Trump's ego and narcissism for a day or two.

Oh dear. A semantic argument. Ho0w sad. It's worse than I thought. You are now reduced to lying. I made no prediction about the outcome of last year's US election. Calm down, dear. You are becoming hysterical. Go and have a nice little lie down.

The EARLIEST possible date for a GE is today, not next year or 2027 as you infer. I had better explain things to you in detail as you are clearly ignorant of the facts. The PM could dissolve parliament this morning and - with the permission of the King - call an election this afternoon. Therefore theoretically, the EARLIEST possible date for a GE is today (17/9/25). Of course, in practice this is Impossible. Sunak dissoluted parliament on 24/5 last year and called the election for 4 July, so an elapsed period of +/-10 weeks. Most political pundits agreed that this was probably the minimal time necessary to round-up the affairs of the sitting parliament, make the necessary logistical arrangements for the forthcoming election and to allow for parties to campaign. Based on that, practically speaking the earliest possible date for the next UK GE is December 2025, although that will not happen. "Called an internal rebellion", eh? Is that right? Is that what caused the Conservative Party Administrations to change PM from Johnson to Truss to Sunak? I think it was, you know. And remind me, did either of those events result in a GE being called? That's right, they didn't. And yet precedent suggests that such an event might not cause a GE to be called. Dennis Healey had to get an IMF bailout in 1976 but his government survived in office until 1979. No. I thought that Remain would win narrowly but certainly didn't think a 'Leave' vote was impossible. Pleased that I could clear that up for you. Even by your low standards for accuracy and political punditry, this was a very poor effort. You really must try to inform yourself better in future. I don't have the time to correct your numerous and frequent mistakes.

Which bit of the following is unclear? Which bit would you consider to be complementary of either Starmer or this Labour government? " ... imo this government has been a failure (to date), and that Starmer has shown a lack of leadership and political nous. I live in hope - admittedly fading - that they will pull things around." Do you really think that I am going to search through thousands of threads to 'prove' my point that I have been critical of Starmer in the past. It's entirely up to you whether you believe it or not. This is 'Groundhog Afternoon' (UK time). This exchange is following the same route as our exchange this morning - and all others between us for that matter: You refuse to accept anything despite being supplied with evidence. You (almost) invariably do not address the question directly when you are challenged but, instead introduce issues which are (usually) tangential at best in order to (presumably) divert attention and muddy the waters while, at the same time, maintaining - incorrectly and without any evidence - that I am lying: I am not alone in being subjected to this treatment by you. I have at least partially, learnt a lesson. I'll call time on this exchange now before we disappear down yet another of your rabbit holes. Message to self: Repeat this mantra when you see a post from Yellowtail - "Do not engage, do not engage ...." QED😉

That's what Starmer said it should be. A symbol of unity. When you say 'most', I hope that - amongst other things - you are excluding Reform's economic policies, unless you believe that voodoo is the answer to the UK's economic problems.

I think that is a decision for the Ukrainian people to make. I agree and if Russia had allowed an independent, sovereign Ukraine to pursue its' desire for a free-trade arrangement with - and ultimately membership of - the EU the world would have moved in that direction. Sadly Putin did not share our goal. Much as I would like to see it occur, I don't expect BRICS/ global south to cease trading with Russia. However, in the short - and probably, medium - term, Russia will struggle to do the volume of trade with them that it does with the EU and US.

So what do you object to in Starmer's comments? The principle that no one person should define what a national flag means or the fact that it is Starmer doing the defining? Who would you prefer to decide what the flag stood for? The likes of the National Front, who were sadly allowed to hijack its' use in the '80s? Only people who share your views? More specifically, do you object to Starmer's belief that that the Union or St. Georges flags should not be surrendered to those who wish to use it for violence and division? That the flags should be viewed a symbol of unity rather than discord?

Then your memory conveniently fails you (not for the first time). I have stated previously that imo this government has been a failure (to date), and that Starmer has shown a lack of leadership and political nous. I live in hope - admittedly fading - that they will pull things around. This is so typical of you. You cannot counter rational argument, so you introduce tangential issues into the discussion while maintaining - incorrectly and without any evidence - that the other person is lying. Is this typical of all right-wingers? No, but you are not alone.

