James105

That only applies to those over 75 and on pension credit, so excludes poor pensioners under 75 and any who do not qualify for pension credit, and it's not just pensioners that are poor that struggle to pay for their heating bills. All these people are charged the exact same amount as the billionaires which helps to fund multi-millionaire Lineker's salary.

I think what you are referring to is regressive taxes or benefits. Just like the TV licence in fact that helps to fund the multi millionaire Lineker's salary which costs the billionaire the exact same as it does that poor pensioner who cannot afford to heat their home.

Money typically. People get very rich out of wars. Obviously when escalation reaches it's inevitable end point and there is no option but peace, and the guys with the 6000 nukes have a strong bargaining hand and get their way anyway, all the warmongers and those with Ukraine flags in their Twitter bios will be shaking their head at the needless loss of life wondering how it all came to this.

Australia disincentivised the illegal immigration to their shores by offshoring asylum processing and it absolutely worked to stop small boat journeys so to say that something that has not been tried in the UK would not work when it has clearly worked elsewhere is ridiculous. A governments first priority is to keep its citizens safe. If people are illegally entering the UK without documentation then it is impossible to ascertain their intentions or if they are genuine asylum seekers. Other countries seem to have the right to say no to those arriving across their borders without documentation so why is it illegal for the UK to prevent this? The result of ignoring this problem has led to tens of thousands attempting the dangerous crossing across the channel with number only ever going up. Why not just say you want open borders as this would take a lot less words than the obfuscating you did above? Of course at the same time you would have to say you wish to destroy the NHS and the welfare state as this would be the end result of such an inane policy.

Yes, the government have failed to control the borders. This is obviously true. So why all the complaints from the left when they attempt to implement policies that are designed to control the borders? I don't get this lefty logic of complaining about an issue the government has failed on then complaining even louder when they try and correct it.

That's quite surprising it is considered as an accepted source on here considering it gets a 'Mixed' rating on the media bias site (which was used as reasoning for why a post from GB news was removed even though GB news has the same rating): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ "Overall, we rate The Guardian Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years."

https://www.dw.com/en/new-german-migration-official-aims-to-send-refugees-to-africa/a-64667296 I wonder if our Gary would be brave enough to compare 2020s Germany to 1930s Germany with this kind of thinking. Looking forward to him tweeting about it now that he has got his freedom of speech back.

Maybe gun sales are down for the quarter. Every single time an announcement like this is made gun sales go up as scared Americans go out and buy some more guns. If you want to increase sales of something then the easiest way is to tell people that stocks are running low and they will soon be rationed or, as in this case, new laws will be coming soon to restrict purchases. I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA have cottoned on to this and actually lobby for gun control knowing full well it will never get passed just to increase sales. Or maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to the US and guns.

That works right up until you need to decide which prison to put the person in if they have committed a crime or that person wishes to compete in sports, or one of the many other reasons that certain spaces are separated by sex. At that point it becomes essential to know what that persons birth sex is so that the rights of biological women are not trampled over in pursuit of "the latest thing/cause" that has been jumped on by all the usual suspects.

It's directly relevant. Bills are not made in a vacuum and lawmakers look at other countries experiences for research. What I posted was a relevant link that shows how important it is to safeguard children, especially when it comes to making choices that permanently alter their bodies before they are mature enough to make that choice. I'll try again just for the hell of it - which right(s) do trans people specifically not have that other humans have? It seems all these bills are attempting to safeguard kids and I don't know how anyone could say that is "sinful". Are there any that take rights away from adults?

This one comes under the category of safeguarding kids from having their bodies permanently altered before they are mature enough to make a decision. Some parents are simply homophobic and would prefer a "daughter" rather than a gay son. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids

Okay well there are over a hundred there so lets pick one at random. The birth certificate. This is an accurate record of someones birth that (presumably trans) want to change to become a lie. Non trans people do not have the right to change their birth certificates and I am not allowed to change my date of birth to what I identify as (10 years younger) as that would be changing a fact into a lie. This is understandable but presumably trans people have the ability to legally change their names just like everyone else does if they wish to be known by a different name? These are not "anti-trans" bills. They just affirm the same rights everyone else has. Which right do trans people specifically not have that other humans have?

What rights are they being denied? As far as I can make out they are not allowing kids to make permanent life altering changes to their bodies until they are an adult, in much the same way as kids cannot get tattooed until they are 18. Other than that, what rights are they missing that other humans have?

