brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

Are you really saying that a 'multi cultural society' is good for cohesion and unity?

Hopefully he is not, but it would not surprise me. Perhaps he should visit Luton.

Thal

[mjames]

Though I'm not a fan, Douglas Murray makes some pretty good points about multi-culturalism. People usually conflate multi-culturalism with multi-racial, as in a country with different groups of people. I think posters like Gep and so on have mentioned this in other threads; multi-culturalism is the acceptance of multiple cultures from different regions within a single society. While this may sound 'good' to people who love to be progressive and all, it can have some terrible consequences, as it makes no distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' cultures. This outlook leads to governments allowing ethnic groups to keep their own native values, while giving them little incentive to "Europeanize" themselves. We then end up with situations where people of foreign descent in Europe end up living in parallel societies...

In some countries, the crap many hateful Islamic Imams preach isn't actually against the laws; you know freedom of expression and all. But many people do realize the negative implications that can come from allowing hateful ideologies to easily spread within Europe. And that's what we get in so many ghettos in Europe; imams preaching hate, Muslim schools stagnating the minds of young Europeans, and in some cases sharia law is actually being used against Muslim women. Whereas a male outside a ghetto would get arrested for saying n i g g e r or slapping a random woman's butt.

Treating minority ethnic groups differently than the natives is the inevitable result of multiculturalism. Personally I want the law to treat my African father the same way it would treat my European mother. This idea that foreigners should be held to lesser standards for the sake of 'tolerance' is actually pretty racist.

[iansinclair]

...

Treating minority ethnic groups differently than the natives is the inevitable result of multiculturalism. Personally I want the law to treat my African father the same way it would treat my European mother. This idea that foreigners should be held to lesser standards for the sake of 'tolerance' is actually pretty racist.

Bingo!  If you substitute "different ethnic/racial groups" for "foreigners" in your last sentence, you have an exact definition of racist, and I've yet to figure out how it is not.  And yet it is done all the time, and is a very deeply rooted human tendency.  Which is why, in a multi-ethnic or multi-racial society the balance between order and liberty is so delicate, and so hard to maintain.

[ahinton]

Are you really saying that a 'multi cultural society' is good for cohesion and unity?
If those incompatible cultures were truly compatible they'd blend and become one but the truth is very different.

I'm not saying one way or the other about the factual outcome of it; what I do say is that there's no need for it not to be, provided that governments, employers and everyone else accepts that we live in a globalised world in which cross-culturality is inevitable. Mistreatment of immigrants is inexcusable wherever it happens - and that includes Brits living in Belgium, or Ukraine, or Sudan, or North Korea, or anywhere else.

Would you advocate that UK put up a bar to all new immigrants from anywhere and everywhere (except, perhaps, the existing Commonwealth nations) and send "home" all immigrants who have arrived to settle in UK over as set period of time to be agreed? Just curious.

The problem with "blending" - which is essential for good relations between different races and cultures within the same country - is that some immigrants simply will not do that whereas many others do; you have only to visit some of UK's larger cities to find immigrants who just won't take full advantage of their new (or not so new) chosen environment whereas others do so and enjoy gebnerally good relations with the longer term UK citizens among whom they've chosen to live. Language is just one of these factors, but people from Iran, Algeria, Pakistan, China and Brazil (for example) whom I know and who live in England and Scotland don't appear to have these problems because they all speak good English and socialise not only with their own kind or even only with English and Scots but with other immigrants from elsewhere.

I do therefore agree that there is a problem but it's by and lage the fault of those immigrants themselves who refuse to adapt to a new way of life in their chosen country of abode.

I know three people - two Scots and one English - who have lived and worked in Iran for several years but they have absorbed certain cultures and traditions of their host country, are reasonably fluent in the local lingo and know well enough the laws that they must not flout.

As to the "Islamificaton of Europe" business (admittedly raised by Thal rather than you), what of the "Christianisation" of Europe or elsewhere? What ost people fear from the spread of "Islam" is not Islam itself but what is done and might yet be done in its name; the same kinds of fear seem not to apply to Christianity today, but the Crusades did happen!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Hopefully he is not, but it would not surprise me. Perhaps he should visit Luton.

What, again?(!) - I've visited Luton on quite a few occasions - but see my response to forte88 for more on the issues related to that.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

I don't know what it's like in Britain, but in Holland many stick to the desert culture dress, while others, the supposed moderates, like Tariq Ramadan even defending Burqas. That's the problem we're meant to be open minded and tolerant and thanks to the (supposed) Holocaust and political correctness we're not allowed to speak out against things we wouldn't tolerate in our own society, while they are always defending 'their people'.

In the colonial days when Europeans were in Africa and Asia they(the colonisers/dominators) obviously kept their culture and dress. To me this non adaptive( under the guise of religious 'freedom')attitude is reminiscent of those days when we were the colonisers. And thanks to the lack of identity, the loss of our own religion and feminism(destroying the family unity, creating strife between the sexes, ultimately the destruction of European society)makes us vulnerable especially as their culture's continually praised while our own values are consistently criticised thus people actually choosing a retarded culture(1400 years in the past) over the culture that brought so much advancement and prosperity. Furthermore while the 'white' women are targeted by the feminists(to stop them from procreating) their women often go to Muslim schools and have large families often subsidized by the state.
So, like in Northern Ireland that used to be British, state treachery and higher birth rates have now made them a minority and powerless in a land they fought for during the WW s, it isn't strange that gradually their ways are being adopted(since we have to adapt to them) Muslim London mayors that don't allow for sexy women being displayed as advertisements etc.
 

Anyone that doesn't believe this is planned to destroy Europe needs to get their head examined

[forte88]

As to the "Islamificaton of Europe" business (admittedly raised by Thal rather than you), what of the "Christianisation" of Europe or elsewhere? What ost people fear from the spread of "Islam" is not Islam itself but what is done and might yet be done in its name; the same kinds of fear seem not to apply to Christianity today, but the Crusades did happen!

I'm against all three brands of Abrahamic religions as I made clear previously(and yet you claim to have read what I wrote) . I detest all religions. It's just another form of mind control. Why would I defend any venomous totalitarian ideology?
They're always talking about freedom of religion. To me it's just the same tolerance for intolerance.
They say they allow the freedom to choose and yet their children are being brainwashed. Why should we make any distinction between say religion and communism or fascism.
If it hadn't been for their 'religious freedom' would we even allow them cutting off their son's or daughter's foreskin or clitoris?
Of course since WWII atheist Europe has a new religion we're not allowed to question, namely the Holocaust. (what about 'Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence').

