Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

Ha ha ha ha - seek help. You are delusional.

I thought that might bring out the real you, resorting to insults.

As my ragamuffin mother and friends in the 1900s East End of London use to chant at adults who verbally abused them, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
.

 

[Tony1951]

I thought that might bring out the real you, resorting to insults.

As my ragamuffin mother and friends in the 1900s East End of London use to chant at adults who verbally abused them, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
.

It's not abuse at all. Simply a statement of fact.

Anyway - how dare you complain. It is only a few days since you called me a follower of Enoch Powel for daring to question uncontrolled migration.

Prices of the electricity we use to charge

Why do people consider tariff barriers? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8d4v69jw6o

www.pedelecs.co.uk

Since Labour came to power a little over 18 months ago, 50,000 people arrived illegally in the UK on unvetted rubber boats. Who are they? What is their criminal history if they have one? Who asked them to come? Why are the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 which makes such arrivals a criminal offence (section 24) not being enforced?

To ask this makes one in some deluded eyes, a part of the far right and a follower of Enoch Powel and probably also of Oswald Moseley.

On the same page I quoted above, having pointed out why I thought Farage's party was going to take more and more votes from paralysed and unresponsive traditional parties, that fellow in Edinburgh posted some hard left meme likening the democratic right parties such as Reform to full on fascism. A more politically illiterate slur is hard to imagine and it does a dis service to all the victims of the violent fascism of the mid twentieth century. Those parties are UTTERLY different to any of the democratic right parties in Europe.

Fascism is founded on:

State sponsored Violence
State control of industry
Persecution and imprisonment of political opponents
Absolute destruction of fundamental rights
Absolute abhorrence of democracy

But still the stupid and lazy throw that at parties which are merely a bit right of centre, and at people who advocate for sensible control of migration and enforcement of control of illegal and utterly uncontrolled illegal landings on beaches which since Labour gained power could fill a football stadium.

 

[flecc]

Sweden: Approximately 10.55 million people.

• Denmark: Approximately 5.96 million people.
• Norway: Approximately 5.55 million people.

Sweden has a population almost equal to the rest of Scandinavia in total.

Rubbish, you left out Finland and Iceland.

Sweden 10,57 million, the rest 17.55 million.

Are they? How do you know this?

If it is true, it is probably because the politicians they elect do what the people want, and don't subscribe to the view that the people are in general fools who are to be ignored (which is where and why I came into this conversation).

It's what the latest survey reported, and probably true because their political parties, which are all Labour, do what their people want, fully implement socialism. They certainly don't treat their electorate as fools, that's more of an English political party speciality.
.

 

[Tony1951]

Ha ha ha

Iceland 404,000 living on a volcano

Finland 5.4 million living in the tundra on reindeer and tree felling.


And YOU sir described the electorate as fools just in the last couple of days, openly saying they didn't know what they wanted and that people such as yourself would need to ignore what they said they wanted.

You are a real joker

 

[Woosh]

Since Labour came to power a little over 18 months ago, 50,000 people arrived illegally in the UK on unvetted rubber boats. Who are they? What is their criminal history if they have one? Who asked them to come? Why are the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 which makes such arrivals a criminal offence (section 24) not being enforced?

To ask this makes one in some deluded eyes, a part of the far right and a follower of Enoch Powel and probably also of Oswald Moseley.

You just ignored all explanations.
They are asylum seekers. Calling them illegal migrants is one tactics to misdirect voters comprehension of their situations.
We don't provide asylum seekers with other legal routes to claim.

Our laws require due process. We detain them a short period to collect their biometrics and their depositions, give them temporary protection and identification papers. They are registered and subsidised for living expenses until our courts can look into their application for asylum.

 

[flecc]

And YOU sir described the electorate as fools just in the last couple of days, openly saying they didn't know what they wanted and that people such as yourself would need to ignore what they said they wanted.

Liar. I did not describe them as fools since not knowing something does not indicate a person is a fool.

Insults of that sort are your ignorant speciality.
.

 

[Tony1951]

You just ignored all explanations.
They are asylum seekers. Calling them illegal migrants is one tactics to misdirect voters comprehension of their situations.
We don't provide asylum seekers with other legal routes to claim.

Our laws require due process. We detain them a short period to collect their biometrics and their depositions, give them temporary protection and identification papers. They are registered and subsidised for living expenses until our courts can look into their application for asylum.

WRONG.

They seem to be running away from the dangers of France.

We do provide routes for asylum. They just ignored them.

in the last couple of years we received 12000 'asylum seekers' from Albania, many of them criminals. Albanians are now a major headache for police running prostitution and human trafficking enterprises.

It is an absolute and obvious abuse to depart from France where no one is at risk and sail to the UK to land on a beach, and suggest you had to do so to claim asylum.

Only an utter fool would not think so.

 

[flecc]

And by the way - I spent a lot of my life, probably the first forty years of my adulthood as a Labour voter

And I made the opposite mistake, voting much more Conservative until I learnt better with age and experience. Ever since I am much more selective and careful about who and what I vote for, sometimes wasting the vote to avoid supporting what I cannot accept from either of the likely winners.
.

