James105

Not really. Listening to and believing fear propaganda was a choice. Over 70% of the public supported lockdowns and being paid to do nothing, as well as wasting 1/2 trillion pounds making big pharma et all incredibly rich. If the opinion polls were against lockdowns then there would not have been lockdowns and a more sensible, Sweden style approach would have been adopted. The politicians would not have been brave enough to go against public will, especially so when it became very, very clear that only a small, well defined group of people would have been at risk from severe illness. The only people who I would say do not deserve this are the sensible ones who were against lockdowns and the associated madness of healthy people being masked and isolated from other healthy people.

Every single one of those "workers" who sat at home getting furlough money for the best part of 2 years and producing nothing should not be overly surprised about this.

They did so based on a lie that Blair told parliament. Would the Tories have invaded Iraq if they were in power and had access to the (lack of) intelligence the government had? We will never know but I would say it is unlikely.

Not that many people from the UK actually... https://theconversation.com/how-many-people-work-for-the-eu-59702 "A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania."

I suspect (another) one of the reasons people voted to leave is due to the language of people who desperately wanted the UK to remain such as the language used in this lovely little sentence. I have always been bemused by those who think they can bring others to their way of thinking by calling them bigots or some other derogatory term. I have yet to see this tactic succeed to persuade anyone to do anything (it seems - not surprisingly - to have the opposite effect), and yet those who consider themselves intellectually superior to those who think differently to them continue to use this strategy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/nhs-hospital-trusts-to-pay-out-further-55bn-under-pfi-scheme "An initial £13bn of private sector-funded investment in new hospitals will end up costing the NHS in England a staggering £80bn by the time all contracts come to an end, the IPPR thinktank has found."

I never said the EU was to blame for this, I said specifically Tony Blair was to blame. He never asked the people if they were okay with increasing immigration from ~40,000 per year to ~350,000 per year, nor was this a commitment in a manifesto. If the people were asked about this in a referendum they would have said a resounding no for all the obvious practical, social and cultural reasons you can imagine. To put it simply, if the UK hadn't been adding the equivalent of a city the size of Birmingham through inwards migration for over a decade prior to the referendum then the people of the UK would not have voted to leave the EU. Tony Blair does not get enough blame for this in my opinion.

The people in the UK never agreed to increase immigration from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands per year. Tony Blair was responsible for that and if he had made a manifesto promise to increase immigration so drastically then he would not have been voted into power. It is not accurate to say the UK people agreed to this, and the first chance the people of the UK were given to correct it (EU referendum) they took it.

From the article: "Mr Clarke's statement says the increase is "primarily due to the most recent valuation of the UK's obligation under Article 142 for EU pensions" UK taxpayers money going into the EU pension trough. Quite why the people of the UK voted to leave the EU remains one of life's little mysteries.

I don't think she has a chance of making it through to the final 2. I was kicking myself the other day for not having a wager as she was 100/1 outsider with the bookies, but I now suspect the bookies knew what they were doing by having her at that price.

Yes, but when the leadership election is over and the new leader is democratically elected, all the candidates who participated will accept the result and move on giving the new leader their full support for the good of the nation. They will not spend the next several years having temper tantrums as the result did not go their way, unlike most Labour and Remain voters.

Our beloved NHS has far more important things to focus on in these progressive times than providing luxury services like ambulances, such as filling essential roles such as this one. Although I am shocked that such an essential position is only worth the equivalent starting salary of 4 full time paramedics so there is still a long way to go.

The results of mask wearing and their effectiveness speak really do speak for themselves. Just imagine what would have happened if Thailand didn't implement mask mandates previously - they could have had an explosion of covid cases and experienced tens of thousands of cases a day! Praise be to the mask overlords who insisted I wore my mask on the beach, on my motorbike and in the park, but allowed me to remove it as soon as I got into an indoor crowded bar or restaurant. Who knows how many deaths I could have caused if not for this kind of sensible policy making. It's just basic common sense and anyone who thinks I was not saving lives by wearing a mask on a beach is clearly a mask-denier and should be labelled as such.

What is the link for that report and how were they able to ascertain that the person responsible for spreading it had no symptoms or infection?

