RayC

Biden's going after the bird and cattle vote? (No sheep quips please. Thank you).

... said the editor of the 'Bigot and Misogynist weekly'

Cherry orchard located. Plenty of pickings. Other fruits also available. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reports/

@Hawaiian is correct. Although some anti-biotics are 'targeted', many are not and they can therefore eliminate friendly gut bacteria. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/247213/antibiotics-promote-growth-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria/#:~:text=Some antibiotics target specific bacteria,with digestion and other processes.

Is there any meaning attached to these sentences? Rhetorical question: Answer is 'No'.

I would agree with most of that but would argue that this shift in power has been recognised in mainland Europe with the realisation that it needs to act as a bloc to remain relevant. However, unfortunately imo 52% of those voting in a referendum in the UK had a different view.

Are you suggesting that a British expat who has lived in Thailand for say 4 years, speaks no more than very basic Thai, cannot read Thai and spends most of his time in an expat bubble is not being inconsistent when he demands that immigrants to the UK integrate themselves into UK society by embracing British culture, simply because the stamp in his passport states "Non-Imm" whilst that of the immigrant to the UK reads "Imm"? It's a semantic justification for hypocrisy.

Not that I am aware of.

I don't understand your point? Legal immigrants to the UK need to have a passport and visa. Illegal immigrants to the UK and Thailand will either be treated as refugees or deported. Anyway, that is tangential to the point which was I was making i.e. that those calling for immigrants to fully integrate into UK society should, if they are being consistent, apply the same requirement to UK expats who have made Thailand their home. So far the only attempt to counter my contention relies on semantics.

If Labour initiatives to reduce the number of boats landing are successful, the question of deporting those who do arrive becomes less of an issue.

Could of been worse. I've indirectly fallen foul of the Arabic grammar police. Where's the justice in that?

I'll bet my bottom dollar that whatever is the verdict, you'll take umbrage with it. If the person is acquitted or receives a "light" sentence it will be because of her gender. If she receives a long sentence it will be because she is white.

Did you miss the bit where it says that she is standing trial for her alleged crimes? You imply that this case is an example of misandry despite the fact that there is zero evidence to suggest this while at the same time displaying your usual misogyny. For good measure, you top it off with a bit of "nudge, nudge, get in there my son". Nice going.

So the white man living in the UK is now a 2nd class citizens? The evidence suggests otherwise. "Allaha Akbar" (God is great). A view held by followers of most deities. I assume that the councillor believed that God was responsible for his victory. Personally, I'd have thanked the voters in my ward.

The discrepancy still exists. You require that those living in the UK should integrate while not demanding the same of Brits living in Thailand.

Powell was talking about "Black immigration" and got it completely wrong. Whites aren't subservient to blacks; the black man doesn't have 'the whip hand' in the UK as he predicted. Instead, what we have is a society in which all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and where second and third generation, British born black men and women play their full part in society, be that as judges, MPs, bus drivers, bin men or whatever.

And immigrants to the UK are only allowed to stay for the duration of their visas. If they want to stay longer then they have to get it renewed which is not automatic. After 5 years an immigrant can then apply for leave to remain in the UK but, again, this is not automatically granted. So little real difference between immigrants to the UK (certainly for the first five years) and those on Non-O 'visas' in Thailand. Seems like double standards if ex-pat Brits expect immigrants to fully integrate into UK society whilst at the same time thinking that shouldn't be expected of them in Thailand. If I lived in a country where the locals didn't want me I'd move but, of course, that's up to the individual.

No. I mean immigrants who enter on a student or work related visa.

So then you have no problem with immigrants not fully integrating into UK society given that they don't have the same rights as UK citizens e.g they have no rights to remain in the country indefinitely, they cannot vote in general elections?

Thinly disguised racist claptrap wrapped up in a conspiracy theory. Too much there to pick apart piece by piece, but suffice to say that she clearly knows little about London as a city and even less about Brussels.

Are you suggesting that individuals living in Thailand full-time under 'Non-O' status shouldn't be expected to integrate into Thai society, while immigrants to the UK should be expected to integrate into UK society?

"I would add, no single men/. Any single male fleeing a war, should be sent back to fight for his country" "Agree 100%". If you now agree with this statement, then it is a complete volte-face on your part: On the Ukraine thread, you are forever pleading with Ukraine to surrender.

Unfortunately you are right about It not being a new thing. But you and Powell were wrong. Whites aren't subservient to blacks; the black man doesn't have 'the whip hand' as Powell predicted. Instead, what we have in the UK is a society in which all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and where second and third generation, British born black men and women play their full part in society, be that as judges, MPs, bus drivers, bin men or whatever.

Congratulations. Wear your 'Ignore' badge with pride. It confirms that you have made a coherent argument for which he has no counter. (I was inducted into the club last year. I still boast about It).

Thanks for the link. I imagine that Borrell regrets ever making that particular speech. The subsequent Oxford speech suggests that he now chooses his words more carefully. In any event, it doesn't change the substance of what he was saying i.e. that he hopes for an Ukrainian victory.