To stay on topic, although this is relevant why we have the mass immigration we do, there's a clear distinction between European culture and desert culture, be it Islam or Judaism.

This is because the 'habitat' is so very different people evolve differently, cultures develop differently. The habitat in Europe is such that individuality and freedom have always been at the forefront because the habitat allowed for it. How can one survive alone in the desert?
In the scorching sun people also tend to be more violent and less forgiving, groupcohesion is very strong and outsiders are despised. Compare that to the tolerant, open minded European mentality and it should be obvious why some cultures are more toxic than others.

Judging by what the Jews have done to Western society, I'd say one desert snake is more than enough. That said, many generations have lived here already and obviously not everyone is the same. However, when one can create money out of thin air to buy mass media, politicians etc, the other gets their funding from the Wahhabi (the Saudis that allow for stoning of adulterers, the killing of homosexuals etc) so when any of those people have positions of power and influence I'd say it's justified to be suspicious, especially when can be shown that those people are here to destroy Western Civilisation albeit for different reasons.

[ahinton]

Though I'm not a fan, Douglas Murray makes some pretty good points about multi-culturalism. People usually conflate multi-culturalism with multi-racial, as in a country with different groups of people. I think posters like Gep and so on have mentioned this in other threads; multi-culturalism is the acceptance of multiple cultures from different regions within a single society. While this may sound 'good' to people who love to be progressive and all, it can have some terrible consequences, as it makes no distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' cultures. This outlook leads to governments allowing ethnic groups to keep their own native values, while giving them little incentive to "Europeanize" themselves. We then end up with situations where people of foreign descent in Europe end up living in parallel societies...

In some countries, the crap many hateful Islamic Imams preach isn't actually against the laws; you know freedom of expression and all. But many people do realize the negative implications that can come from allowing hateful ideologies to easily spread within Europe. And that's what we get in so many ghettos in Europe; imams preaching hate, Muslim schools stagnating the minds of young Europeans, and in some cases sharia law is actually being used against Muslim women. Whereas a male outside a ghetto would get arrested for saying n i g g e r or slapping a random woman's butt.

Treating minority ethnic groups differently than the natives is the inevitable result of multiculturalism. Personally I want the law to treat my African father the same way it would treat my European mother. This idea that foreigners should be held to lesser standards for the sake of 'tolerance' is actually pretty racist.

Spot on!

What also gets overlooked is that whilst no culture stands still, some develop less, more slowly and with greater reluctance than others, for a number of reasons that in some cases include the pertnence of certain religious traditions in some countries.

What we also get besides some Imams preaching hate (and of course it it usually those Imams about which we hear the most, most of the time), is a vast majority of Imams who do nothing of the kind and who are unafraid to speak out openly against instances of it. In UK (and no doubt elsewhere), the concept of racial, religious and other hate crimes has given rise to new legislation to try to cover this as a problem distinct from other crimes against the person; that can only be a good thing in principle.

When I was at school in west London (more years ago than I care to remember!), there were about 650 students of whom about 20% were immigrants from outside Europe, including many from Pakistan, Iraq and India; some of these were from Muslim families. Not only do I recall no bad incidents as a consequence, I well recall at least two Muslim families who insisted that their offspring attend Church one per month - and by "Church" I mean a Christian Church, not a Mosque. The intention was not to dilute Islam in young minds but to ecognise that UK was a Christian country at least to the extent tht Christianity is the "official" religion. No one complained and no one found this odd; indeed, such young Muslims were always welcomed into the Church.

In a small town in Mauritius, there is (or at least used to be) a Mosque almost opposite a Synagogue and within only around 250m of a Roman Catholic Church - and this is in a principally Hindu country. Does this create problems? Not at all.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I don't know what it's like in Britain, but in Holland many stick to the desert culture dress, while others, the supposed moderates, like Tariq Ramadan even defending Burqas. That's the problem we're meant to be open minded and tolerant and thanks to the (supposed) Holocaust

Are you a Holocaust denier, then? If so, I see not possibility of future serious debate on the kinds of issues about which you write. If you are not (and perhaps you are not), why did you use the word "supposed" in brackets?

In the colonial days when Europeans were in Africa and Asia they(the colonisers/dominators) obviously kept their culture and dress. To me this non adaptive( under the guise of religious 'freedom')attitude is reminiscent of those days when we were the colonisers.

In this I am inclined to agree with you.

And thanks to the lack of identity, the loss of our own religion and feminism(destroying the family unity, creating strife between the sexes, ultimately the destruction of European society)makes us vulnerable especially as their culture's continually praised while our own values are consistently criticised thus people actually choosing a retarded culture(1400 years in the past) over the culture that brought so much advancement and prosperity. Furthermore while the 'white' women are targeted by the feminists(to stop them from procreating) their women often go to Muslim schools and have large families often subsidized by the state.

This lack of identity is a myth. Not all UK citizens are "the same" or ever were, but they do tend to share some commonalities; however, society doesn't stand still, nor can it do so, tgherefore those commonalities change over time. Protestant Christianty remains the official religion of UK but not only are there more Muslims and members of other religious groups in UK today there are also rather more agnostics and atheists. I do not accept your remarks about feminism.

So, like in Northern Ireland that used to be British

Excuse me; NI is a member state of the United Kingdom of BG and NI. Whether an appreciable number of its citizens will continue to apply for Irish citizenship under a Brexited UK remains to be seen.

Anyone that doesn't believe this is planned to destroy Europe needs to get their head examined

If that's the case, they'll not only have to draft in plenty of lawyers from EU to deal with the unravelling of all UK law since 1972 but they'll have to do the same for shrinks, for there are certainly nowhere near enough of them already practising in UK to examine that number of heads!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

As to the "Islamificaton of Europe" business (admittedly raised by Thal rather than you), what of the "Christianisation" of Europe or elsewhere? What ost people fear from the spread of "Islam" is not Islam itself but what is done and might yet be done in its name; the same kinds of fear seem not to apply to Christianity today, but the Crusades did happen!

The same kind of fear does not apply to Christianity today because they seem to have a tendency to turn the other cheek. They would not bomb people for insulting Jesus for instance or for not being a believer. Christians think there religion is the word of God, but Muslims believe theirs is the last and only word and there lies the danger.

