Roadsternut

Too late for back pedalling. You outed yourself.

You add whatever reason you like. Or you add me to your blocked list.

Both sides are dependant on external support to stay in the fight. Russia is utterly dependant on China buying Russian oil, and in return, stuffing the Russian economy with tat to give a mirage that things are hunky dory. Ukraine has taken a Euro 90bn loan, out of which Euro 60 bn can be spent on weapons. The loan is intended to be repaid on the conclusion of hostilities through Russian reparations. The annual cost of servicing the loan is met from frozen Russian sovereign assets. China views the war as bad for business. Pivoting Iran away from Russia and towards China might be significant. The future is bleak for Russia. It has turned into a vassal economy. Russia supplies raw materials, and in return takes manufactured goods. This is the situation most of the 3rd World found itself during the Cold War. The stolen lands represent a pyrrhic victory. These are destroyed lands, where GDP has collapsed. Infrastructure is severely degraded. International pressure will assume the only money going into these lands will be Russian taxpayer money. The Donbas will bleed Russia dry. In the end, the Russians won't want it. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4723649-russia-is-now-a-chinese-colony-while-still-foolishly-dreaming-of-empire/mlite/ https://warontherocks.com/2026/02/the-chinese-yoke-russias-return-to-vassalship/ https://www.ryanjhite.com/2025/11/29/is-russia-becoming-a-vassal-of-china/ https://jamestown.org/russia-kowtows-to-china/ Its the last European Empire to collapse. The Russian Federation might not see out even the decade. In order for Russia to have any chance of surviving in its current borders, Putin must be defeated. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/09/16/strategic-forecast-russia-collapse-risk/

redacted

I don't care. Report the post if it offends you.

Amazingly, that's not the reason passports were introduced in the modern era. The modern passport was introduced during WW1 not as a means to facilitate entry into a country, but to facilitate exit. Governments were worried engineers and scientists would leave during a war. This followed the ancient passports, which were proof of permission to travel. In China, needed a passport to travel anywhere in the Empire. In the Islamic Caliphate, you only got travel documents if you had paid your taxes. Henry V introduced the English passport, so bearers could prove who they were; "safe conduct" passes, hence the wording in the opening pages of the British passports. Until the first world war, women in the UK weren't able to get a passport. They had to be written in as an accompanying traveller on a man's passport. Yet women did travel on their own. Because passports weren't needed to travel in the 19th Century. For the UK, technically the proof of my citizenship is my birth certificate, because its pre-1983. Why isn't that accepted as proof to enter the country of my birth. The onus is on Border Force to prove who I am. Elsewhere, its discussed that overseas British citizens are entitled to vote. Since 2022, the 15 year limit has been removed. This 15 year limit was originally introduced by the Blair government to overturn the 20 year limit the Tories used. Getting rid of this limit was a Conservative Party election manifesto. Overseas voting rights were introduced in 1985, also by the Conservatives. Many UK expatriates are still subject to UK taxation, if they retain property and assets in the UK. A passport is not necessary to vote. We know it doesn't actually cost the government £100 to issue a passport. In Spain, a passport costs £25, in Ireland, £65, Germany, £70. The Certificate of Entitlement is a tax. It doesn't cost the government £586 to verify citizenship. If you were born before 1983, the only document needed for a first time passport is a birth certificate, or if you have lost that, a certified replacement, cost £12.50. A UK emergency travel document costs £125. It seems a conscious effort by the Labour party to try and disenfranchise 1 million people who are overseas dual nationals. Essentially this is national ID by a backdoor; you are required to possess a passport to prove who you are. Note, currently not only is it not mandatory to have a passport, the government has the power to withdraw a passport due to criminality etc, and restrict your ability to travel. Like Sir David Davies, I am viscerally opposed to the idea of a national ID card in the UK. We don't need it. The justification is spurious, and at odds with British traditions of freedom. I fully expect the next step is to formalise legislation to strip UK dual citizenship, innate or naturalised, from people who don't exercise residency rights. The legislation already exists in the case of UK terrorists. Just needs minor adjustment.