 

[Tony1951]

Liar. I did not describe them as fools since not knowing something does not indicate a person is a fool.

Insults of that sort are your ignorant speciality.
.

Prices of the electricity we use to charge

Why do people consider tariff barriers? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8d4v69jw6o

www.pedelecs.co.uk

 

[flecc]

Prices of the electricity we use to charge

Why do people consider tariff barriers? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8d4v69jw6o

www.pedelecs.co.uk

Thank you for reposting a post I stick by.

You don't have me fooled any more than Powell did, whatever you might have been in the past, you are now very far right. Just wanting to cage those you consider offenders, Guantanamo style, makes you so.
.

 

[Woosh]

WRONG.

They seem to be running away from the dangers of France.

We do provide routes for asylum. They just ignored them.

in the last couple of years we received 12000 'asylum seekers' from Albania, many of them criminals. Albanians are now a major headache for police running prostitution and human trafficking enterprises.

It is an absolute and obvious abuse to depart from France where no one is at risk and sail to the UK to land on a beach, and suggest you had to do so to claim asylum.

Only an utter fool would not think so.

You clearly choose to ignore our laws and reality when they don't suit. 75% of those illegal migrants got given refugees status and leave to stay when they go through the process. That's roughly 20,000 a year.
How many refugees have we accepted by other legal routes?

 

[Tony1951]

Thank you for reposting a post I stick by.

You don't have me fooled any more than Powell did, whatever you might have been in the past, you are now very far right. Just wanting to cage those you consider offenders, Guantanamo style, makes you so.
.

Not people that I consider offenders - people convicted of VERY serious crime and attacking other offenders and prison officers. How about Abedi - stabbed and scalded 4 prison officers with hot oil. Not his first asssult of guards either. I think he has another conviction for that prior to his latest outrage. How about Rudiacabana? Threw a kettle of boiling water in the face of a female guard when she looked though the hatch in his cell door? No - mustn't cage maniacs. They have rights.

Joker.

All violent offenders should be caged 24/7. I'd hazard that such a view would be shared by 85% of the population. You'd know that if you were not living in a delusional, Marxist bubble.

 

[flecc]

All violent offenders should be caged 24/7. I'd hazard that such a view would be shared by 85% of the population. You'd know that if you were not living in a delusional, Marxist bubble.

I agree that and know that the majority share that view, demonstrating that I am not living in any sort of bubble..

But we can't do that sort of thing any more, which would show that we are no better than the offenders.

Where would you stop? Boat people next?
.

 

[Woosh]

You'd know that if you were not living in a delusional, Marxist bubble.

Are you sure that is what you want? One possible scenario is happening right now, in Washington DC. Scare away tourists for sure.
Joe Rogan, he is certainly not a Marxist: 'Sure! We are going to get rid of the gang members. We didn’t know we are getting rid of the landscapers'.

 

[Tony1951]

Watch this from Minute 3:30 -

What is wrong with the ECHR?

Absolute common sense.

The Human Rights Act 1998 made by Blair & Co subjugates British Law and the British Parliament to the actions of a foreign court. This treacherous, appalling state of affairs makes the UK a supplicant, grovelling ,and powerless nation, subject to instructions from a foreign court.

We NEED NO ADVICE in the UK from Europeans about Human Rights.

For generations, the British have lived under a jurisdiction which protected human rights.

ALL of the rights listed in the schedule supposedly protected by the ECHR existed here, while half of Europe lived under tyranny and barbaric dictatorship. Do I need to list the fascist and communist regimes of twentieth century Europe and their appalling abuses of human rights?


Fascist Nazism stamped all over Europe from 1933 - 1945
Periods of decades long fascism rampaged variously in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal - right up until the mid 1970s.

Communist oppression reigned solidly right across Eastern Europe from 1945 right up until 1990.

In all of these places - now daring to dictate to us about human rights, jackbooted thugs were sent by European government to remove, imprison in gulags and execute people who were deigned to be undesirable.

No - Europeans are not required as guarantors of British Human Rights.


Blair's 1998 Human Rights Act and the joining of the Council of Europe fundamentally contradicts both in the letter of the law and in everyday practise, the constitutional position that Parliament is supreme in all things in making law. This is or was an absolute cornerstone of our government and constitution. Now - because of it, no elected government has the right to do anything other than obey a foreign court.

The act even specifically binds our Parliament in future legislation in the duty to ensure that any NEW ACT is compatible with the text of human rights law made in Europe AND to the case law made by judges in the ECHR.

So much for the long established constitutional position in the UK that Parliament is supreme in making and deciding law, and to the position that no Parliament can bind any future Parliament.

We must absolutely amend Blair's act to remove all duties to consider or obey the ECHR or to be in any way obligated by the decisions of foreign courts and politicians in 'Johnny come lately' European democracies.

 

[soundwave]

 

[Woosh]

Watch this from Minute 3:30 -

What is wrong with the ECHR?

Absolute common sense.

The Human Rights Act 1998 made by Blair & Co subjugates British Law and the British Parliament to the actions of a foreign court. This treacherous, appalling state of affairs makes the UK a supplicant, grovelling ,and powerless nation, subject to instructions from a foreign court.