Dear troll. Since I cannot magically make a Labour leadership election happen today and view the results of this election it is silly to ask me to try and prove that isn't it? For that kind of thing we need to look at past performance to see what might happen in the future (which is something that Bookies do when working out odds of something that might happen).

I have proven it. This exact same scenario happened in the last Labour leadership election. Starmer (Straight white male) was up against Nandy (ethnic minority female), Thornbury (female), Long-Bailey (female) and Phillips (female). Spoiler alert. The straight white male won it. If you are asking me to prove the next future labour leadership election then that is just silliness on your part.

Records only go back to 1906, but Labour have never elected anyone other than straight white males to be their leaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK) Viva diversity...

If this was a Labour leadership election the bookies would no longer be taking bets as there is only one straight white male left in the competition.

Labour leaders... Viva diversity.

If they could do so then this sort of nonsense would not need to be suggested. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-to-bring-in-allbame-shortlists-as-part-of-candidate-selection-overhaul

I think I would have a preference for Kemi Badenoch. She is an actual bona fide believer in free speech and conservative values, and is untainted by the Boris government. It would also be amusing to watch the racists on the left tie themselves in knots over her becoming PM as well, proving that you do not actually need to exclude white people for black people to get to the top - as long as they are good enough of course.

Yes, they are opinion pieces that do not provide any evidence that Patel scapegoats ordinary immigrants who play by the rules and enter the UK legally. Like I said, if you do not have any evidence of what you accuse Patel of, then it just sounds like you are attacking a brown woman without cause for simply doing her job (which is dealing with the problem of illegal immigration). As I said, we have a word for that sort of thing ...

She is in charge of the department that is responsible for dealing with illegal immigrants. That is her job and if she does not try to do her job then the UK will effectively have open borders and all the social problems that come along with such a reckless policy, such as the destruction of the health and social security services. Do you have any evidence that she has scapegoated, or attempted to enact policies against, or has a problem with ordinary immigrants who play by the rules and enter the UK legally? If you do not it just sounds like you are attacking a brown woman without cause who is just trying to do her job. We have a word for that kind of thing you know...

I'd wager that not one single American cop has used the neck restraint technique used on Floyd following the extensive social media / media coverage and outrage was meted out at following the Floyd incident. Since there was no outrage after the Timpa incident it probably never occurred to Chauvin he was doing anything wrong. Neck restraints were authorised for use in Minneapolis at the time of the Floyd incident. Would that have been the case if significant outrage had been applied to the Timpa incident? Unlikely. Imagine the Timpa coverage got even a fraction of the attention of Floyd following the release of the Timpa incident footage. That restraining technique would never have been used on Floyd (since it would have been outlawed), ergo he would still be alive today. The US has had a history of killing unarmed folks (black and white) that did not comply with police instructions. The US is dangerous place to be a police officer as everyone there potentially could be carrying a gun. To not comply with police instructions is a very risky strategy that sometimes leads to unarmed folks (white and black) getting killed by the police.

Sure, I understand you want the benefits but if you don't meet the requirements then you cannot have them as this visa is not designed for you. I want the benefits people over 50 get but since I am not over 50 I cannot have them. Perhaps this will inspire you to work harder and earn more so that you do meet them. I don't see why you think the requirements are so unreachable as this is the one that applies to me and I don't see the part about my company being worth $150m or traded on the stock market. I don't know what the "target industries" part is but I'd be surprised if my industry (software engineering) is not on it. Highly-skilled professional Personal income: Personal income of a minimum of US$80,000/year in the past two years In case of personal income below US$80,000/year, but no less than USD$40,000/year in the past two years or before retirement, applicants must have a Master's degree or above in science and technology, or special expertise relevant to the job assignment in Thailand. No minimum personal income for professionals working for Thai government agencies. Current employer: A business in any targeted industries A higher education institution, research institution, specialised training institution, or Thai government agency. Experience: At least five years of work experience in the targeted industries except for applicants with a PhD or above in the relevant fields of the targeted industries, or applicants working for Thai government agencies. Health insurance: Health insurance of at least US$50,000 coverage or social security benefits insuring treatment in Thailand, or at least US$100,000 deposit.