In the West, we have made giant strides towards equality over the last 100 or so years, especially concerning rights for women and gay people. Extreme and even moderate Islam with its medieval practices and its horrid Sharia law would reverse all of these given the chance, which is why I believe that Europe should start turning the boats around.

I am far more comfortable with our ability to deal with these threats being outside of the EU and hopefully free of this moronic Human Rights legislation which was always going to be a terrorists charter.

Thal

[forte88]

I don't know what it's like in Britain, but in Holland many stick to the desert culture dress, while others, the supposed moderates, like Tariq Ramadan even defending Burqas. That's the problem we're meant to be open minded and tolerant and thanks to the (supposed) Holocaust
Are you a Holocaust denier, then? If so, I see not possibility of future serious debate on the kinds of issues about which you write. If you are not (and perhaps you are not), why did you use the word "supposed" in brackets?

It doesn't really matter what I think about this, although I would say calling someone a 'denier' is like calling someone an Anti Semite for criticising Jews, or a racist for being against mass immigration. It's a totalitarian tool to stifle freedom of speech. Regardless of what I think about the issue, it suffices to say that it has been used against Europe and it's allowed Jews to get away with murder, it's also the ONLY reason we've been inundated with immigrants. Where else in the world has this happened? Not in Japan, even IF the Holocaust were true, did more horrific things to the Chinese. Not in the rest of Asia, Africa or even the US and Australia countries that have all the space in the world.

So, like in Northern Ireland that used to be British

Excuse me; NI is a member state of the United Kingdom of BG and NI. Whether an appreciable number of its citizens will continue to apply for Irish citizenship under a Brexited UK remains to be seen.

The Protestants in NI view themselves as British while the Catholics supported by the US want to annex it. Just in case you think the Catholics have more right to be there, the Brits have been there over 300 years, longer than the US has existed. So unless you feel Americans ought to hand over their land to the native Indians the Brits have got the same, if not more , right to be there as the Catholics who after all have most of the land already

I do not accept your remarks about feminism

What exactly don't you accept and why?

[ahinton]

The same kind of fear does not apply to Christianity today because they seem to have a tendency to turn the other cheek. They would not bomb people for insulting Jesus for instance or for not being a believer. Christians think there religion is the word of God, but Muslims believe theirs is the last and only word and there lies the danger.

Whilst this is certainly true, it is also true that very few of the world's Muslims would do this kind of thing; Muslims have a presence in many countries (some much larger as presences than others, of course), but the percentage of the world's Muslims that not only deprecate and denounce this kind of activity is immense and most of them consider such activity to be anti-Islamic, which indeed it is. The desecration of historic monuments by ISIS, for example, didn't kill or maim anyone, but it's nevertheless a part of the general hatred that they seek to express (which is again anti-Islamic); in fact, the motivation behind it seems very much to be a desire to write things out of history as though they never occurred (rather as Holocaust deniers seek to do) and, in so doing, there's an unconfortable parallel with the acerbic outbursts of the young Boulez who, in the immediate aftermath of WWII, wanted to encourage the turning of backs upon large swathes of European musical history (although of course I wouldn't push the anology farther than that!).

In the West, we have made giant strides towards equality over the last 100 or so years, especially concerning rights for women and gay people.

We have indeed.

Extreme and even moderate Islam with its medieval practices and its horrid Sharia law would reverse all of these given the chance, which is why I believe that Europe should start turning the boats around.

There are several issues here.  As I wrote earlier, cultures change over time and some develop less, more slowly and more reluctantly than others; there's no doubt that prominently Islamic nations are examples of those whose development in thes respects is at best severely compromised. That said, the imposition of Sharia law in countries that do not currently operate under it would require either total annexation of those countries against their will and I do not see any evidence of this having happened, even though there are more Muslims in quite a few countries than there used to be. Lastly, this isn't about turning boats around; firstly, no one can know whether those boats contain Muslim terrorists or even Muslims of any kind and, secondly, determined terrorists don;t have to board boats to the countries in which they wish to wreak their havoc - they have only to encourage people already in those countries to commit terrorist acts or use weaponry in their own countries against the counries where they wish to create havoc. The internet, drones and all manner of other facilities mean that you can doo all manner of harm min places without actually being there.

I am far more comfortable with our ability to deal with these threats being outside of the EU and hopefully free of this moronic Human Rights legislation which was always going to be a terrorists charter.

Could you explain why? No EU member state wants that kind of thing happening on its home turf or anywhere else within EU and I'd have thought that some kind of Europe-wide concerted effort would be likely to have more success than a single small country like UK trying to act alone.

What particular Human Rights legislation are you referring to here? Even if UK exonerates itself from responsibility under ECHR, it still will have its own internal Human Rights legislation and will continue to be bound by UDHR as a UN member state. Are you suggesting that only ECHR is flawed or that UK should scrap its own and leave UN as well?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It doesn't really matter what I think about this, although I would say calling someone a 'denier' is like calling someone an Anti Semite for criticising Jews, or a racist for being against mass immigration. It's a totalitarian tool to stifle freedom of speech.

Not so. To begin with, I did not call you a Holocaust denier; I asked if you were one. Even then, calling someone a Holocaust denier is not at all "like calling someone an Anti Semite for criticising Jews, or a racist for being against mass immigration"; it is pointing out that the person concerned is denying historical events for which there's ample incontrovertible evidence (you could hardly kill 6m people and leave no trace). As for a "totalitarian tool", it's nothing of the kind, since it is a term used by people who are not totalitarians.

Regardless of what I think about the issue

..on which your coy lack of specific answer speaks eloquently for itself...

it suffices to say that it has been used against Europe and it's allowed Jews to get away with murder

Of course it hasn't! Jews have indeed committed murder; so have Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus et al; so have atheists. Consider how many have been killed at the hands of Hitler, Stalin and Mao alone (not far short of 100m), none of whom were Jews. Murder's not a Jewish speciality!

it's also the ONLY reason we've been inundated with immigrants.

Where's the connection? Jews were murderers so we have been "inundated with immigrants". Non sequitur par excellence, if you'll pardon my mix of language!

Where else in the world has this happened? Not in Japan, even IF the Holocaust were true

So even if not a denier you are prepared to believe that the Holocaust might be a lie...

did more horrific things to the Chinese. Not in the rest of Asia, Africa or even the US and Australia countries that have all the space in the world.

Many peoples have much for which to answer; no doubt about that.

The Protestants in NI view themselves as British while the Catholics supported by the US want to annex it.

