placeholder

The thing is, this is actually a well written and informative article about potential corruption problems in the European Parliament. But this being the Telegraph, instead of presenting it that way, it came up with a headline that has no evidentiary backing the in the text of the article itself. Instead it offers just a soupçon of wan speculation: "There is little sign yet that the scandal is increasing the appetite of other member states to follow Britain and break free, but the investigation by an anti-corruption unit of the Belgian police is far from over and it is impossible to know where it might end."

It's a common derogatory word characterizing opponents of Brexit. It shows the level the the author is operating at.

Did somebody twist your arm to make you cite it on these pages? Is it just a comment that you randomly decided to post?

Well, it could be a cost saving measure. They can replace a server or 2 with someone tabulating the results on their fingers and toes.

The software removed a banned word. That word gives one an idea of what kind of site spiked-online is.

Here, for your edification, is the meaning of rampant adjective UK /ˈræm.pənt/ US /ˈræm.pənt/ rampant adjective (INCREASING) (of something bad) getting worse quickly and in an uncontrolled way: rampant corruption Rampant inflation means that our wage increases soon become worth nothing. He said that he had encountered rampant prejudice in his attempts to get a job. Disease is rampant in the overcrowded city.

Where in this article is it stated as a fact the there is rampant corruption in the EU?. They say it's possible there may be more corrupt members. Not that there are. And it doesn't say how many there possibly are. So, no, you stated it as a fact without having the evidence to back it up.

So you know how the investigation began and what level of support the Belgian Police received from the EU? "The rampant corruption within their ranks"? I think you need a reminder from the World News landing page: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

And you think that evidence just surfaced magically? It was thanks to the Belgian police. You know, Belgium is the country that contains Brussels, the city that hosts the official seats of the "European Commission, Council of the European Union, and European Council, as well as a seat (officially the second seat) of the European Parliament." https://www.google.com/search?q=where+is+eu+located+in+belgium&oq=where+is+eu+located+in+belgium&aqs=chrome..69i57.5951j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If the EU was organizationally corrupt then it would be denying that there was a problem or obfuscating. Instead it's going after Kaili and associates swiftly and harshly as that portion of the BBC article you didn't quote makes clear.

Empty allegations are all you've got. Repeating them doesn't make them any more valid. As for that spiked article, it begins with "<deleted> Twitter lost it again yesterday, after Brexit Party MEPs turned their backs in the European Parliament as musicians performed Ode to Joy, the EU’s not-quite-national anthem, to mark the beginning of the new parliamentary session." And nothing in that article pointed to any corruption within the EU.

I guess when the specifics of a case are against you, one way to wriggle out of it is to cite generalities.

It means that in virtually every government there will be some corrupt members. Sometimes very high up, like a Prime Minister, sometimes lower like 1 of 14 vice presidents. But just because a few members are corrupt, that doesn't mean that the government or organization in question is corrupt.

In a case I'm thinking of the leader of a political party solicited a donation of $200,000 from a private party to luxuriously refurbish the government flat where he lived. And Eva Kalli is not Vice President of the European Parliament. She is one of 14 Vice Presidents.

Oh, so now it's the EU that did it. Not just individual members. By that logic, what does that say about other governments where members are corrupt? I can think of one recent scandal involving a European country that is not a member of the EU.

Which could be the fate of underclad flesh and blood Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

Another reason for fossil fuel dependent nations to double their efforts to lessen their dependency on fossil fuels.

I bet Trump's defense will be that he openly and transparently helped himself to those images.

For them, the #1 priority is "owning the libs". So, any action that they believe accomplishes that is, to their way of thinking, justified.

I suspect that the mods removed it because the source was suspect. Which, if true, kind of impeaches its bona fides.

It's clear now that's the case. But how were we supposed to know that? It's likely there are members of aseannow.com who would actually endorse kimdotcom's allegation.

They've been calling for a redo once the aftermath proved to be a fiasco. With Musk in charge, the fiasco is already here. In both instances, there's a very strong case to be made for change.

You have set the bar very high for other conspiracy-minded posters to top. Very impressive!

bamnutsak's comment sounds like it came from an "off-the-deep-end-bot"

I think you were right, after all.