I know Briton living overseas can vote. Everyone and their dog knows that, because such a big deal was made about it in 2026. Not sure why its necessary to point that out. I didn't say they can't vote. I stated they don't vote. I stand by that statement. The vast majority don't bother to vote. At the last General Election, less than 200,000 even applied for a vote, let alone actually voting. This is out of about 5.5 million Britons living outside the UK. That's less than 4% who can be arsed. There are, at most, 45,000 Britons living in Thailand. 1600 or less bothered to vote. I profoundly disagree about your support to remove the Right to Vote. One might be living outside of the country of your birth, but that doesn't mean you have no material interest in the affairs of that country. The children of expatriates are entitled to citizenship, in general. Those children are entitled to live in the UK. Their parents have a legitimate interest in domestic policy, with respect to their children's prospects. Are you arguing that only people who pay taxes should have the right to vote? So the low waged and unemployed should lose the right to vote? Since 2015, property sales in the UK have been subject to CGT if owned by a non-resident. Most expatriate Britons are not UK tax residents. No taxation without representation, right?

I reject your thanks. Not wanted. I think your point was a racist point. Something about Arabs/Muslims/brown people outbreeding white people or some other Great Replacement Theory crap eminating from the likes of scamming scumbags like Bannon (the latest is he's being done over a Crypto scam, after being done over fraud related to construction of a border wall. One more strike, and he's away for Life).

Will make zero difference to industry. Essentially the announcements amount to a US surrender The US is surrendering the second quarter of the 21st Century to Asia. They have signaled they are getting out of the global race for new energy. They are giving up a major global position, that they will never be financially able to catch up on. The cost of solar capex has fallen so far and the infrastructure lifespan extended so much in the last few years that it makes more financial sense to cover a Midwest cornfield with one time expense solar than it does to flood the soil with imported Russian fertiliser every year, plant and harvest maize and then ferment it to ethanol to burn in cars. America is huge, and EV won't work for very many tasks but by taking themselves out of all these races while other nations are all determined to reduce their reliance on the tech that the U.S. does lead on is indeed going to return the U.S. to the supposed Nirvana of the 70s. Expect to see record number of those Chinese coal gas power stations to be shuttered, far earlier than in the West. Their policy was all about energy independance. They don't really want to deal with all the <deleted> they have to deal importing supplies from Russia, Indonesia, Australia, and Mongolia. The US is surrendering Q2 of the 21st Century to Asia. It will lose a technological edge that it will never recover from. Interesting video. Its long, but its not in the direction you think

Not sure what Brits living in Thailand/Cambodia/Laos have anything to do with British elections. They don't vote., unless they are nipping "home" to illegally tope up their state pensions, or to get their cancer/syphillis treated on the cheap.

So US forces are now packing up in Europe, and new barracks being built in the US? You no longer need the Chagos then?

The US wouldn't be that far behind. Estimates are that the US could only sustain a war with China 3 weeks, tops, before running out of critical weapons. Some weapons stocks would be exhausted in 1 week. https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base Its actually not new. During the height of the Cold War, the BAOR (British Army on the Rhine) wargamed to last 3 weeks. After 3 weeks fighting in West Germany, the British Army would effectively cease to exist as a fighting force. Thats a grim measure of the kinetic nature of proper, total war. The other armies wouldn't be much better, before things went hot. The BAOR's role was going to be to let the Soviet forces over run them, in their dash for the Dutch coast, with pockets of Brits in the rear intercepting fuel supplies. The planning was fighting wouldn't stop the Russians, lack of petrol would. The Russian planning was based around capturing fuel supplies, rather than establishing a fuel train from the East. Over the last 30 years, the West has been lulled into thinking it was fighting proper wars, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Ukraine is a wakeup showing how much damage Europeans could do to each other. The fighting has been ferocious at times, the expenditure of munitions enormous. Gaddafi, Assad, Hussein, the Israelis, have nothing on what European nations can do to each other. Americans forget, Europe has had 2000 years of warfare. All those borders in Europe; not that settled. Americans would have to go back to the Alamo to recall a war they fought on their territory over borders. Europe is indeed a sleeping giant; both from a good perspective (we need to do more), but also from a terrifying perspective on a global persective (so much potential). America should be warned, you don't want to be an enemy of Europe. The war in Ukraine started off with European military instructors drilling the Ukrainian Army on how to fight a modern war. Its ending with Ukraine literally writing the book on drone warfare. They're teaching the Europeans, now selling drone weapon systems to Europe. They're not working so much with the Americans. Why should they? America hasn't made any investment.