Where's your evidence for either? Protestants as well as Catholics in NI are applying for Irish citizenship because they want to remain EU citizens. There's absolutely no evidence that US wants to support annexation of NI (by the Republic, I presume you to mean) or that the Republic wishes to do this - and US has never given such support.

Just in case you think the Catholics have more right to be there

I don't.

the Brits have been there over 300 years, longer than the US has existed. So unless you feel Americans ought to hand over their land to the native Indians the Brits have got the same, if not more , right to be there as the Catholics who after all have most of the land already.

As I said, I made no reference to who does or does not have what right to live in NI and, in any case, there are plenty living there already who are neither Catholic nor Protestant and plenty who are immigrants from the Republic and from elsewhere.

What exactly don't you accept and why?

I don't accept any of your remarks about feminism because you've provided not a scrap of evidence in suport of them.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Whilst this is certainly true, it is also true that very few of the world's Muslims would do this kind of thing

Well, there is obviously enough. The peace loving majority are completely irrelevant when those exist that spread hatred and terror. In fact, throughout history the peace loving majority are irrelevant.

Polls, which of course can be unreliable, have shown that over 50% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal and almost the same think they should be barred from teaching in schools. Others have indicated that 40% want the introduction of Sharia law and anywhere between 10% and 20% sympathized with the 7/7 bombers. With 2.7 million or so Muslims living in the UK, i don't think we are talking about very few that do not share our values and would wish us harm.

Whilst I am always slightly suspicious of those that have an imaginary friend outside of infancy and run their lives based on an ancient book, Islam remains a threat to a civilized western society and imbeciles like Merkel who let in hundreds of thousands into her Country will hopefully live to see the error of her ways.

Thal

[mjames]

I'm not fluent in British politics but it looks like the new PM has shut down the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I've seen a few sources about this but I'd like to know from you Brits just how factual this is. Did she really just shut down an entire department responsible for matters related to climate change?

[ahinton]

Well, there is obviously enough. The peace loving majority are completely irrelevant when those exist that spread hatred and terror. In fact, throughout history the peace loving majority are irrelevant.

Hate crimes are hate crimes, whoever commits them and under whtever name or none; how many such crimes are committed annually in UK by Muslims?

Polls, which of course can be unreliable

The most certainly can; look at the one that we're discussing in this thread, for example!

have shown that over 50% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal and almost the same think they should be barred from teaching in schools. Others have indicated that 40% want the introduction of Sharia law and anywhere between 10% and 20% sympathized with the 7/7 bombers. With 2.7 million or so Muslims living in the UK, i don't think we are talking about very few that do not share our values and would wish us harm.

But they cannot change the laws concerning these things and have not protested to government or started Parliamentary petitions calling for laws to be changed on them, let alone wreaked terrorist havoc in Bradford or Birmingham to draw attention to their views and desires. As to homosexuality, don't forget that it was illegal in UK for many years until the laws changed - and the old laws had not been set by Muslims! If Muslims who are disdainful of homosexuality and of homosexuals of either sex teaching in schools, want Sharia law introduced in UK and sympathised with the perpatrators of 7/7, they know what to do - what a tiny "majority" of people voted that UK should do in the referendum, namey LEAVE - and without the need for or expense of deportation. As I stated before, Muslims and others must make due effort to engage with UK culture (such as it is) when they settle here; many do, but some don't. The same, however, could be said of immigrants from other religious backgrounds.

Whilst I am always slightly suspicious of those that have an imaginary friend outside of infancy and run their lives based on an ancient book, Islam remains a threat to a civilized western society and imbeciles like Merkel who let in hundreds of thousands into her Country will hopefully live to see the error of her ways.

Frau Merkel is anything but an imbecile, the people who have been let into Germany are not all Muslims and many of them are genuine dispossessed refugees; had that many of them not gone to Germany, where do you suppose they'd have gone instead?

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

Not so. To begin with, I did not call you a Holocaust denier; I asked if you were one. Even then, calling someone a Holocaust denier is not at all "like calling someone an Anti Semite for criticising Jews, or a racist for being against mass immigration"; it is pointing out that the person concerned is denying historical events for which there's ample incontrovertible evidence (you could hardly kill 6m people and leave no trace). As for a "totalitarian tool", it's nothing of the kind, since it is a term used by people who are not totalitarians.

O.K. so despite 'eye witness accounts' that in a court of law would never stand the test of scrutiny, where's all this evidence you speak of? Do you mean legal documents?
You could say it was done surreptitiously but so was the euthanasia project of the mentally ill, the so called Aktion T4. The third Reich was a bureaucracy meaning for every order there had to be papers 'zum Befohl' without papers nothing could be done, so where's all that evidence?
They found it on Aktion T4, but nothing on the Holocaust, coincidence? I think not.

You may have seen the movie about Turing the inventor of the first computer that cracked the German codes so we were listening in on all the conversations, commands etc if it were true about people being gassed we would have known about it. And yet the people at Bletchley Park who knew what was being reported by the concentration camp commanders, didn't know about this so called planned extermination of '6 million Jews'. In Auschwitz they changed the people murdered there from 4 million to 1 million in '88 and yet never revised the 6 million so the 6 million you so mindlessly parrot as the brainwashed are conditioned to do appears to hold some mystical significance as they tried it after the WWI as well but it never caught on the same and was meant for in group consumption. But here an article by former governor of New York in 1919: https://balder.org/judea/American-Hebrew-October-31-1919-The-Crucifixion-Of-Jews-Must-Stop-Martin-H-Glynn-Six-Million.php.

In a murder case generally the justice system wouldn't rely solely on eye witness accounts as they could have a vested interest in distorting the truth so they would also rely on forensics. When forensics were done on the supposed gas chambers they found no evidence of Zyklon B except one part of the building, the delousing area where the clothes of the inmates were passed through to protect them from typhus here large concentrations of Zyklon B were found.

The documents seized by the Russians after the war is also consistent with the Bletchley Park interceptions and this showed that the majority of the deaths in Auschwitz were caused by natural causes, i.e. starvation which wasn't strange as the allies bombed the supply lines preventing food and medicine from getting to the camps and it also showed that the majority of the deaths occurred towards the end of the war when they obviously had the most success.

