James105

Surely the solution to this is to find a property that you can actually afford to rent. If you are already behind on rent then unless your circumstances change (higher paying job, inheritance, lottery win etc) then this is only going to get worse and I'm not surprised the LL wants to evict. The right thing to do (regardless of law) if you cannot afford the rent and there is nothing in the future that will change that is to be honest with yourself and the Landlord and come to an arrangement so that you can move out and find somewhere that is within your budget before it gets to the stage where he changes the locks.

Regardless of "need" a car provides a level of convenience that your alternative suggestions do not come close to in comparison, and yes, if someone "wants" a car and they can afford a car then they can have a car as that is how the world works, at least in free countries. People will choose to buy electric cars when they offer the same convenience and value that their ICE cars currently provide and not before then. I suspect this will be when car batteries are much, much smaller, can travel the same or more distance than ICE between charges and can be easily/quickly swapped with a pre-charged one that is bought from "petrol" stations without waiting however long for it to charge. So probably in about 40-50 years. During that period of time a better fuel source could come along that makes electric cars "evil" in comparison so people are rightly skeptical about jumping to the latest green thing. In the meantime I would suggest you "Man up" and learn to live with people going about their business as they choose to do.

I can't believe I am about to defend Sunak, but it's not his fault. Here is deputy PM Nick Clegg back in 2010 saying how it's pointless building new nuclear power stations as they would not come online until about 2021/2022 (from about 7:00 minutes) and how he would veto any public spending on them. It's short term thinking from clowns like this that has caused the energy issue in the UK today.

As someone who believes in a free market I don't really care what a company sells but it's quite funny to see the double standards of the left in action. Imagine if Target sold a range of t-shirts or mugs with the perfectly legal phrase "It's okay to be white" written on them? How do you think that would go? Are you going to pretend to yourself that you would not be outraged at this?

I'll be in the 10% of laggards on this! I think putting all the eggs in the EV basket is a bit of a mistake as battery technology is probably decades behind where it needs to be to make EVs a viable option for the majority. It's a bit of a shame all this investment was not spent making what we currently use better and letting EVs naturally replace this as and when battery tech becomes genuinely viable. The car replaced the horse and cart as clearly it was better than what came before. EVs will replace ICE when they become better than what was before in terms of distance between charges and convenience, such as being able to charge it in the equivalent time as filling a car with petrol. Currently EVs are the equivalent of the horse and cart for most people as it is less convenient than a petrol car.

The article states: "on the grounds that it “is not educational” and contains “indirect hate messages." You don't know why it was pulled and you are making assumptions. It was most likely pulled as it is rubbish, serves no educational benefit and when they saw the complaint they couldn't justify it being part of any curriculum as to include this would obviously mean leaving something else out. Which of the classic authors would you "cancel" to make way for this garbage?

Who even is the author of this rubbish "poem" and why does she deserve to be on the same bookshelf as Keats, Poe or Whitman? I could understand a bit of outrage if the classics were being pulled, but this doesn't seem to meet that standard.

The poem does not rhyme, so why miss women from this line: To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters andconditions of man

He is also 44 years old. Perfect age to be president imho. 80 is far too old for any job and there really should be a max age limit of 65 considering the demands of this post.

So in the middle of a cost of living crisis you want the people who pick the fruit and veg to not be paid appropriately for the work they are doing?

I have no idea, I'm not a Farage expert but he clearly believed that the UK would be better off outside of the EU. Let's not pretend that his thinking was to leave the EU and then try and stay as closely aligned as possible whilst keeping all the regulations that were part of being in the EU as then the better option would of course be to just stay in the EU. All the UK has done is tinkered around the edges trying to please everyone which of course means pleasing nobody and the inevitable failure that follows. There was an opportunity presented to radically rethink how the UK does business and it was an opportunity squandered by people who had their noses too deeply entrenched in the EU trough or just plain old incompetency. Cameron was right to resign as he didn't believe in it and unfortunately neither were the opportunists that followed, no matter what they said in public.

What a silly statement. When did I suggest that Farage should be the only person that advises the government and not draw from all sources of expertise? The people do not elect experts to govern, they elect representatives. It is down to those representatives to choose experts to advise them. What the UK government definitely lacked was a "vision" for how the UK should look 5/10/20/50 years after Brexit. Could Farage have provided that vision? Maybe/maybe not. We will never know.

