RayC

We disagree completely on the fundamentals of this conflict. With the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact), the newly independent states became sovereign nations who were (should have been) free to choose their alliances. Whether Ukraine was corrupt - imo it was and what's left of it may still be - is immaterial. Internal Ukrainian politics should have remained a matter for Ukraine to deal with. Ukraine was clearly looking towards the EU and NATO. No doubt, this met with the US's approval and, perhaps, the CIA lent a 'helping hand'. However, with or without US involvement, the direction of travel was clear: West not East. Also let's not pretend that Russia was standing idly by during this period, and letting events take their course; she was actively interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs. Russia may have had some cause to try to protect the interests of Russian speakers in the Donbass, but that does extend to invading Ukrainian territory. The idea that Russia was worried that NATO had plans to launch an invasion through Ukraine is imo frankly ridiculous. Russia has a legitimate security concern in protecting its' borders but that does not extend to occupying the territory of adjacent sovereign nations. Russia's sphere of influence should be limited to its' own territory and that of the nations who, willingly, wish to align with her. Imo this conflict isn't just about security. It is also about economics. A more Western (EU) orientated Ukraine poses a grave threat to the Russian economy.

Sadly,no. The products you list are still available, but you will need to adjust your cost estimates upwards by a considerable amount😉

You appear to view everything in 'black and white', 100% or nothing. I've seen fewer reports in the press recently of 'hate speech' related incidents, which is not sufficient to conclude that tough sentencing has had a deterrent effect. That's why I said " .. arguably it has acted as a deterrent". Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. One thing's for sure, one counter-example isn't enough to reject the premise. You're beginning to sound like a White Supremacist. So free speech on your terms? You get to decide what's acceptable and what's not. Once again, it's all or nothing: Ban Islam in the UK - begs the question, 'How'? - presumably, on the basis that all those that practice the religion are evil? The data doesn't seem to support that premise: https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/do-british-muslims-commit-less-crime What happened to those little girls was a tragedy. If the perpetrator met with an unfortunate accident, I'd shed no tears.

Really? No! How on earth you can suggest that premise can be logically derived from my previous comments is beyond me! To state the blindingly obvious, it does not need 100% of individuals to act upon "hurty words" to 'Kill Farage', it only requires one. I imagine that it is impossible to prove categorically that a statement was the direct cause of an event, but if professional psychologists and/or psychiatrists deemed it a contributing factor in the hypothetical example cited above, no doubt Farage's family and friends would derive great comfort from the petitioner stating, "I didn't mean that my words should be taken literally". If you were the petitioner, would you still deny any responsibility and accountability for the event? Wrong about what precisely? Wrt Connolly, I stated previously that I had mixed emotions about her sentence. On the one hand, 31 months seems excessive for a first offence. However, if imposing such a sentence is meant to be a deterrent, it has arguably served that purpose. At the other end of the scale, would a £100 fine and/or 60 hours community service have acted as much of a deterrent to Connolly and others? Doubtful. These comments apply equally to the petitioner calling for Farage's execution. In short, I don't know/ am undecided about what a suitable sentence should be. However, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over the plight of a self-professed racist. As an aside, you appear to be in favour of absolute free speech and that the speakers/ writers cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Would you therefore agree those 'mad mullahs', who openly use the more violent verses of the Qur'an, to stir up hatred are guilty of nothing more than spouting 'hurty words' and should bear no responsibility or accountability for any subsequent events?

Put what to the test? I have deliberately not commented on the length of sentences imposed as I have mixed feelings about them. You argue that these are "just words". What if some deranged maniac tried to act upon this "advice" and try to execute Farage. Should "I didn't think that anyone would take me seriously. I didn't mean that Farage should actually be executed", be an acceptable defence and free the petitioner of all responsibility? My point - and only point - is that words may have consequences and that individuals need to be accountable and responsible for their words.

And you are starting to sound like an egoistical - in the philosophical sense of the word - free speech zealot, who will not accept accountability or responsibility for the consequences of their words.

I didn't say anything about Leavers. I made a comment which could, rightly, be interpreted as implying that the 'Vote Leave' campaign were unprofessional, as they hadn't safeguarded their website as securely as they might have done. Based on this one occurrence, I'd conclude that you'd rather not open links to websites, which your anti-virus software suggests might be suspect. Imo a wise precaution. I should consider upgrading my own.