The crematoria didn't have the capacity to burn all those people

So of course one can never be sure and I certainly wouldn't stake my life on it, but as they say in legal jargon, there's reason to have 'reasonable doubt' about if this most evil act in history actually occurred and far more likely considering how it was later used to destroy Europe that it was post war propaganda to justify Churchill's going to war with with a country that wanted to invade Russia for 'Lebensraum', the Soviets that btw also invaded Poland at the same time, who wanted world revolution had already tried coups in Germany(Rosa Luxembourg and the likes) and had invaded Finland. To justify all this barbarity(think of Dresden 100s of thousands burnt alive) and the loss of an empire, financially ruining Britain, of course they wanted to promote the idea of the just war.
And yes, the way it's being suppressed is very totalitarian, in Britain you're branded a Nazi or a spreader of hate speech, whereas in France and Germany(the countries with the most problems with immigration, a Holocaust carte blanche for any immigrant that wants to exploit the system, rape women, abuse the welfare system) you're even locked up for having a different take or heretic view on the matter. Like all the spin offs later on to stifle freedom(of speech) in politics, journalism and education, it was branded 'hate speech'.

And extraordinary claims as these demonising a whole nation from '45 to the end of time( 'we must never forget') and because of it Germany paying out billions every year to the state of Israel, would require extraordinary evidence. And since you're the expert and defender of the state of Israel's racist and genocidal regime (the getting away with murder I was referring to) you provide the hard nosed evidence.
You can't, because like religious are wont to do, you rely on indoctrination and knee jerk reaction to brainwashing. Because like all religions, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and what could be a more dehumanising, disempowering religion than the Holocaust?

[thalbergmad]

Frau Merkel is anything but an imbecile, the people who have been let into Germany are not all Muslims and many of them are genuine dispossessed refugees; had that many of them not gone to Germany, where do you suppose they'd have gone instead?

Some might well be genuine refugees, but many are economic migrants and some will be criminals and due to the amount she let in, some will be terrorists. She is probably is too bone headed to realise the error of her ways and it is her people that will pay the price for this idiocy, not her.

With Europe now offering a ferry service across the med, more will come and more will die tyring. These death trap boats only have to reach international waters to be then escorted to Europe. The sensible course of action would be to turn them around and escort them back.

I do not care where they would go instead, it is not Europes problem. I agree we should take in some refugees from refugee camps, but none that try to smuggle in. That is sending out the wrong message and thousands more will die trying. Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia take in none.

Thal

[chopinlover01]

I think that if Muslims wish to immigrate to the European melting pot, you have to melt a little.
The single largest trait of multiculturalism is tolerance. But you cannot be tolerant of that which is inherently intolerant; in this case, many strains of Islam.
While most Muslims in the West or even in the Middle East wouldn't carry out such attacks, many of them would hardly weep over them.
Think back to when the play "Book of Mormon" was produced; many Mormons were offended and outraged, but none of them stormed the Broadway stage and shot it up.
Do you honestly think that, given the track record of a simple cartoon, that we could produce "The Qu'ran" in the same manner?
The simple answer is no. There are too many aspects of fundamentalist Islam which suppress free speech and expression.
Quite simply, there are many aspects of Islam that are purely dangerous bullshit when taken literally. Christianity is also full of it, but its practitioners (who have gone through a Renaissance and an Enlightenment, neither of which have happened for those of Islam) are secular enough to not go blowing up buildings.

[ahinton]

I think that if Muslims wish to immigrate to the European melting pot, you have to melt a little.
The single largest trait of multiculturalism is tolerance. But you cannot be tolerant of that which is inherently intolerant; in this case, many strains of Islam.
While most Muslims in the West or even in the Middle East wouldn't carry out such attacks, many of them would hardly weep over them.
Think back to when the play "Book of Mormon" was produced; many Mormons were offended and outraged, but none of them stormed the Broadway stage and shot it up.
Do you honestly think that, given the track record of a simple cartoon, that we could produce "The Qu'ran" in the same manner?
The simple answer is no. There are too many aspects of fundamentalist Islam which suppress free speech and expression.
Quite simply, there are many aspects of Islam that are purely dangerous bullshit when taken literally. Christianity is also full of it, but its practitioners (who have gone through a Renaissance and an Enlightenment, neither of which have happened for those of Islam) are secular enough to not go blowing up buildings.

Indeed - to a point - so Islamic practice will simply have to change, in the countries where it is the law and elsewhere. It will do so in time, but these things don't happen overnight. The secularist pressures are becoming ever greater, as is the manifestation of tolerance in parts of the West.

However, fears of terrorist acts, whether or not carried out in the name of Islam, can occur without anyone needing to come to Europe in boats. Whilst there were no WMD in Iraq when inspectors came to look for them during Saddam's régime, such weaponry does exist and it has only to get into the wrong hands for such acts to be capable ot being carried out remotely (which is also cheaper); likewise, some terrorism, like charity (in this respect only, of course) begins at home and there have been instances of home-grown terrorism in several European countries including UK and France - there have been two such this week alone (France and Turkey). France seems to have more than its fair share of this; three major incidents in less than 18 months compared to UK's 7/7 doesn't look good for France.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Some might well be genuine refugees, but many are economic migrants and some will be criminals and due to the amount she let in, some will be terrorists. She is probably is too bone headed to realise the error of her ways and it is her people that will pay the price for this idiocy, not her.

How can you be sure who or what how many of them are? Hae you examined all their papers (if they have any)?

With Europe now offering a ferry service across the med, more will come and more will die tyring. These death trap boats only have to reach international waters to be then escorted to Europe. The sensible course of action would be to turn them around and escort them back.

I do not care where they would go instead, it is not Europes problem. I agree we should take in some refugees from refugee camps, but none that try to smuggle in. That is sending out the wrong message and thousands more will die trying. Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia take in none.

What you say about Saudi (and Oman, for that matter) is, of course, true but that is surely in part because refugees do not try to go there.

The problem is that the greater the uphevals outside Europe, the greater the number of dispossessed refugees there are likely to be and they have to go somehwere as their only laternitave is to stay put and die on the spot, either of malnutrition, starvation or disease or by being killed. For example, the Chinese economic bubble is showing signs of bursting (albeit slowly) and if China collapses into internecine struggles that oppress its people far more than does the current régime, thens if not hundreds of millions of Chinese might feel obliged to leave; much the same could be said in the case of India. Where will they all go? Not just to Europe, of course, but they'll all go somewhere and it's unlikely to be anywhere in Russia, Africa, south and Central America or the Middle East - or even the much closer Far East.

The "millions of Turks" descending upon Europe of which you recently wrote might look rather different now in that, should Turkey fall into anarchy, it, too, will have its fair share of refugees.