Its complicated. For the hardware, not as much as you might think. And a lot of hardware is US IP, but not US made. The critical element is communications and analysis. The RAF operates RC-145W surveillance aircraft, but the data is processed by the US before being passed to the UK. When the US shut off intel to Ukraine, the UK was still willing to help, but the data it could supply had been degraded by Washington. Its not entirely 1 way supply. The next generation of replacements for the Los Angeles class subs are having their missile tubes (among other things) made in Scotland, at Rosyth. Washington has a lot of assets in Europe. These aren't there to protect Europe. RAF Menwith Hill is one of the largest signals intelligence (SIGINT) bases operated byn the NSA, and is an integral components of ECHELON. Without it, ECHELON doesn't exist. This is why Rubio was sent to Europe. Vance pisses people off. Rubio is more diplomatic, and is clearly worried when European and British politicians start talking about taking a fresh look at base agreements. Its a ludicrous situation we have gotten into, largely because of Corporal Vance, ex Marine Corps photographer, sticking his awl in. There is worry in the DoD, or whatever it wants to call itself, that 80 years of cooperation is in danger of being undone, through the actions of an ex-photographer and a news pundit.

This is literally not an anonymous source. This is a statement jointly issued by the UK, French, German, Dutch and Swedish. The laboratories involved are first rate. Russia, or the Soviet Union, has a long history of using toxins as an assassination weapon, such as the Ricin attacks in France. https://www.regeringen.se/uttalanden/2026/02/joint-statement-by-the-uk-sweden-france-germany-and-the-netherlands/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-by-the-uk-sweden-france-germany-and-the-netherlands-on-alexei-navalnys-death https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/2756262-2756262 I used to attend OPCW meetings at the FCO. It was always interesting chatting with the ministers and various ambassadors assembled. These were meeting where the FCO would involve parts of UK industry who handled or came into contact controlled materials in discussions, prior to UK submissions to the Hague Unless there is some additional analysis, which will likely be forthcoming in the report to the OPCW, epibatidine can be produced synthetically. There is some work looking at it as a potential painkiller (200 times more potent than morphine). If the statement is correct, in that the tissue samples contained native epibatidine, then they must have determined no racemic mixture is present. The labs involved would have been DSTL at Porton Down, the FOI at Umeå, WIS at Munster. Now there are a few enantiomeric syntheses published, to avoid racemic mixtures (a racemic mixture was why thalidomide caused issues). And this is the most recent version, from Russia http://chem.folium.ru/index.php/chem/article/view/1027 Identifying epibatidine in samples isn't secret squirrel stuff; likely LC-MS. Ruling out exposure to a synthetic version takes a few extra steps. Natural is the + enantiomer, so you need an optical technique.

Despite your mealy mouthed reasoning, my statement still stands correct. Not sure why then contention. If men took responsibility for their actions there would be at least a 60% reduction in abortions, and gimps like Fuentes wouldn't be tweeting about creating gulags for women to act as baby machines (he's one of these racist cn uts motivated by declining birth rates and so-called "Great Replacement Theory").

Ah, because men are involved in conception. But one of the major reasons for abortion are money (lack of) and partner issues (partner doesn't support, ergo money). Maybe less abortions if more men were men, and took responsibility for their actions. The convenience reason, in surveys, is relatively minor. Despite how some dickless politicians like to present it, as they hypocritically chase for octogenerian votes, most people undergoing an abortion don't really want to be there. But this is the wrong sort of forum to discuss such issues, because the demographics of the membership disproportionately favour men with mummy issues (not many ladies posting, if any).

