JonnyF

Very sad. Her recent lies about the "4 days to live" traffic accident indicated she had continued serious mental health issues, following the plethora of lies about being trafficked to Prince Andrew. My thoughts go out to her husband, children and all the other people negatively affected by her severe psychological issues.

Unless you export to the US of course. But hey, nobody does that right?

The EU will be gone within 10 years so they better hurry up.

Intelligence, ability to perform under pressure, concentration levels, confidence. Take away the physical element and men still win. Chess is a good example. That's why you ladies need a separate category. Unless of course we get a new sport called gaslighting and getting the last word in an argument. Women could maybe compete in that.

So there are no daughters of wealthy sponsors? Why aren't they plodding around? Fact is they cannot compete at the very highest level. I'm saying the best male is far better than the best female. I bet anyone in the men's top 50 would easily beat that woman who made a 147 "in practice". Probably top 100. I remember in tennis the men's number 200 beat Serena Williams easily. Yes, they want to see the best of the best at The Masters. The creme de la creme. Not shoehorn in some women for the sake of it. If you want to watch women play they have the women's tour. But the standard is nowhere near.

Makes you wonder why he doesn't just do it across the board if he recognizes the unfairness of it at other levels. Seems like he is throwing his toys out of the pram. They are quitting X as well. 😆 https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cwynx45gxglo What a big girl's blouse. 😆

They can't get sponsorship because they are not fast enough. Impressive for a woman, but that wasn't even in competition. Jackson Page just made 2 147s in the same match. Ronnie O'Sullivan has 15 in competitons, including one in just over 5 minutes. Not even close to the same level. Yes. Allowing women to participate just lowers the standard, it's a gimmick for the Woke lobby to salivate over and opens the door for men to compete in and ultimately dominate Women's sport. The categories exist for a reason and should remain separate.

I think Sumo wrestling takes care of that.

Compete? I think you mean "participate".

In the Thai army you're in a position to mow the General's lawn or clean the Sergeant's Benz.

They need to work this out. Legalize it and tax it same as most countries do. Otherwise I can see a huge impact on the tourist industry when news gets out on social media of people being unable to vape during their well earned 2 weeks in the sun, or worse - locked up for doing so.

The law as it stands now is perfectly. Flouting it because you await future potential rulings that may or may not go your way is not a sensible approach.

They are not equal. There is more to sports than physical strength. There is the psychological element to sport which is huge. Also spatial awareness. Hand-eye co-ordination etc. That's why men overall beat women at non physical sports as well as physical.

I don't see the point. What next? A class for gay people? Lesbians? Bisexuals? Just let them run against their biological equivalent. If they want to wear a dress and a rainbow headband, no problem. There is a reason for this law. Otherwise we end up with the ridiculous spectacle of 2 blokes competing in the womens pool final. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-14577879/Piers-Morgan-leads-outrage-two-transgender-players-contest-final-womens-pool-competition-Sharron-Davies-labels-event-grossly-wrong-way.html

I'm surprised China would want to risk investing in the mess that the UK has become. But I guess the two governments have a lot in common now.

No surprise Labour would fund this. I wonder how long before the BBC pays them to participate in a Pro Palestine documentary, while pretending to be unaware of their background.

Me too. Which makes us both anti-cashless. It really isn't complicated. Admitting to it doesn't make you a luddite. You don't need to sit in a room of a 20 people in a circle and stand up and say "I'm Richard and I'm anti cashless".

Anti cashless simply means you do not want to see cash disappear completely. That doesn't mean you are opposed to digital payments being available as well. Being anti cashless doesn't mean you think everything must be cash 100% of the time. So you are anti cashless. Just like me. Welcome to the club. And you're welcome for the clarification of the terms you have been using. Now you can use them properly and stop contradicting yourself.

Yes, which makes you anti cashless.

On one hand you say you are not anti-cashless (i.e. you think getting rid of cash is OK). Then you say both cash and digital should be an option (which BTW is my stance since I am very much anti-cashless). So which is it? Because if you want both options available like I do, then by definition you are very much anti-cashless.

So you are not anti-cashless, but you are pro both cash and digital? 😆 Quite the position...

I don't keep large sums in the bank earning a pittance that's for sure. You'd have to be pretty dumb to do that. In the unlikely event you ever lucked yourself into a large sum I'd bet that's exactly where we'd find it though. 😃 If it was, eventually, yes. But not overnight if cash still exists. If someone froze my bank accounts right now I could survive several months quite easily. Well it would have to be someone else since you'd have no chance. 😆

Clearly, like most Remainers you have no respect for Democracy. But we already knew that.

Seems you just want to be pedantic. So how about the biggest argument of all? If we go cashless you can be turned off at the push of a button. This isn't a loony conspiracy. It already happened in Canada to the truckers. Protest against the government and get turned off. If that doesn't open your eyes then nothing will. But hey, it might save you a couple of seconds at the checkout. Reminds me of the title of the album "Give me convenience or give me death".

Well, I can never be sure if they have grandchildren, but slow people? quite often. Quite a few people seem to struggle with it. I prefer the system in the UK where you just hold the card up to the machine. Tap and Go. Far superior to the QR code phone app nonsense. Showing your bias again. Which was my main point. I am not against Tap and Go, but cash needs to remain an option. Strawman. I'm not against digital payments (if they are implemented right). I actually like Monzo cards where you can put a couple of hundred quid on it for a night out and so if you lose it then it's no big deal, unlike losing a bank a credit card. I am against removing cash as an option.