The refugee problem is clearly already on a vaster scale than that of any formal or illegal immigration issues and it might become very much larger indeed, affecting most countries in the world; I say "might", not "will", but it has to be borne in mind nevertheless. If this does happen, anyone and everyone's sense of what they might previously have regarded as "their" country will, inevitably, gradually dissolve and drown in a sea of mass population movement that will be far too large to be amenable to grossly overcrowded death-trap boats being turned back anywhere.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

@ forte88:

Might one suppose that, for you, at least, the slaughter of millions of Russians and Chinese under the régimes of Stalin and Mao respectively (far more than were killed across Western Europe as a whole), are also either myths or at the very least factually dubious? - or the Germans, Jewish and otherwise, who died other than of natural causes during WWII?

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

I've already explained the reasons why they (not just the Jews this time) had a reason to promote this propaganda. Where's the Chinese version of Schindler's List? Where are all the billions going from Japan to China every year, have they even apologised?
Do their school children who aren't allowed to see violent movies or X rated movies, get to see the most horrific images Hollywood can conjure up?
In case you didn't know, before the Hollywood camera crews came in, the emaciated(reason already explained) bodies were stacked up for days in the heat so they had to wear masks for the smell( talk about disrespecting the dead for propaganda purposes) to make it look extra sinister and horrific.
Just like immigration you'll probably rather stick your head in the sand but if you really want to know the truth we live in an information age and the evidence of the above mentioned is very easy to find. So then at least you know the background to the imagery indelibly imprinted on the collective consciousness of humanity.

And again, regardless if you believe in the Holocaust religion or not, it should be obvious by now how the Holocaust has been used to stifle opposition to mass immigration and the so called Islamization of Europe.

[ahinton]

I've already explained the reasons why they (not just the Jews this time) had a reason to promote this propaganda. Where's the Chinese version of Schindler's List?

What particular propaganda are you referring to here? Are you suggesting that not only the numbers of Jews murdered in the Holocaust but also the numbers of Russian citizens murdered under Stalin's régime and the numbers of Chinese ones under Mao's are all at best dubious and at worst mythical and therefore nothing more than cynical propaganda? If so, I think that you put yourself on very dangerous ground - but, if that's your wish, then go ahead.

In case you didn't know, before the Hollywood camera crews came in, the emaciated(reason already explained) bodies were stacked up for days in the heat so they had to wear masks for the smell( talk about disrespecting the dead for propaganda purposes) to make it look extra sinister and horrific.

Now you really are in fantasy-land! If by "the Hollywood camera crews" you refer to those involved in the making of Schindler's List (which, since you mention that movie above, it would seem not to be an unreasonable assumption), I should remind you (although I'm quite sure that you already know) that it was made some half century after the Holocaust and so the notion that any physical human remains required to be "stacked up for days in the heat" to enhance the effect just doesn't - er - "stack up".

Just like immigration you'll probably rather stick your head in the sand but if you really want to know the truth we live in an information age and the evidence of the above mentioned is very easy to find. So then at least you know the background to the imagery indelibly imprinted on the collective consciousness of humanity.

I am very concerned about immigration of all kinds; I just don't share all of your view on it or on why it has become necessary.

And again, regardless if you believe in the Holocaust religion or not, it should be obvious by now how the Holocaust has been used to stifle opposition to mass immigration and the so called Islamization of Europe.

Nonsense on all counts. Firstly, the Holocaust was and is not a "religion". Secondly, you have provided not a scrap of evidence to prove that what's been said and written about it over the years had been intended and used solely and specifically as "propaganda" for the purposes of stifling "opposition to mass immigration" (which is beginning to happen now in any case, albeit for reasons entirely unconnected with the Holocaust).

Furthermore, there is no conceivable connection between, on the one hand, the Holocaust and what's been said and written about it and, on the other, "the so called Islamization of Europe"; in any case, "Islamisation" can be argued as also having happened and still occurring outside Europe and the Middle East itself - one has to look no farther than east and north Africa, parts of India, the Far East and a few parts of Russia for evidence of this.

https://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people/

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

should give you plenty of reading matter. Whilst of course precise and reliable statistics on genocide anywhere are well nigh impossible to come by and the temptation to exaggerate them has often been strong and succumbed to on numerous occasions, there can be no doubt that all of those places that were victims of it lost, between them, tens of millions of their own citizens' lives, a tally that is exacerbated by those additional lives terminated by the armed forcs of other régimes during wars.

If you still want to believe that all or some of these are mere propaganda myths, then please one again go ahead; that's your prerogative. Just don't be disappointed if most people refuse to buy into it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

How can you be sure who or what how many of them are? Hae you examined all their papers (if they have any)?

Those that destroy their papers or strangely have none must be treated with the suspicion they deserve, as they are probably not genuine refugees. When a group of young men jump out of the back of a lorry on the M25, start to hand out cigarettes to their mates and then get out their £600 i phones to tell others back in Calais that they made it, are probably not genuine refugees. Those that can afford thousands of pounds to be smuggled into this Country via boat into secluded harbours are probably not genuine refugees. Those that attack each other as well as the police in crappy little camps are probably not genuine refugees, nor are those that assault lorry drivers, charge en masse to board ferries,  harrass holiday makers and storm train stations.

If you are happy with these kind of people coming into this Country then you should pay higher taxes to pay for them and perhaps you should put up a few in your cozy farmhouse. When they have trashed the place, pissed all over your roses, nicked your car and groped your wife, you may have a different opinion, but somehow i doubt it.

Thal

[ahinton]

Those that destroy their papers or strangely have none must be treated with the suspicion they deserve, as they are probably not genuine refugees. When a group of young men jump out of the back of a lorry on the M25, start to hand out cigarettes to their mates and then get out their £600 i phones to tell others back in Calais that they made it, are probably not genuine refugees. Those that can afford thousands of pounds to be smuggled into this Country via boat into secluded harbours are probably not genuine refugees. Those that attack each other as well as the police in crappy little camps are probably not genuine refugees, nor are those that assault lorry drivers, charge en masse to board ferries,  harrass holiday makers and storm train stations.

I wouldn't argue with any of that. Many genuinely dispossessed people, however, have nothing but what they stand up in - no papers, next to nothing. Of course I do not advocate letting everyone in without question (and by no means all who try to get to UK do the kinds of things that you write about in any case) but, at the same time, I do not advocate turning everyone away without question.

