James105

They will need to invent a darker red I think as they have "shot their load" on the darkest available red for a mere 33 degrees. Not sure what they can do if the temperatures get as high again as the heatwaves experienced in 1976 (which occurred before man made climate change was invented).

If Iran had nuclear weapons it would fire them at Israel and/or USA. This is why they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons and unless you can point to another reason for enriching Uranium to 60% then they were on their way to building them. The USA and/or Israel have nuclear weapons. Since they are responsible countries they have not fired their nuclear weapons at Iran or any other country that has publicly stated that they would like to wipe out the USA and/or Israel even though they could do so. Therefore we can conclude that responsible countries (USA and/or Israel) should be allowed to have nuclear weapons and irresponsible countries (like Iran) should not. I believe that Iran promised they would not build nuclear weapons but decided to FA (by enriching Uranium to 60%) and now have FO what happens when they break their promise. I believe America has taught them a valuable lesson which if heeded could prevent further attacks.

Yes, yes and telephones were giant cumbersome things that could not fit in someones pocket 100 years ago and could only make phone calls, yet now they contain more technology and computing power than was needed by NASA to send someone to the moon, can still make phone calls and they fit in a pocket. Thinking that we have peaked in energy technology and cannot solve the very far future problem of natural climate change cycles in a couple of thousand (or more likely hundreds of thousands) of years or will not be able to relocate to another planet is just childlike naivety. Thousands upon thousands of species (probably millions) have become extinct on this planet due to the climate changes this planet has experienced over its 4.3 billion year existence as they did not have the intelligence (or opposable thumbs) to build the tools to change that. We are the first species to exist on this planet to have the wherewithal and the intelligence to prevent our extinction from such an event, but only if we use the tools and energy we have at our disposal to do so. If everyone had your attitude (thankfully they do not) then we would end up preventing ourselves from building on the creations and the inventions of our ancestors to save ourselves from future (very, very far future) events.

Nobody cares about reading 75 pages of "the end of the world is nigh". Nobody. Greta is your target audience but has moved onto the Palestine bandwagon now.

Yawn. People 100 years ago didn't imagine that anyone would be able to make a phone call without being tethered to a wire that connects to something. That giant ball of flames that is 13 million times the size of earth you see in the daytime when you look up has unlimited power that can be harnessed and isn't due to go out for at least several billion years. I imagine in 100 years or so then that power will be used a lot more efficiently than it does now to produce energy. Going back to the dark ages as the climate doom mongers desire is not going to enable the research to take place to do that now is it? Also, since humans make such a teeny tiny impact to the climate then if people listened to the likes of you then all we would do is hasten our extinction as we would not be able to carry out the research needed to tackle climate change caused by the natural cycle of climate change on this planet and/or find other planets to relocate to when needed.

Open borders and a functioning welfare state are indeed mutually exclusive. Denmark published the figures that the UK are too afraid to admit. You could probably get away with an open border policy that allowed westerners from western nations to freely move between countries, but that is not what is happening is it?

Well at least it seems that Labour are coming to terms with the fact that you cannot have open borders and a functioning welfare state - you can only have one or the other. It's a shame that they have decided to continue the open borders policy and do not want to make the savings by deporting foreign nationals who claim benefits and/or defending the borders rather than supporting the British nationals that need welfare, but it is what it is.

I wonder what made this soon to be proscribed terror group select this particular RAF station as a potentially weak target.

He has caused as many trials to collapse as you have then, which I presume is zero. This argument that he "nearly" did something is beyond ridiculous. Tommy Robinson has been speaking about this since 2004. His cousin was raped when she was 13 - she was plied with heroin and raped by muslim rape gangs in his home town of Luton. I'm not sure "jumping on a bandwagon" is the typical phrase used when someone speaks out when a family member is raped but whatever. The police didn't take any action against her rapists. Had the police not covered this up I doubt you would have ever heard of Tommy Robinson had justice been done on behalf of his cousin. The reason that a national enquiry is happening is because Elon Musk amplified the horror of it when he discovered how bad it was. Starmer has been bounced into this as they refused to do it 6 months ago. He got Casey to do the report as she was (at the time) on the same page as Starmer and didn't want it. Unfortunately for Starmer she is one of the few Labour types that has a conscience and when she discovered that only 1 council volunteered for a local enquiry she changed her view on this.

Yes, well the Pakistani rape gangs have been operating with impunity for decades and these are examples of the police effectively aiding and abetting the rapists, but I haven't seen a report of any police officers being imprisoned for this offense. Rape (or the aiding and abetting of) is not subject to statutory limitations so regardless of it being 7 years ago it is still as relevant as if it happened yesterday as justice has not been served to the police officers involved, or their leaders if following orders. Lots of these kind of reports (out of literally hundreds if not thousands) will surface over the coming months/years if the national enquiry does its job, so those in denial will have to bury their heads in the sand extra deeply to avoid hearing or seeing the truth spoken about by the likes of Tommy Robinson et all over the last 10-15 years. If you do hear about even a fraction of some of the horrors these rapists were able to commit with impunity you too will be "jumping on the far right bandwagon" and want to see justice so that this can never happen again.