I think you misunderstand the history of police forces. Within Europe, on the Irish police, the GB police and Gibalterian police are not routinely armed. In Northern Ireland, the police are routinely armed. Around the rest of the world, only a few countries have police who are not armed routinely. These include New Zealand, Iceland, Bermuda, the Falklands, Botswana, BVI, and a scattering of mostly former British Commonwealth countries in the Pacific and Indian oceans. For all other countries (more complex in those with Gendarmes), an armed police officer is the de facto position. Its less to do with concern for public security, and more to do with tradition. Sir Robert Peel is attributed to the concept of the modern police force. His concept was to establish a civilian alternative to the army to maintain law and order. Central to his Peelian principles was policing by consent and public trust, where officers would use persuasion, advice, and warning, not the rifle and the bayonet. His major concern was that the police should not be seen as a tool of oppression, and so his Metropolitian Police Force was deliberately not armed. Peel did not invent policing. The Police, in various guises, have existed for centuaries. Chadwick came up with the term preventative policing in the 1820s; surprisingly, no one had thought of this before, preventing crime and infractions. Peel established prevention as the principle purpose of the Metropolitian Police. Simply, British policing has a wholly different tradition from the rest of the non-Anglo world, where the police were essentially an oppressive arm of the state, an armed alternative to the army. Before Peel, we had things like the Peterloo riots, which were dealt with by the army, and a massacre. The army was seen as a tool of oppression of the crown. Hence Operation Banner was a complete 40 year balls up. Thats not to say Peel always stuck to his principles; he sent armed police to Ireland for instance. So the police elsewhere have always been armed, as a natural state of affairs, rather than as any specific response to a threat. Armed in the same sense that soldiers would naturally be armed.

Actually, I've seen it here, from people including yourself, objecting and reporting people for stating certain beliefs. So you admit to being a liar. What else are you lying about?

47% of the EU population speaks English as a first or second language. Most are citizens. 1.1% of the EU population speaks Arabic as a first or second language. Most are not citizens.

Good of you to mock people who burnt to death in a Ford Pinto. Mocking suicide as well. You never counted on Snake Bliskin.

Some of the tests used in court have a 1 in 5 million chance of being identical. Which means right now, there are 1659 people walking around who look, genetically, in a police test, just like you. And one of them is an Axe murderer. But the issue often with DNA tests is sensitivity, making them more prone to contamination. DNA cannot be used to convict, its supporting evidence, and it really only moves the needle a little bit for most crime. Its only used in 1% of cases. DNA was only used in 17% of US Death Row exonerations. The injustice line is a red herring. If you support the death penalty, then you support the risk of injustice.

You will kill someone for being a "lefty". Signed A member of the Conservative and Union Party

What about people who carry out financial crime that leads to deaths. For instance, someone stealing life savings, resulting in suicide. Or someone who skimps on safety checks, to make more money, resulting in deaths. You call for the death penalty for human trafficking, which on the face of it doesn't seek to kill, but let off the scammers. Why are you letting off drug dealers? They cause deaths. How about people who sell illegal firearms. Why offer a life sentence, thats just a drag on the taxpayer. Kill them, and be done with it. Not only that, genuine lifers, who have no incentive to be released, also have no incentive to behave, so cost more per year than the average convict. And then when they get old, you give them free healthcare. I don't want to pay for them. But if you support that, then its you who should be paying for that, not me. You can't have both the death penalty and life/no parole. Makes no sense. You can have either or.