Government advisors are not elected, they are chosen by the elected government ministers to.... advise. That's generally how it works. Some may even suggest that the man who made it his life's work to get the UK out of the EU and is probably the single most influential person for making it happen would have a unique insight/vision for how the UK would operate outside of the EU. I would suggest that the government did not have such a vision and tried to make Brexit a slightly worse version of what the UK had in the EU as they didn't believe in it or had their heads firmly planted in the EU trough. Would it have been a failure if Farage had been involved? We will never know.

Incorrect. https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-delivers-brexit-demand-to-theresa-may-on-pms-last-day-as-tory-leader-11736845 Would it be any different if he was allowed to be involved and implement his vision? We will never know.

More likely they are trying to cut costs as a result of losing customers/subscribers as they have been focusing on wokery rather than what they used to be famous for, which was creating entertaining stories that focused on actually telling a story rather than shoe horning "the narrative" into stories where it doesn't fit. Disney are also closing their ridiculously expensive Star wars hotel (after just 18 months) that they spent hundreds of millions of $ building. Is that DeSantis fault as well? Was he responsible for setting the price at $2400 per night or are Disney execs just idiots which means they alone are responsible for the $5bn worth of cuts they are trying to make, but are trying to save face (and their jobs) by pointing fingers elsewhere? https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/disney-star-wars-starcruiser-hotel-closing-b2342598.html

All the little Scotlanders have been very, very quiet on the question of independence lately. Wonder why that is...

I don't think you will ever understand why people voted for it and looking for micro reasons such as specific EU laws that individual people wanted to see removed is probably not very helpful, and only serves to make the asker of such an inane question feel superior. People voted for change. They were fed up with the way the country was being run (for whatever reason) and that referendum gave them the single opportunity they will ever see in their lifetimes where (theoretically) their vote counted for something. Voting for Labour/Tory is a vote for more of the same, whereas the referendum was.... different. The fact that neither establishment party wanted it, or were willing to implement any kind of radical change despite being given a mandate in 2019 to enact those kind of changes is not the fault of people who voted for it, nor for that matter, who campaigned for it. Was it a mistake to leave the EU if nothing was actually going to change and the UK would still be tied into the EU regardless without making some kind of radical change? Yes. If radical changes could have been made (such as massively reducing business taxes and VAT to encourage investment/jobs, or actually reducing net inwards migration to the level of the 90s) then maybe it would have been a success. Sadly, we will never know.

The state has always censored stuff that kids are too young to see regarding sexually explicit content. That is why certain movies are given adult ratings. Only "people" with very questionable intentions for kids would want them sexualised at such a young age. Why is it that you want kids to see this stuff?

What rights has he stripped from women?

Nothing gets universal support. I presume based on your suggestion that unless over 50% of the voting age population votes for something we should retain the status quo? Would you stick with that philosophy with other things people vote for as that would mean Tory governments for at least the next century? Brexit is just a rounding error in comparison to the self inflicted financial damage of lockdowns during covid and the upcoming financial lunacy of net zero - it's a shame people are looking the other way still on something that is relatively insignificant in comparison. If you want to talk about "inherent stupidity" I'd suggest those 2 policies would be a good place to start.

An undeniable truth is that a smaller minority of the electorate voted in favour of staying in the EU. What is the point you are trying to make here?

Mass school shootings/massacres are pretty much non-existent in countries that restrict gun sales, whereas in a country like the USA where anyone and everyone can buy guns these still seem to occur quite often. Any thoughts as to why that might be? Perhaps other countries that restrict gun sales coincidentally have better parenting or something?

Here is some data about what an AR-15 does should little kids have the temerity to try and protect themselves with one of those kevlar backpacks when faced with a shooter at their school and his legally obtained AR-15: With an AR-15 (the school shooters weapon of choice) they might as well have a cheesecake strapped to their back. I don't quite understand why the gun nuts seem to feel that anyone and everyone should be able to buy these things, especially due to their prevalence in mass shootings in schools.

Quite the reliance on Russian social media for this. It's good to know that the left are starting to trust the information coming from Russia and are refraining from throwing out baseless accusations that some Russian computer nerd would be able to concoct a fake profile within 30 minutes of the shooters name being announced. I think I'll hold off until something more official comes out, which based on how long it's taken for the manifesto from the trans shooter last month to be released, I won't be holding my breath.

This was what you said: "When people watch video's as their preferred medium they are unlikely to bother clicking on any community notes underneath anyway." Just saying that without community notes the lies on that video would have gone unchecked, which is what you appeared to be saying people would not do.