RayC

Right. Pull up the drawbridge. Nothing that happens outside of the shores of the UK concerns us. Let's turn ourselves into the European North Korea. You probably feel that UK tax pounds were also squandered in the 1940s.

No such deal ever existed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/12/zelenskyy-rejects-claim-boris-johnson-talked-him-out-of-2022-peace-deal Justification for Russia's "Special Military Operation (SMO)" in Ukraine. Televised speech by Putin, 22 February (translation) " (The SMO's) goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kyiv regime for eight years. And for this we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.” I am not saying that Putin's speech has any validity or veracity, but - if 3 years of fighting hasn't achieved them to date - is there any reason why those goals could be discussed at the negotiating table?

I would agree that Russia appears to be winning this war but it is not yet won, and we have not yet reached a 'winner takes it all' situation. If Russia is serious about peace, it can show this by agreeing to come to the negotiating table and do just that: negotiate. Sadly, that doesn't appear likely.

So Russia should simply be rewarded for its' aggression?

I really don't understand this antipathy to ID cards. There are many instances where an individual has to prove their identity, and there is no uniform set of acceptable documentation; a bank statement may be acceptable to some organisations and not others. On-line the problem is even more marked with different usernames required for different parts of local and central government, etc. In many countries with ID cards, an individual can access almost everything using their ID card/ national ID number (and passing security procedures). I also struggle to understand what additional freedoms the absence of ID cards provides? Imo ID cards simplify matters greatly for the individual.

(Once again, apologies for the delay in replying but I am definitely not letting these false accusations go unanswered). Any concrete evidence for that in either of these cases, Jonny? If not, it is an excellent example of conspiracy theory. I stated previously that imo, "Jones appears to be a nasty piece of work": I have made no comment about Connolly - or her sentence - other than to highlight the legal differences between her case and that of Jones. Given that, how anyone in their right mind think that I have "gone out of my way to gloat ..." beggars belief. The fact that you feel the need to resort to bare-faced lies speaks volumes about your character That is no surprise. My "ilk" realise that we are all subject to bias, but try to suppress these biasses, consider the facts on merit and then reach an informed decision. On the other hand, you appear to view everything in black and white terms; 'X' good, 'Y' bad. with no grey areas. Facts can be disregarded as necessary.

(Apologies for the delay in replying). What's strange? As you are no doubt aware, we have a system of cabinet government in the UK. Lammy is only one member of the cabinet. Obviously in this case, the cabinet as a whole took a different view to him, hence why legislation was introduced. Who knows, it is also possible that Lammy may have changed his mind? To quote one of your favourite politicians, "I've changed my mind. It is allowed you know"

Here's one you can hold against me, @JonnyF. I'm left with egg on my face. The government did legislate against the sentencing guidelines. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-introduce-legislation-to-block-new-sentencing-guidelines Cue rant about political interference, infringement of civil liberties, etc.

The 'Sentencing Guidelines' were proposed by an independent body, The Sentencing Council. They are, as the name suggests, guidelines not laws. This Labour government has voiced its' opposition to the guidelines and asked the Sentencing Council to reconsider. What more do you want them to do? Legislate against the Council? No doubt you'd be then be complaining about political inference and the restriction on the freedom of expression. I'm not the one who sets the tone for these exchanges, Jonny. You (almost) inevitably couch your posts in inflammatory language from the word go. I'm also not the one looking foolish here by not knowing the facts.

Not a strong enough test I'm afraid. The only people who should be allowed to stay are those who pledge allegiance to one of the legitimate, full-blooded descendants of one of the kings of the original tribes e.g. Celts, Picts, etc.

I don't support this demand but neither do I think that it would have only targeted the indigenous, white, working-class males of the UK as you probably do. As I said yesterday, your sense of grievance knows no bounds.

Didn't mind it but a bit dated now. Clearly my attempt at humour didn't impress you.

Which one? WW1 or II, the regular Franco-German dust-ups ... Oh, b*****s🤦

Many European countries (Belgium, France, the UK, etc.) have had a significant Muslim minority population for decades. Members of these minorities integrated into their host societies to varying degrees, however, only a very few individuals were openly hostile and sought to change the culture of their hosts. That is no longer the case. There are certainly more Muslins in Europe than there used to be but, in itself, that doesn't explain the radicalisation of the European Muslim population. Also although Muslims form a much smaller proportion of the population in the US than they do in many European countries, in absolute terms the numbers are similar but the US does not appear to suffer greatly from 'cultural conflict'. Which begs two questions: 1) What has caused radical Islamism to increase in Europe and 2) why hasn't this occurred in the US to the same degree? (These are genuine questions. I don't have any answers or theories).