The last people to be hanged in the UK were Peter Anthony and Gwynne Evans, in 1963, who both beat a man to death for £10. They blamed each other. There was no doubt about their culpability. You are thinking of Derek Bentley, hanged 10 years earlier. He and a juvenile were robbing a place and caught by a passing Bobbie.. The words that condemned him were "Let him have it", which for some were ambivalent (was it an order to shoot the peeler, or an exortion to hand the revolver over). Whats the purpose of capital punishment? It eliminates a criminal, that's all. It doesn't deter, because even in countries with very tough laws, crime still occurs. It eliminates a criminal, at the risk of collateral damage (the innocent getting caught up). But we already collectively authorise the state to carry out acts on our behalf that might result in collateral damage. For instance war, approval of medicines, cancer treatment policies, preventative health policies. We institute the policy of ALARP into our risk management. When Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazillian electrician, ran for his train in the summer of 2005, armed officers blow his head off with at least 9 fragmenting rounds. It was very sad for him and his family, and the Police Commissioner duely fined for a breach of health and safety law. But ultimately, no officer was found guilty because their actions outweighed the risk to society if he had been a bomber. Policies directed by the state might cause a few people to have a fatal reaction to a medicine, but the collective benefit to society is immense. Every medicine sold is not good for someone someplace. Last Christmas day, the US launched a barrage of Tomahawks at targets in Northern Nigeria. The assumption, largely unquestioned, was that the targets represented a clear and present danger to the United States. At least 3 missiles failed to reach their targets. There is a general acceptance, through lack of debate, that the targets must have been correct, any accidental deaths must have been worth it. But the public's conscience is suddenly somehow troubled by the fate of one person. Miscarriages of Justice occur, and compensation is paid, but we are not troubled by the compensation then being reduced when the state levies charges for room and board. Is fears of injustice the main driver for opposition to capital punishment, or lack of a strong stomach. Ignoring the US, with its general lip service to appeals, which often serve as a form of extended, extrajudicial punishment, in countries where there is capital punishment, there is generally public support for it. In Japan, over 80% of the population support the death penalty. In Korea, its 70% is support. 75% in Indonesia. 70% in China. If I include the US, its about 55-60%. The percentage of murderers who are actually innocent is very low; 1%. There may be mitigations, but that is different. So, Western society considers 1% to be an unacceptable risk to the innocent. But what is the acceptable risk? We happily accept the fact that 7% of 1 year old cars are in such a dangerous condition they should not be driven. 200 people a year die of food allergies, but we do not seek to eliminate all substances that can cause anaphylaxis from the food chain. About 600 people a year in the US die at the hands of the police, usually through shootings.The Washington Post stated in 2017, they estimated there were 987 officer involved shootings. They estimated 168 of these shootings resulted in an "unjustified" death. So, very roughly, 28% of people shot by the police didn't deserve to die. In thr UK, 60-65% of the population would support a routinely armed police service. In the US, such polls don't exist, but 75% would support their local police department policies, which, de facto, includes routine arming of police officers. There is a paradox. People want the police to be armed, because they protect us, even at the risk of crossfire. But those same people , in non-capital punishment countries, are repelled by the idea of the death penalty, usually citing concerns about injustice. The low injustice rate does show that the death penalty does remove murderers from ever offending again. Now its another question whether the police are capable of catching the murderers. it seems they are not. I would submit we are opposed because we are lily livered. And that those who are supportive, but oppose public punishment, or oppose methods such as hanging, strangulation, garroting, shooting squad, stoning, beheading, quartering, jcb crane swings, lingchi are hypocrites. The ancient Chinese had really mastered some great techniques: Roasting beam Disembowling Mincing to death Cutting in two Strangulation Tearing apart by carts (think truckfest) Chiseling open the head Boiling Death by a 1000 cuts Beating to death in a sack Burning "Hitting the Brain" Skinning Drowning Burying Curiously, hanging never occurred to them. The objection to gassing or lethal injection is that you are asking people in the life sciences industry to develop means of death. That means you really are involving innocent beings; in order to determine lethal doses, you need to experiement on animals, likely primates closely related to us. And when you manufacture these substances, you have to ensure they maintain lethality, which includes QC checks, that might involve further innocent animals being tested. A rope and drop is far easier to test. The substances used for lethal injection are produced by companies that manufacture medicines.

So soft on kiddie fiddlers and drug peddlers. Predictable.