andersonat

And another one -----> https://ifs.org.uk/articles/ps22bn-black-hole-was-obvious-anyone-who-dared-look "The £22bn ‘black hole’ was obvious to anyone who dared to look."

Please provide a reference-source for this statement please, JF.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o " ..... Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn."

The OBR and the IFS - both Right-Leaning organisations - disagree with you.

-- Was there actually a "Black-Hole" left behind from the previous Government ... or not ?

I have *no* intentions of baiting you, NC. And as you well know, in the past 2 pages you have *also* strayed f-a-r from the subject mentioned in the OP. -- But I would ask you to address the information (provided by *several* "Sides") surrounding the attack on the building in Beit Lahia, and then tell me whether-or-not you consider it to be a "regular/legitimate" Act-of-War carried out by a "Regular-Military".

[I realise that I'm leaving the OP f-a-r behind here. -- Hopefully this will be my final post on this Subject] * Here is a link to a recent BBC News-Story ( - I'm sure that it was well-covered by other News-Outlets). Headline: - "Deadly Israeli strike targeted 'spotter' on Beit Lahia building's roof, official says." "An Israeli military official has told the BBC that it carried out a deadly strike on a five-storey residential building in Beit Lahia in northern Gaza on Tuesday in response to seeing a “spotter” on the roof with binoculars observing Israeli forces." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6247nwz73do -- I well understand that War-is-War, but this was a "targeted", considered attack, carried out *directly* against Civilians.

Thanks for your reply, NC. [Note: The "Confused" emoji given to your Post didn't come from *me*.]

Wikipedia is (of course) not The Unchallengeable Bible of Facts/Knowledge, but it does help (at least) as an initial basis with which to engage with other people's [sometimes-unsupported] comments. * Also, -- I find this odd, since you also said:- Why would the establishment of a 2-State Solution lead to the eradication of Israel ? ( - I couldn't find a section in Wikipedia that provided me with the answer.) Can you please provide some support for your assertion that the Government of Israel are actually interested in negotiating/agreeing to a 2-State Solution.

From Wikipedia:- The restrictions on movement and goods in Gaza imposed by Israel date back to the early 1990s. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military forces from Gaza, dismantled its settlements, and implemented a temporary blockade of Gaza. The blockade became indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover. Egypt also began its blockade of Gaza in 2007. Despite the Israeli disengagement, Gaza is still considered occupied by Israel under international law. The current blockade prevents people and goods from freely entering or leaving the territory, leading to Gaza often being called an "open-air prison". Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, as well as six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities. The extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's inhabitants. The system of control imposed by Israel was described in the fall 2012 edition of International Security as an "indirect occupation". The European Union (EU) considers Gaza to be occupied. The international community regards all of the Palestinian territories including Gaza as occupied. Human Rights Watch has declared at the UN Human Rights Council that it views Israel as a de facto occupying power in the Gaza Strip, even though Israel has no military or other presence, because the Oslo Accords authorize Israel to control the airspace and the territorial sea.

From Wikipedia:- "Currently there is no two-state solution proposal being negotiated between Israel and Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority supports the idea of a two-state solution; Israel at times has also supported the idea, but nowadays rejects the creation of a Palestinian state. Long-serving Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2015 rejected a Palestinian state. He again rejected a Palestinian state in June 2023. Following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent Israel–Hamas war, multiple governments renewed the long-dormant idea of a two-state solution. This received serious pushback from Israel's government, especially from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

... Still waiting for your response, Richard, either way.

Do you want to retract your lie about the FEMA Disaster money being redirected to Migrants, or do you want to double down on it ?

Words have meanings - you can't just make-up-meanings for words in discourse. ... "can be used in any sense which gets the point across ... " --- According to *you*, what particular point was being made here by Riclag ? - Because, if language is not being used correctly/accurately, then I am somewhat at-a-loss. -- I'm pleased for Riclag that he has a Supporter, or at least an Apologist.

R, 1. Do you know *anything* about Communist Ideology ? 2. Are you a Christian ?

I'm intrigued ... for which Benefits are (newly-arrived) Immigrants in the UK eligible ?

The PRIMARY function of any Government is the protection of the country's population from either external- or internal-factors. The Prime-Minister has singularly failed in his duty-of-care to protect the health of the Residents of (and Tourists in) Chiang Mai.

TBL, You're going to have to do a tad more reading/"research" in order to learn what DT is actually being charged with in the Florida-Case, in order to understand why Biden was "excused".

-- Trumpers spew lies and never expect to get challenged. - They never expect that they have to show evidence for their statements, and, in fact, they never *have* any evidence.

You've stated that Joe Biden is a pedophile. --- I'm going to ask you a question ... Can you guess what it's going to be ?

The Brains-Trust of The Democratic Party believes that Biden is The Right Man to compete against Trump ( - because Biden can run on his record for the past 4 years). - If Trump were not to be the Republican-Candidate (for whatever reason), then I'm sure that The Brains-Trust would consider changing their Election-Plan. And since it is a staple of Trump's playbook to delay-delay-delay in the court-cases against him, almost certainly he will be the Candidate for The Republican Party.

As someone here mentioned yesterday, in order to be consistent, Mr Sonthiya really ought to be calling for the arrest and punishment of 14,233,895 Thais.

For my past few Retirement-Extensions in Chiang Mai, I produced (and had copies of) the small paper-slip that I received from the TM30 Office (that the Officer stapled into my passport). My Wife recently registered with the online TM30-system, and she made a print-out of the data-entry screen to show my latest place-of-address ( - I had stayed in a Hotel in Pattaya, and the Staff “updated” my place-of-address to the Hotel using their online-system). — Do you know if this PC print-out is accepted/sufficient for Immigration for the Extension, or do they want to see one of their “own” documents ?

I copied+pasted the quote - *unedited* - in my post from:- https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/#amendment-14-section-3 "Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." *** If I've made an (unintentional) error, I am always open to being corrected. -- Please copy+paste the words/sentences/section that I omitted (in error).

Once again, The 14th Amendment Section 3. -- What this Section discusses is insurrection-or-rebellion *against The Constitution* ... not (only) against The Government. - And so it's not only about what happened on 6 January.