I agree that the Post-WW2 period of peace in Europe was the exception rather than the norm. I also agree that it appears that Europe apparently cannot count on the US to safeguard its' security as it has done. However, I appear to be more optimistic than you. The EU is not perfect by a long stretch, but it has managed to function for more than 60 years with some notable achievements such as the Single Market, Customs Union, etc. Egos were put aside for the common good in these cases; hopefully, they will be in this case.

If France, Germany and the UK compete with each other on defence matters resources will be wasted. Co-operation, not competition, should be the aim here.

The pertinent facts, which you seem to ignore, are 1) Connolly plead guilty and was therefore sentenced without the need for a trial and 2) Jones opted for a trial, pleaded 'Not guilty' and was acquitted by a jury of his peers (Incidentally, what's the chances of 12 randomly selected individuals all having the same political views? Pretty slim, wouldn't you agree?) Now you may consider Connolly's sentence excessive, and you might consider the verdict reached in the Jones trial to be the wrong one, but that is merely your opinion. In both cases, due process was followed. What we have here is not an example of a 2-tier justice system, but further evidence of your sense of grievance which seemingly knows no bounds. What would you do now? Order retrial(s) of both cases until the 'correct' verdicts were made?

If you listen to some posters, you'd be forgiven for believing that he's a cross between Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. In US terms a liberal.

Maybe read this and educate yourself https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ricky-jones-cleared-lucy-connolly-jailed-b2808629.html Jones seems to be a nasty piece of work but a jury acquited him. What do you want? A retrial until you get the correct verdict? Where am I gloating about anything? That's right, I'm not. If there's one thing that you can teach me, it's how to whine. In fact, you could probably teach a wail of banshee how to whine. No crying from me. Just a reminder of the utter foolishness of Brexit every time you mention it. Always nice to end of a point of agreement.

Eastwards expansion did not happen. (Well, technically I suppose it did: North Macedonia and Montenegro have joined NATO since 2010, but I hardly think their membership constitutes a major threat to Russia. Do you? In any event, their application to join NATO can be seen as a by-product of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as can Finland's membership). Back on topic: Ukraine abandoned its' goal of obtaining NATO membership in 2010, so this idea that Russia's invasion can be justified on the basis that Ukraine presents a threat to Russia can be seen for what it is: Complete nonsense.

I realise that it may be difficult to keep up with events in the UK from afar, but there is no 'tyranny of the left' and people can speak their mind. Maybe have a look at the contents and comments on the Daily Mail, Express or Telegraph sites or watch GB News. You'll find more than enough anti-government rhetoric and right-wing views to satisfy yourself.

That's an interesting theory. You might well be correct. On the other hand, it may have hastened a Russian invasion i.e. before Ukraine formally became a NATO member. Even if Ukraine had joined, would Article 5 have definitely been involved, given that escalation into nuclear conflict would be extremely likely? We'll never know.

Maybe he does which is one reason Europe is concerned. Who are these anti-American globalists? Assuming that they exist, how exactly does a conflict with Russia, which weakens European economies, further their cause? I'm yet to meet anyone in Europe who prefers war to peace, so I'm unsurprised that the US public are against it, or that they question where the money is being spent. The US followed Washington's advice and did not become involved in Europe until WW1. The US did not enter WW1 until 1917, when it became clear that Germany was a threat to the US and its' interests e.g. sinking of the Lusitania, Zimmerman telegram, Black Tom explosion, etc. Similar story re WW2: Would the US have entered the conflict if Pearl Harbour had not occurred? Post-WW2 the US's ideological fear of Communism and practical fear of the growing influence of the USSR led it to prop up Western Europe through the Marshall Plan and NATO. (Western) Europe has good reason to be grateful for US support throughout the 20th century, but let's not pretend that this involvement was anything other than self-serving on the US's part. Onto today: If the US wants to withdraw its' support of Western Europe that is obviously its' prérogative. However, that will almost inevitably have the effect of weakening the US's global influence. Is the US is happy to see China and, perhaps, an emboldened Russia exert more influence at its' expense? Maybe sometimes it's better to stick with - and support - your old allies.

So William's a Reform supporter? You know someone inside Kensington Palace, Jonny? Do tell more

The US hosting a bi-lateral meeting with a wanted war criminal, where the subject of discussion is redrawing a 3rd country's international borders, all without the 3rd country being present and seemingly having any input into the discussion. And the reason? The US President's obsession with being recognised with the Nobel Peace Prize. Yep; beyond sinister and amoral.