If you are happy with these kind of people coming into this Country

I am happy only for genuine refugees as well as others whose intention is to come to UK to seek work and pay taxes, provided that the quota of the former group is appropriately proportional to the available space and infrastructure to support them and no more.

then you should pay higher taxes to pay for them

We'll all probably have to pay a lot higher taxes just to fund the cost of Brexit should it occur over the next however many years it might take, especially if businesses relocate elsewhere and therefore pay their taxes in other countries.

and perhaps you should put up a few in your cozy farmhouse. When they have trashed the place, pissed all over your roses, nicked your car and groped your wife, you may have a different opinion, but somehow i doubt it.

I don't have a farmhouse, "cozy" or otherwise, so the remainder of what you write does not apply.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We'll all probably have to pay a lot higher taxes just to fund the cost of Brexit should it occur over the next however many years it might take, especially if businesses relocate elsewhere and therefore pay their taxes in other countries.

Doom monger.

double hic.

Thal

[ahinton]

Doom monger.

Not really. If you have a better idea than I do as to where all those extra squillions might instead come from in order to fund all those years of work, please let me (and everyone else here) know.

double hic

Somehow I don't think that Thal's beer taxes will quite cover it, although I suppose that I could be wrong about that...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Not really. If you have a better idea than I do as to where all those extra squillions might instead come from in order to fund all those years of work, please let me (and everyone else here) know.

You can scrap the Foreign Aid budget for a start.

Thal

[ahinton]

You can scrap the Foreign Aid budget for a start.

Well, I can't do that personally, but were the UK government to do that when other states didn't, UK would put itself in a very difficult position. That budget certainly needs some monitoring and yes, maybe it could be cut a bit, but not scrapped, otherwise UK would risk rendering itself liable to all manner of adverse repercussions.

A big hole could be blown into the defence budget, I guess - scrapping Trident, for starters; that might help.

It will, however, be supremely ironical if UK has to draft in and pay lawyers from other EU states to deal with the minefiled of the last 44 years' statute if there aren't enough lawyers in UK williangg and able to do that work and, let's face it, as state lawyers don't get paid as much as lawyers in private practice, there won't be much incentive for the latter to become the former just to help get that job done.

Go on; have another litre of that frothy stuff! You know that you want one, Thalbeermat!

Beerst,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Well, I can't do that personally, but were the UK government to do that when other states didn't, UK would put itself in a very difficult position.

I am going purely by memory here as i am far too drunk to look it up, but i don't think any other Country contributes 7% of their GDP in foreign aid, which was one of the few targets that the useless Cameron managed to hit. Giving millions to Countries like China and India needs to stop immediately.

Also, millions could be saved by scrapping all benefits for asylum seekers, access to the NHS and Legal Aid.

Eventually, we will also save the millions we are currently throwing down the throats of the EU mafia.

Thal.

[ahinton]

I am going purely by memory here as i am far too drunk to look it up, but i don't think any other Country contributes 7% of their GDP in foreign aid, which was one of the few targets that the useless Cameron managed to hit. Giving millions to Countries like China and India needs to stop immediately.

As I mentioned, that budget could be looked at an possibly trimmed.

Also, millions could be saved by scrapping all benefits for asylum seekers, access to the NHS and Legal Aid.

I think that such action might all foul of human rights legislation, since asylum seekers, refugees &c. are no less human than anyone else. ON that, incidentally, you didn't clarify what you have gainst human rights legislation; is it only ECHR or do you have issues with UK's own Human Righs Act and/or UDHR?

Eventually, we will also save the millions we are currently throwing down the throats of the EU mafia.

Which will not be much, since UK will have to stup up for membership of the single market once it leaves EU (if it does so) and there may be other similar costs that increase as a direct consequence of UK leaving; not one EU member state wanted UK to leave, so they're not likely to make it a bed of roses for UK.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Ignoring the even more divisive question of do we need them more than they need us, i expect any trade deals to be generous. Slapping on tarrifs would serve no purpose either way.

Of course none of the other member states wanted us to leave. We are a net contributor and thanks to Blair, we have less of a rebate. They need our money to fritter away on their pathetic superstate dream.

With 12 Countries outside of the EU wanting trade deals, i expect our business with the EU will decrease if they start to get arsy about it.

In the long term, we are far better of dealing outside of this failed experiment which will rightly collapse when others get a chance for a referendum.

Carry on with your doom mongering if you must, but i plan to be optimistic.

Thal

[hardy_practice]

Also, millions could be saved by scrapping all benefits for asylum seekers, access to the NHS and Legal Aid.

Yeh. Presumably they'll just all die!?

[ahinton]

Ignoring the even more divisive question of do we need them more than they need us, i expect any trade deals to be generous. Slapping on tarrifs would serve no purpose either way.

Of course none of the other member states wanted us to leave. We are a net contributor and thanks to Blair, we have less of a rebate. They need our money to fritter away on their pathetic superstate dream.

With 12 Countries outside of the EU wanting trade deals, i expect our business with the EU will decrease if they start to get arsy about it.

And UK's EU membership determines that it cannot trade with any countries outside EU, does it?

In the long term, we are far better of dealing outside of this failed experiment which will rightly collapse when others get a chance for a referendum.

You can have no more idea that I as to what will happen if UK leaves; the woeful lack of advance planing for Brexit appars to demostrate that few other people have any idea either. Others already have a chance for a referendum. I doubt that they'll take it.

Carry on with your doom mongering if you must, but i plan to be optimistic.

Then go ahead. Doom mongering isn't my style, however - and the actions being taken to challenge the manner in which the referendum was held, as well as Brexit itself, are not being taken by me.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yeh. Presumably they'll just all die!?

Presumably, they will stop coming.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

And UK's EU membership determines that it cannot trade with any countries outside EU, does it?

As far as i am aware, the current rules are that EU countries cannot sign their own trade deals with other members or indeed non members. Saying that, these rules appear not to have been tested as no Country has actually left.

Removed from these shackles, we can trade as we wish with anyone we wish to.

Thal

[ahinton]

Presumably, they will stop coming.

On what might you base such an assumption? If the alternative is almost certain death, what makes you so confident that they'll simply suddenly decide no longer to take on the risks of relocation?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As far as i am aware, the current rules are that EU countries cannot sign their own trade deals with other members or indeed non members. Saying that, these rules appear not to have been tested as no Country has actually left.

Removed from these shackles, we can trade as we wish with anyone we wish to.

But we can still only trade with countries with whom we can secure a good deal and they'll only do it if it's the best deal that they can get. Australia's first move notwithstanding, why would many other countries prefer to to trade deals with UK than with the much larger EU?

