nauseus

Did you ever like those old games, like spot the difference?

OMG.

I don't have a link. It is what I saw on the day. Show it to me if you have it

Not really. The same vdo is not linked in there.

That's not later.

Seemed like it as I watched on the TV - police at one door just opened it.

I'm not implying anything. I do want to know why this relatively small first wave of rioters were allowed in. Larger groups of protesters seemed to just amble in later when it was evident that there was no serious security. I'd like to know why, after numerous warnings in the preceding days, the security was so weak?

Well the question of Capitol security and responsibility for that is one question I'd like to see answered clearly.

You conveniently misquoted me, importantly missing out the sword initially.

This is the J6 official report title: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol After so long, I was expecting to see detail on all relevant aspects, including security. That is all.

If there had been a full investigation instead of this farce, then that might have been useful, but this kangaroo committee was just after Trump. There has been no real investigation to reveal how, initially, relatively few rioters managed access the Capitol, especially after so many previous warning signs over the days prior to J6. They need to be able to stop this happening again but right now they can't really guarantee that.

My vision is not narrow enough.

Do you tango?

Why not?

An investigation with so much left out. How can this committee expect broad acceptance if its 'findings'?

Your 'capable' interpretation.

I don't understand this part: It seems that Trump knew his fan base and others did not believe it until to late That is all. no need to reply.

Believe what?

Within that story, the new link to Steven A. Sund goes to this: https://www.rawstory.com/law-enforcement-officials-were-fearful-of-violence-in-days-leading-up-to-january-6-transcripts/ Which suggests that "For the most part, Jan. 6 committee leaders decided against focusing the final report on how law enforcement came to be so underprepared for the attack." Why am I not surprised?

Option 2 but with more focus on the lack of security preparation prior to J6.

What has happened, as ever with the remainers, is that you are ignoring everything else but the economic element.

But it's not relevant to this thread. The descriptor used was overall, not economic.

Maybe there is a larger, hidden, majority of people like me, who did not take part because its too soon to respond to the available options.

It sounds like that you are assuming that all the youngsters are all for rejoining - I know that that is not the case. Whatever, as it is evidently so much easier to get in than get out, let's call it 500 years and then review.

I was also surprised at the referendum result but, as most here know, I was happy with it. That said, Brexit itself has been a messy disaster, so far, but I'm not sure that could have been avoided, given the weak negotiating route adopted by Theresa May combined with the belligerent stance taken by the EU. So much for "good faith". EU laws were rolled into UK law to provide legal continuity and certainty in the aftermath of Brexit. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022-23 will hopefully deal with the revocation of such laws. The Brexit Secretary, David Davis, was totally undermined by Theresa May, as she allowed her fellow Europhile, Ollie Robbins, to be her effective chief negotiator. Finally, after May came back from meeting Merkel, with the soon-to-fail Chequers Plan , Davis resigned after he saw what had been going on. But is all this "B.S" in the UK today all due to Brexit being a failure or just a succession of poor national governments? After nearly 50 years in then the true success (or not) of Brexit cannot be fairly measured until a similar period has passed. On the bright side, that means most of us won't have to worry about the answer.