James105

I agree that Moscow should not be allowed to host the Olympics during this time which would be the direct comparison to the point you are making, but that has nothing to do with this topic though does it?

Who cares? Russian news is propaganda and is not much different to the news in the west which just carries different propaganda. Athletes train their whole lives to be able to compete in these competitions, do not have any influence over what their politicians do or do not do and a birthplace lottery should not be a deciding factor in whether they can compete against other athletes who happened to be born in more "acceptable" countries. Politics should have no place in sports.

If you had actually been to Amsterdam you would be well aware that there are public urinals on the streets which avoids this particular issue. Maybe you should try and visit a place before offering your expert opinion on it.

America, after Sandy Hook, decided collectively that a child's right to life is less important than an American's right to purchase and own semi-automatic rifles with as little fuss as possible. Every democratic vote taken since then has reaffirmed this. If American's wanted a different approach that didn't involve their kids getting gunned down at school they would have voted for it by now. School shootings are here to stay.

So apparently the shooter was being treated for an "emotional disorder" and was still allowed to purchase 7 guns from 5 different stores. I am not sure this is quite what the founding fathers had in mind when drafting the second amendment. Perhaps it needs an update, something like an "amendment" perhaps?

I doubt it is a personal choice for anyone in Thailand who works in 7/11 etc. I haven't seen the face of the person working in any shops here for the best part of 3 years. I feel quite sorry for these people who have to keep their masks on for 10+ hours a day.

Indeed...

Yet you brought up independence in literally the first line of your post....

Independence? This guy has failed at everything he has touched. The union has not looked more secure since the act of union in 1707.

These are team events though, the same concept as mixed doubles in tennis, or sports such as equestrian where the horse is the one with the athletic ability. This does not mean that Andy Murray would have been able to compete against women in singles tennis if he wore a wig and called himself Andrea so it's hardly the same thing as what this topic is about - men being barred from competing against women.

This is where continued escalation takes us. Are there any responsible adult leaders left in the Western world that are ready to stand up and start the call for de-escalation and peace talks? Yes, this will mean looking a bit less virtuous, and yes other, more virtuous leaders will not be publicly happy, but secretly they will be relieved that someone bolder than them has said it. The proles will not be happy but they will get over it and there will always be another war somewhere in the world they can get behind (on the side of what the media tells them are the good guys of course) and use the "good guys" flag on their Twitter bios in place of the Ukraine one.

A female category (exclusively for biological women) and an "open to all" category for everyone else is all that is needed here. No need to over complicate matters. This will ensure that elite women have a fair playing field and elite men will continue to compete with each other. Average men will continue to be average and not win gold in women's sporting events.

Strong women can indeed compete against weak men and win, but that isn't really what is being talked about here is it.

People should have the same rights as their pet dogs. If you let a dog die of starvation the same way as this example of a human being tortured at the end of her life you would rightly be arrested for animal cruelty. https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/21/elderly-woman-dies-28-days-after-carers-stopped-giving-her-food-and-water-18475773/

The topic is about a country that has made something illegal which is also illegal in many other countries that all have something in common (Islam). Why would that be out of scope for this topic other than the fact it's an uncomfortable truth the left doesn't want to acknowledge? The only reason this particular instance has generated some outrage is that it is *not* a majority muslim country so Uganda is not privy to the bigotry of low expectations that would give them a free pass on this.

Presumably they must have ticked all the required boxes now for FIFA to award them the next world cup.

They really should be getting their info from Greta, as she really knows what she is talking about: Just need to figure out what I am going to do with the 3 months humanity has remaining as of course will need to make the most of it!

Of course there was no outrage as the BBC agreed to continue to provide it for "free" as part of an agreement they signed with the government - they reneged on this. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/06/bbc-pay-cost-free-tv-licences-over-75s-fee-deal The BBC should be cutting back on services, excessive salaries and stop trying to compete with commercial channels if they do not have enough money. There is no need for it to be so bloated.

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.