RayC

I guess that you didn't read the link?

I doubt that there are many, if any, war enthusiasts here. Unfortunately, there are some Putin apologists on here - such as yourself - who will sink to any depth in a feeble attempt to justify their stance.

I can only suggest that you read the link below a read as it gives a pretty good plotted history of the background to Putin's invasion. Admittedly it is a long piece, but the bottom line is that the catalyst for Euromaidan was Yanukovych's unilateral and undemocratic decision not to sign the EU - Ukraine Association which had been agreed to by the Ukrainian parliament and which formed part of the manifesto on which he was elected. In Yanukovych's defence it could be argued that he was forced into this decision because Russia - which was against the signing of the Agreement - had applied economic sanctions on Ukraine and was providing financial and military support to the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. This in itself was not an altogether new development as Russia had been interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs long before 2014. Victoria Nuland's call was unhelpful as, for one thing, it drove a wedge between the EU and US: however to suggest that the US instigated Euromaidan is imo nonsense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

No. Nothing to do with US "interference". A war of Putin's making. Simple as.

14,000 - a figure which includes Russian and Ukrainian troops - have died SINCE Putin's forces escalated the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Prior to that, the armed conflict in the region was relatively low-key. Moreover, the majority of the local population favoured a solution which gave the region greater autonomy within the Ukrainian state and did not want to become an independent nation or form part of Russia. The overwhelming majority of the problems in Ukraine can be attributed to one country or, more specifically, one man: Putin.

But why should the West worry? After all, there are many posters on this forum who continually tell us that this war is all the fault of the EU/ NATO/ the US (add to/ delete as necessary), that Russia is merely protecting her own interests and is not the slightest bit in expansionism.

Why do you always frame your comments so it appears that only Ukraine is suffering casualties? It's a rhetorical question.

It may not have been possible to generate AI images in 2014 but it certainly was in June 2024 (and a few years prior to that) so why didn't the Tory government amend the law to close this loophole when it was in office? The links below give an explanation of Starmer's role in the Saville case. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/21/keir-starmer-not-told-about-dropping-of-jimmy-savile-case-say-sources-dpp-labour https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

What did it say?😉

I disagree. The easiest way to avoid WW3 is for Russia to withdraw unconditionally from Ukraine but, sadly, that is not going to happen.

No this thread is not about the Labour Party, it is about a loophole in a law - introduced by a Tory government - which allows the downloading of some paedophile manuals. Your posts in this thread are no more than tawdry implications that the Labour government is somehow complacent when it comes to paedophilia and have no merit whatsoever.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/paedophile-ex-tory-mp-released-29271704 Presumably by the same logic, you will then also agree that this article proves that members of the Conservative Parliamentary Party are paedos?

Which proves what? In any event, Granville resigned as Mayor of Hackney and is, quite rightly, suspended from the Labour party while any allegations of wrongdoing are investigated. In terms of wrongdoing, imo a Tory Home Secretary overlooking the possible existence of a paedophile ring involving MPs, senior civil servants, etc far outweighs this incident in scope and severity.

Dromey is dead. Harman is no longer an MP and Hewitt's last political job was as an advisor to the former Tory Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, so how that leads you to conclude that the current Labour government will take a soft approach to paedophiles is beyond me. My previous post contained a link which illustrated a soft approach to paedophilia. In fact, the link outlined what was possible criminal neglect of his duties by a Tory Home Secretary.

Why ask me? You started the trip down memory lane with your original post.

I doubt that the current Labour government will take as "soft" an approach to the activities of paedophile groups as the Tory government of the '80s did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westminster_paedophile_dossier&wprov=rarw1

Pitiful and distasteful attempts at justifying Putin's aggression.

Fold. You win ....

Spot on. 'Agile' has replaced the 'Waterfall' as the prevailing methodology in software development. Imo what this amounts to in practice is that a company releases software which has undergone little formal testing but instead relies on the customer to effectively take on the Testing activity and report back to the developer.

The majority of the population in 26 of the member state are in favour of the EU (Greece is the exception). The provision of Education and Health services is the responsibility of the individual member states, so the EU cannot be blamed for any failings there.

Says a bloke who probably hasn't set foot in London for 10 years or more.

The US will be the butt of a joke from the UK shortly: She's called Liz Truss.

You raise some valid points. While I don't think that the EU is ungovernable, it is certainly unwieldy. The expansion of the membership in the 2000s did create problems of governance. To that end, the increased use of majority voting for legislation was probably a necessity. However, the loss of sovereignty for the individual member states and an increase in the power of the Commission are imo negative by-products. Personally, I would like to see more powers transferred to the European Parliament. On a micro level, imo the Euro has been a success. A personal ancedote: I worked on a Europe-wide aviation project which straggled the introduction of the Euro. Pre-1999, one of the most tedious parts of the job concerns the logistics of international travel e.g. ensuring that I had sufficient francs, marks, lira, pesos, etc to tide me over for trips (recall that in those days overseas cards weren't so readily accepted by businesses and banks (ATMs)). In 1999 those problems evaporated overnight. I imagine that it was even more of a godsend for those businesses operating pan-Europe on a daily basis. At a macro level, the centralisation of monetary policy decisions has caused problems. For example, a cut in interest rates might be justified for Germany but not for Italy. However, is this really any different to the problem faced by the Fed in the US where the monetary policy needs of, say, California might differ from those of New York at any one time? No one is suggesting that the US starts afresh. To state the blindingly obvious, the world today is a lot different to the one in which faced the EEC operated in the 70s/80s. In order for the Single Market to function in the 21st century, there has to be alignment on standards, etc. hence the need for greater (EU wide) regulation. The scope of the EU has obviously increased to encompass education, R&D, foreign policy, etc. I see this increased co-operation as a good thing. The EU has its' problems but all things considered, I believe that European nations benefit individually from being a member and that, on an aggregated level, Europe benefits from its' existence.

I agree that we should "look at the data". Doing so reveals that the only logical conclusion is that Brexit has had a negative economic effect on the UK. I have posted numerous links on numerous occasions supporting this view and I can only assume that you didn't bother reading them. Rather than waste my time, reposting these links, I'll try a different approach: Do a search using the string 'Economic impact of Brexit on the UK' and then investigate the results and links yourself. Also given that you appear to have access to the FT, trawl through their library of Brexit articles, podcasts and videos. Spoiler alert: Taken as a whole, they paint Brexit in a negative light. Try to put your irrational hatred of the EU to one side; take your own advice and "Look at the data".

Not at all. The alleged corruption is quite rightly being investigated (see link in my post above). If found guilty, I would hope that the individuals are punished and any necessary changes made to EU processes and procedures to minimise the chances that such events cannot happen again. Imo there is much that can be improved with the mechanics of the EU. However, I support its' fundamental principles and I do not subscribe to the overly simplistic view apparently held by many on this forum - perhaps not by you? - that the UK's problems will somehow be solved as a result of Brexit. In fact, as I pointed out on numerous occasions, the overwhelming evidence to date suggests the exact opposite.