Much of that - like much of the negotiating of Brexit if it proceeds - will be down to the skill and clout of UK negotiators and what UK has to offer, to new trade deals with non-EU countries and with EU itself respectively; since no one seems yet to have figured out where to start on my of it (in part because Brexit was not anticipated), it doesn't sound especially optimistic or confidence inspiring.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If the alternative is almost certain death, what makes you so confident that they'll simply suddenly decide no longer to take on the risks of relocation?

If they know they are not wanted and will get nothing, then hopefully, they will go somewhere else. You are such a drama queen. The amount facing certain death that are trying to come here make up a small fraction of those who attempt the journey. People from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq and others are probably economic migrants. Again, if you are not concerned with their arrival, a few dozen should be sent to your house and you can keep them.

We of course should accept very limited numbers of genuine refugees, so taking them from camps would be a good idea. One of the few good ideas suggested by Cameron. All efforts should be made to stop the ones trying to smuggle themselves in.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Australia's first move notwithstanding, why would many other countries prefer to to trade deals with UK than with the much larger EU?

Why not?. We are the firth largest economy in the World. Stop being so negative.

Bilateral deals are simpler, quicker and more comprehensive. All 28 EU member states have a veto on trade deal negotiations which is why deals take so long. The more Countries that are involved in a trade deal, the harder and slower they are to negotiate.

Even if the EU slaps a tariff on us, it would probably very small, perhaps even under 3%. Our net contribution to the EU budget is equivalent to a 7% tariff. Paying 7% to avoid paying 3% would be monumentally stupid.

I remain optomistic and will continue to do so. The future generation will thank us for freeing ourselves from this failed organization.

Thal

[ahinton]

Why not?. We are the firth largest economy in the World. Stop being so negative.

Bilateral deals are simpler, quicker and more comprehensive. All 28 EU member states have a veto on trade deal negotiations which is why deals take so long. The more Countries that are involved in a trade deal, the harder and slower they are to negotiate.

With EU, negotiations are nevertheless with a bloc of nations, not with 28 individuals ones, individual national veto notwithstanding. As to the "firth largest economy", I'm sure that Scotland's First Minister would go forth and appreciate that sentiment! (anyway, hasn't UK now been demoted to the world's sixth largest economy?)...

Even if the EU slaps a tariff on us, it would probably very small, perhaps even under 3%. Our net contribution to the EU budget is equivalent to a 7% tariff. Paying 7% to avoid paying 3% would be monumentally stupid.

I would be wary of making assumptions (as distinct from merely expressing views) solely on the basis of "probability"; actuality is all that matters and that takes time to materialise and manifest itself; Jean-Claude Juncker's assurance that negotiations beteen UK and EU will be "amicable" gives rise to the very worst of misgivings and, let's face it, they'll be conducted on a 1 against 27 basis given that the heads of all 28 member states did not want Brexit and so the potential for animosity and acrimony can hardly be denied or dismissed.

I remain optomistic and will continue to do so. The future generation will thank us for freeing ourselves from this failed organization.

Whilst we could all do with some optimism in these darkly troubled times, reality is all that will ultimately matter.

I think that, at this stage, it is necessary to recognise that the engine of the Brexit juggernaut has yet to be switched on and that there are numerous possible reasons why turning that key might be postponed or even cancelled. Not only are there the five legal challenges and the petition, we now also have the makings of a potential and possibly irresoluble dispute between Scotland's First Minister and UK's Prime Minister over it as well as a Labour leadership contender declining to rule out a second referendum - and even these do not represent the whole story of possible stumbling blocks.

What I'm hoping in the light of it all is that the new UK government exercises due prudence and pragmatism by delaying invocation of Article 50 for the foreseeable future, not least because any successful legal challenge (even after appeal) to Parliament for having already done so (or for any other aspect of the matter) would create a truly horrendous mess that would be vastly more damaging to UK's international credibility and reputation than would be the case were invocation of that Article to be postponed until all of those obstacles have first been cleared out of the way.

For what it's worth, I know three fervent Brexit supporters who feel the same way about this; it is, after all, not about Remain or Leave but about whether procedures followed or to be followed have inviolable legal validity in every respect and at all times; no one in his/her right mind wants to see UK tripped up, especially in one of its own Courts (and still less by the United Nations) for having set so monumental a change in process without having first ensured that every legal "i" and "t" therein has first respectively been dotted and crossed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I'm sorry but you have outbored me. I am simply not prepared to spend any more time on this pointless thread

There was a  referendum and Brexit won.

Those are my final words. You can continue rabbiting on if you wish.

Thal

[ahinton]

I'm sorry but you have outbored me. I am simply not prepared to spend any more time on this pointless thread

I'd not realised that you had a boat with an outboard motor; perhaps that's the kind of boat that you'd like to see refugess turned back in.

There was a 
referendum

Which there shouldn't and needn't have been (when was a law last passed in UK by this means rather than by customary Parliamentary debate and voting followed by the Royal Assent?)

and Brexit won

And no one won a majority and indeed no one won anything. What's to happen next is largely anyone's guess.

Those are my final words.

Really? We'll see!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-in-high-court
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/polit...-a3298926.html

It's now clear that the A50's a closed road until sometime next year and, as the raft of legal challenges has apparently now increased to 7 (in addition to that petition), the entire Referendum / Brexit / procedures business is increasingly coming under scrutiny and being undermined from many angles.

Nothing's ever certain in politics, of course, but there seem to be increasing numbers of people determined not to take this lying down.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yawn

[ahinton]

Yawn

I knew that you'd not spoken your last word! Anyway, enjoy your beer, in the certain knowledge that there's a lot more of that to come, however successful or otherwise it might be. Even if all of it comes to nothing, do bear in mind that corpoate funders, crowd funders and the taxpayer will have had to shell out lots of money for it and will have to go on doing so for at least as long as such challengers, however unsuccessful some might be, materialise.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Evenif all of it comes to nothing, do bar in mind that corpoate funders

Looks like i am not the only one who has been drinking.

Thal

[ahinton]

Looks like i am not the only one who has been drinking.

I'm sure that you aren't, but the problem is my typing when sober, I fear; typos duly corrected (and thanks for drawing them to my attention).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Interesting that the IMF has slashed the UK growth forecast, but it still appears we will outstrip Germany, France and Italy.

Are the IMF back tracking on their doom laden predictions?

Thal