I'm sure that many Labour supporters are displeased with (some of) Starmer's policies. I'm one of them. For example, I think that increasing employer's NI contributions was a bad move. However, if you look at the heatmap, which shows the number of signatures by constituencies for this petition, the majority of signatories are found in Tory voting constituencies. Correlation on its' own doesn't prove anything but it does give an indication. https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=700143

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that one referendum and that's it? No more referendums ever on changing the electoral system, Scottish independence or rejoining the EU?

I'm not sure that the result would have been any different but Merkel's actions wrt illegal migration - well intentional as they might have been - have had catastrophic consequences for all of Europe.

Hypocrisy doesn't appear to be the sole preserve of the Left given the call to rerun the General Election from those on the Right simply because they don't like the result.

Rather like the General Election which returned a Labour government earlier this year then.

We can but hope that is the case. That rather says it all about the 'Vote Leave' Campaign😂 Here's the headings from that Vote Leave link. We will be able to save £350 million a week: (We haven't) We'll be in charge of our own borders: (In theory perhaps) We can control immigration: (I'll just leave that there) We'll be free to trade with the whole world: (That rather depends on the rest of the world. The signs, to date, aren't great) We can make our own laws: (Not if we want to trade with the rest of the world we can't) Throw in a few blatant lies e.g. Turkey will join the EU; the European Court determines our tax laws, and I'd say that there were plenty of broken promises and more.

I'm being mischievous in pointing out the irony that some of those dissatisfied with this year's GE result are employing the same justification i.e. broken promises for a re-run as some of those who were dissatisfied with the outcome of the Brexit referendum. Where, when and by whom was a promise made before the Brexit referendum that there would be no second referendum? May ruled out a second referendum after the result not before. Maybe Cameron's government didn't break any promises wrt Brexit but the Leave Campaign certainly did http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

I'd agree with much of what you say but not with the implication that Biden is - or has been - the only player guilty of irrational acts. Russia invaded Ukraine, which shares a border with, amongst others, Poland, a country with a long history of conflict with Russia. Did Putin really believe that Poland - and by extension, the other EU member states, could and should have stood idly by while he pursued his expansionist policy?

Ahh ... predictions. Where's TransAm's crystal ball when you need it?

Talking of broken promises, maybe we could re-run the Brexit referendum in that case.

Notwithstanding the fact that your reply is 'whataboutery' at its' finest, perhaps thousands of trans activists should be in jail for their comments towards Rowling. You would, no doubt, argue that the words of Connolly - and if you are being consistent, Jones - shouldn't be taken literally. The problem is that it only requires one nutter to actually take their words at face value and we are then talking about (attempted) murder being committed. No doubt, you would wash your hands of the matter by claiming that Connolly or Jones can't held accountability or responsibility for others' actions. Therein lies the problem with you absolute free-speech advocates; the notion that words can lead to actions and the concepts of accountability and responsibility are alien to you.

It is more than just an unpleasant thing to say, her tweet offers tacit approval to setting fire to the hotels. For that reason, imo she should have been prosecuted.

How am I gaslighting? If anything, those excusing Connolly by suggesting that it was only a figure of speech and people are being too sensitive are those guilty of gaslighting. I merely asked whether free speech should extend to allowing Connolly's rhetoric and there are 3 possible answers, 'Yes', 'No', 'Dont know/care'. I also believe that Jones should face prosecution and, if found guilty, be given similar punishment to Connolly. How about you, Jonny? Do you believe that both Connolly and Jones should be/have been prosecuted? Neither? Jones only?

I look forward to you providing a link to support that claim😂 Maybe one of your farmer friends can provide a new shovel. The one that you are currently using must be worn out by now😉

Anthropological speak. Applies to any country. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml Indeed they do, my good fellow. I'm well aware of that. What I don't understand is how your suggestion - which I admit I was somewhat taken aback by - that we built more mosques will help meet the target of 1.5m more new homes by 2030? Perhaps Reeves isn't the only one not thinking through their ideas?😉

Connolly's tweet with expletives deleted is shown below. You think that freedom of speech should extend to allowing the second phrase I e. " set fire ... I care" of that sentence? "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... "

I doubt that stealing from indigenous tribes of Britain will raise much revenue. How will that help achieve the goal of building 1.5m homes by 2030?

You're right. The selection process used by political parties to select their parliamentary candidates can be controversial https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckkkq4kx3l0o https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tory-candidate-selection-system-is-broken/