Getting the "global south" to support sanctions would obviously greatly help - and might prove to be a game changer - but to suggest that the West adopting - and more importantly, implementing - harsher sanctions would be ineffective is imo incorrect. Germany, for example, exports +/-$5bn of products to Russia, mainly pharmaceutical products ($2.52 billion), machinery ($960.44 million), and medical apparatus ($839.36 million). Generic pharmaceuticals might, perhaps, be readily sourced from elsewhere but specialist machinery would probably be less easily available. The West would also, no doubt, suffer by applying harsher sanctions, but if pressure is to be applied to Russia then imo it will be a price worth paying.

Deja vu. Once again, my apologies but again in my defence it was an easy mistake to make. I can't recall you ever being critical of Trump and imo this unwavering support could be mistaken for idolisation.

You do not get arrested in the UK for supporting Trump (openly or otherwise). That is a fact, not a lie. Oh, you mean that you source your news from places other than "Right-wing conspiracy theories today". My apologies, but in my defence it was an easy mistake to make.

Deary me. The navigational systems on these drones really does leave a lot to be desired. Russia really does need to take more care when buying/ manufacturing its' drones. I hope that President Putin has had a very stern word with the people responsible.

So on the one hand, you criticise the EU - with some justification - for buying Russian energy which brings money into Russia's coffers, but on the other you reject harsher sanctions which would take money away as being ineffective. I'll pre-empt a response that Putin would find a workaround by suggesting that the more sanctions that are imposed, the harder it is to find buyers and work-arounds.

From the link you quote: "This means the latest date for the next general election will be 21 August 2029". The Labour Party currently has a majority of 148 in the House of Commons, so a no-confidence vote has no chance of succeeding. While it is possible that Labour might call an early election in late 2028 if it deems the circumstances favourable, the chances of it doing so before then are minimal.

I'm afraid that you have both been misinformed. Those are two pieces of - as your idol might put it - "Fake news". Can I suggest widening your sources for news: "Right-wing conspiracy theories today" is, sadly, not to be trusted.

I'll answer the final question first: "A new report says there are reasonable grounds to conclude that four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law have been carried out since the start of the war with Hamas in 2023: killing members of a group, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to destroy the group, and preventing births." (Source: BBC website) You might object to this definition. That is your prérogative. I have no desire to engage in a(nother) discussion about semantics. As for the rest of your reply: Perhaps you are convinced in your own mind that you are telling the truth? It's delusional but, if it makes you happy, then you crack on. Anyone who has had the misfortune to read our exchange will be able to work out the truth for themselves. Have a nice day and knowing how much you like the initials: QED

The contents of our exchange here and elsewhere. You may have entered into the conversation with that intention but, sadly, you have not perused it that way. For one example among many, you claimed (still do?) that I stated/ implied/ inferred that, surrender could not be voluntary which is incorrect. What case have you built? You have offered no evidence to support your proposition that, "a majority of Palestinians support Hamas" other than the results of a survey (which Is I posted) that found that a majority of Palestinians supported the October offensive. That this is not the same as saying that a majority of Palestinians support Hamas should be obvious, but is confirmed by another result from the same survey which specifically shows that the majority of Palestinians do NOT support Hamas. You dismiss this latter result as unreliable due to possible survey bias. You are therefore left in the position whereby the ONLY evidence you present to support your proposition is circumstantial and drawn from a survey which you consider unreliable due to its' methodology. I'd say that your position was tenuous to say the least. It does but once again I have not suggested otherwise. There can be little doubt that Israel wants to eradicate Hamas. Does this "terrible arithmetic" include genocide if necessary? The UN consider Israel guilty of genocide irrespective of whether the killing is 'gratuitous'.

No but obviously you did. I apologise for the lack of QEDs in this post. However, I have little doubt that you will afford me ample opportunity to use them in the future. Unlike yourself I have the habit of sticking to the subject under discussion and not introducing additional issues which - being generous - are tangential. I find that doing so usually leads to logical conclusions. Maybe give this idea a try yourself? The short answer is, "I don't know". The only evidence that I have to go on is the survey previously quoted - which you inconsistently either cite or dismiss depending upon whether it supports your view or not. That survey found that 40% (of Palestinians) support and 57% oppose the concept of a two-state solution. Based on that information, I would guess - emphasis on the word 'guess' - that 55 - 60% of Palestinians would want to eradicate Israel. However, unlike you, I am not so blinkered in my beliefs that I view everything as 'black and white' and refuse to change my opinion. I am therefore open to adjusting that estimate if presented with additional data.

You have randomly 'cut and paste' some text of mine which doesn't even mention the subject under discussion i.e. that the rights of ex cons in the US is somehow related to the Israeli/ Palestine conflict, presumably in a pathetic attempt to save face. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.