You stated earlier: "The large sums collected from Gulf nations allows the NHS to offer free healthcare to UK nationals who are on social assistance." This is a lie. You can of course change your lie to a partial truth that Qatar might use private non-NHS hospitals in the UK, and there is no evidence that is what they did with this camel herder rapist, but lets not pretend that is what you said initially. The NHS budget for 2024/25 (planned) is £197 billion. Its projected to be £204 billion in 2025/26. Here is a link: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell

Wait a minute. If these males were entering the UK scouring the streets of Soho looking to obtain consensual sex in exchange for money then you might have a point! But they aren't, they are raping women, hence the name *rapists*.

Yes he is and I am sure the UK taxpayer will have to fund his stay at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds in a comfortable prison for the next several years rather than spending that money on something useful, but this is not good enough any more. Too many girls are getting raped by foreign nationals (disproportionately so) and questions have to be asked as to what they are doing in the country and who approved their entry and how someone like a camel herder was able to fund it. I'd go as far to suggest that no male from any country that requires women to be covered from head to toe should be allowed to enter the UK (or any western country) as the men from those areas/cultures obviously cannot control themselves when confronted with an uncovered western woman's arm or leg. It's long overdue that we acknowledge that not all cultures are equal and policies/laws are designed around this blatantly obvious fact.

So this is a lie. The NHS budget comes (extortionately) from UK taxpayers to the tune of £192 billion which pays for healthcare (it is not free) for UK nationals on social assistance and of course illegal immigrants, foreign nationals and tourists who need medical care. So back to my original question. Who paid for this camel herder to come to the UK and rape these women?

I'm struggling to understand how exactly a Qatari camel herder found himself in the UK being treated in a UK (presumably NHS) hospital, or how exactly he was able to fund this rape-cation. Who paid for this and if it is the UK taxpayer then why is the whitehall official who approved this not in jail for aiding and abetting the rape of these women?

I was literally replying to your misinformation which said: "Labour always has been a party that respects women's rights" and providing evidence to back up why your claim is false.

That is a lie. How many Labour politicians supported the rights of men to invade women's spaces? Answer - most of them. The supreme court is the only entity that can lay claim to supporting women's rights with their decision to clarify that women are in fact women and that men wearing lipstick and a dress are not.

Using the term "thinking" with Labour politicians is something of an oxymoron. They are the worst kind of reactionary student activists, but even that is insulting to student activists. They continue to amaze with their idiocy. Just when you think they must have peaked in their stupidity they somehow manage to surpass it.

Yes, that is the case and it is still 24 weeks. It is still illegal for doctors to carry out an abortion after 24 weeks without a good medical reason for doing so. The reason this case came about was due to an expectant mother who wanted to hide the consequences of an affair she had so she pretended to be 10 weeks pregnant (she was actually 37 weeks) so she could order pills from the internet that would kill the unborn child. She was prosecuted and jailed for this. Labour think that taking away that child's right to life so that the mother can cover up an affair she had is acceptable. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-65882169 The reason these pills could be ordered on the internet is a hangover from Covid days where people could not actually see a doctor. The correct solution to this would be to revert the rules on obtaining these drugs to how it was pre-covid, but as Labour are absolute morons (or just evil) they changed the law so that people can lie to obtain pills that can kill their unborn child even after 24 weeks and up until birth without consequence.

Yes, it was a free vote after about 45 minutes of discussion with no thought or discussion whatsoever given to the potential consequences of making this change in the law. This is at best a shambolic way to make laws, and at worst it is simply evil.

I'll share the link for you but I wonder what the point is as you will no doubt criticize the source (BBC) or find some other way to continue the denial. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-43400336 You will also be able to read (from that link) this case: "A 12-year-old girl was found, being plied with alcohol, in a car with a 22-year-old man. He had indecent images of her on his phone. No action was taken." Or perhaps this one will bring your head out of the sand, but I doubt it: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-41844276 "The report said lessons must be learned after one of the girls was wrongly taken to court for alleged racial abuse against her abuser, while her abuser was not investigated until years later."

If you were from the UK you would know why the law is 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason for termination after that date. The reason for 24 weeks (although medical advancements may suggest this could be 16 weeks) is that is the time where the child can live outside of the womb. So the unborn child previously had a right to life 24 weeks after conception, now that right has been taken away. The previous abortion laws were supported by the vast majority. Labour had no mandate to change this.

This is the monster that snuck in the amendment to a 380 page policing and crime bill to allow murder of a healthy, viable child the day before it is born without any proper scrutiny. They always look like you would expect them to look don't they.

Yes, it has. If something is decriminalized then it is effectively now legal, and yes that includes up to birth. If a woman terminates her baby the day before she is due to give birth she will face no consequences, but if she terminates the baby after birth then that is murder and a life sentence. I said abortion law is a settled issue in the UK, which is why no party had any changes to abortion law in their manifesto, nor has there been any campaigns to change the law on this. If you were from the UK you would know this.

The abortion law is/was a settled issue in the UK. No party had any changes to abortion law in their manifesto. Nobody was campaigning for a change in the law. Labour have now effectively legalised abortion up to birth and this was after just a 45 minute debate in parliament and added to a bill that was effectively already passed so it will not face any further scrutiny nor do the public have any say on this. These people are shockingly evil.