The sun obtained a video of him asking a "friend" how to access the Onion (slang for dark web) on his phone. The pedophile has only served half his sentence and can be put back in prison for breaking bail conditions. I would think any attempt to access illegal material would be a one way trip back to jail even if it is unsuccessful. Hopefully his "friend" is also having his hard drive forensically analysed as well. Clearly prison has done nothing to rehabilitate him (if that is even possible). The parole board should be held accountable for their decisions to release predators like this back into the wild after only serving half their sentence and their reasoning for letting him out should be made public.

Yes, I find it quite amazing how much these people can get paid for saying "that was a good goal" and "he will be disappointed with that" or variations thereof. I find the football analysis provided by the content creators on YouTube significantly more insightful and struggle to comprehend why the BBC did not take the opportunity with this walkout to have a clear out and bring fresher faces in. It doesn't need elite ex pros to present football highlights on comparable wages to what they were receiving for playing football where their real talent actually was. Des Lyneham didn't have a football career and no-one would claim he wasn't an effective MOTD presenter because of this.

Try not to be so sensitive. I've no idea what alt-right actually is but I am no fan of the Tories so could not care less what happens to them. The problem with people on the left though is that they do tend to see minorities as one single homogenous group who all share the same views and are not able to see them as individuals that have their own minds. Try reading this article to get a different opinion of what other holocaust survivors thought of what Lineker said: https://www.thejc.com/news/news/shame-on-you-holocaust-survivor-tells-lineker-over-asylum-policy-tweet-4zb8cBppRtzYvTlwpQUNos

Well yes, ideally he would, but like many footballers becoming excellent at football took priority over his educational development so it's not really his fault. If he insists on continuing to post dimwitted nonsense on Twitter I do think the BBC should help him out by giving him a bit of education that he no doubt missed out on when he was younger. Meeting survivors of the holocaust or perhaps even visiting Auschwitz would help fill in some of the gaps in his knowledge and would go some way to prevent him comparing things he simply disagrees with to the Nazi's.

Indeed. I do think that he should be asked to go and speak to some survivors of the holocaust so that they can help him to understand the differences between the actual Nazi's and what they did and the current Tory government. It's never too late for someone to get a bit of education about history. This will help prevent him from getting a bit confused about policies that are designed to save people from drowning by making a treacherous journey across the English channel with policies that are designed to basically commit genocide and kill millions of people.

These soulless ghouls are the ones attempting to stop people dying trying to make the dangerous crossing over the English channel, whereas the "best of us" are the ones attempting to ensure these needless deaths continue.

People often cite the "Dublin agreement" as though it really allowed the UK to return asylum seekers who came to the UK on small boat crossings. It did not. "There were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece. There were just 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France." https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/444/transfers-of-asylum-seekers-from-the-uk-under-the-dublin-system#:~:text=There were just 209 transfers,4.

Sure, just like Jo Brand was when she was making a joke about throwing battery acid at politicians. Do you think she should be incarcerated for this or do you think people should still be allowed to make jokes, even if they are a bit offensive? https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jan/27/jo-brand-face-no-further-action-battery-acid-joke

Please do, although the EU is not the ECHR (which has 47 members) and was formed in 1950 so it would be completely irrelevant to whatever point you think you would be making by using it.

Only complete fools would suggest that Jeremy Clarkson meant that as anything other than a joke. I don't recall any stories of him following up on this where he actually lined up any nurses and shot them in front of their families which does suggest that he didn't mean it literally. Pretty sure he says the same thing about cyclists/caravan owners as well. His TV persona is a character of a grumpy old man which proved very successful for the BBC. Gary Lineker doesn't have that kind of TV persona and if he did then I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if he demanded similar treatment for the Tories.

I'm not sure a 20 day publicity stunt counts as "accommodated 2 refugees". Following the links: "in September 2020, after welcoming a student from Pakistan" https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-style/gary-lineker-still-touch-two-29434358 Are students from Pakistan considered refugees?

Sure, but that is just PR guff that will never, ever happen that gets people excited for whatever reason. I'm sure the UK gov is well aware of how toothless the ECHR is but selectively chooses to implement judgements for things they wanted to do anyway and then laying the blame at the ECHR. I was just pointing out that even if the ECHR rules against the UK gov there is no reason to follow the judgement, just like in the almost 10,000 instances from the other 47 members of the ECHR.