We NEED NO ADVICE in the UK from Europeans about Human Rights.

For generations, the British have lived under a jurisdiction which protected human rights.

ALL of the rights listed in the schedule supposedly protected by the ECHR existed here, while half of Europe lived under tyranny and barbaric dictatorship. Do I need to list the fascist and communist regimes of twentieth century Europe and their appalling abuses of human rights?


Fascist Nazism stamped all over Europe from 1933 - 1945
Periods of decades long fascism rampaged variously in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal - right up until the mid 1970s.

Communist oppression reigned solidly right across Eastern Europe from 1945 right up until 1990.

In all of these places - now daring to dictate to us about human rights, jackbooted thugs were sent by European government to remove, imprison in gulags and execute people who were deigned to be undesirable.

No - Europeans are not required as guarantors of British Human Rights.


Blair's 1998 Human Rights Act and the joining of the Council of Europe fundamentally contradicts both in the letter of the law and in everyday practise, the constitutional position that Parliament is supreme in all things in making law. This is or was an absolute cornerstone of our government and constitution. Now - because of it, no elected government has the right to do anything other than obey a foreign court.

The act even specifically binds our Parliament in future legislation in the duty to ensure that any NEW ACT is compatible with the text of human rights law made in Europe AND to the case law made by judges in the ECHR.

So much for the long established constitutional position in the UK that Parliament is supreme in making and deciding law, and to the position that no Parliament can bind any future Parliament.

We must absolutely amend Blair's act to remove all duties to consider or obey the ECHR or to be in any way obligated by the decisions of foreign courts and politicians in 'Johnny come lately' European democracies.

You are mad. Why don't you ask ChatGPT to factcheck your arguments?

The ECHR is part of the Council Of Europe and this country, the UK, is the foremost member of both. Only Russia and Belarus have opted out of both. They would have been chucked out for starting the war in Ukraine.
The ECHR does not force the UK to accept asylum seekers, feed them or house them. Our laws do that.
We promoted the ECHR after the second world war to promote peace and justice for all, our lawers wrote most of it from our own laws and ideals. 46 European countries signed it into their laws. Only Russia and Belarus have left it after the war started in Ukraine.

Leaving the ECHR serves little purpose and will cause a lot of reputational harm. You believe the right wing propaganda that the ECHR stopped deportations to Rwanda. That isn't correct. The decisions of the European Court on Human Rights are influential especially to our judges but do not take precedence over our courts' decisions.
Ask ChatGPT if you don't believe that.

 

[flecc]

Watch this from Minute 3:30 -

What is wrong with the ECHR?

Absolute common sense.

The Human Rights Act 1998 made by Blair & Co subjugates British Law and the British Parliament to the actions of a foreign court. This treacherous, appalling state of affairs makes the UK a supplicant, grovelling ,and powerless nation, subject to instructions from a foreign court.

We NEED NO ADVICE in the UK from Europeans about Human Rights.

For generations, the British have lived under a jurisdiction which protected human rights.

ALL of the rights listed in the schedule supposedly protected by the ECHR existed here, while half of Europe lived under tyranny and barbaric dictatorship. Do I need to list the fascist and communist regimes of twentieth century Europe and their appalling abuses of human rights?


Fascist Nazism stamped all over Europe from 1933 - 1945
Periods of decades long fascism rampaged variously in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal - right up until the mid 1970s.

Communist oppression reigned solidly right across Eastern Europe from 1945 right up until 1990.

In all of these places - now daring to dictate to us about human rights, jackbooted thugs were sent by European government to remove, imprison in gulags and execute people who were deigned to be undesirable.

No - Europeans are not required as guarantors of British Human Rights.


Blair's 1998 Human Rights Act and the joining of the Council of Europe fundamentally contradicts both in the letter of the law and in everyday practise, the constitutional position that Parliament is supreme in all things in making law. This is or was an absolute cornerstone of our government and constitution. Now - because of it, no elected government has the right to do anything other than obey a foreign court.

The act even specifically binds our Parliament in future legislation in the duty to ensure that any NEW ACT is compatible with the text of human rights law made in Europe AND to the case law made by judges in the ECHR.

So much for the long established constitutional position in the UK that Parliament is supreme in making and deciding law, and to the position that no Parliament can bind any future Parliament.

We must absolutely amend Blair's act to remove all duties to consider or obey the ECHR or to be in any way obligated by the decisions of foreign courts and politicians in 'Johnny come lately' European democracies.

Following the appalling events of WW2. Winston Churchill decided that a Human Rights law was desirable and appointed British politician and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to produce one. Trouble was that no UK government was prepared to adopt it. Long afterwards the EU also had the same idea and cast around for examples. Happening upon our draft they were duly impressed with its excellence and largely adopted it unaltered, to this day crediting Sir David.

Ironically that led to the UK having to adopt it when Winston’s fellow Tory politician, Edward Heath, decided we should join the European project, the biter bitten and only ourselves to blame!

Your attempt to portray the UK as not needing a human rights act is ridiculous, considering our very long history of violent and abusive treatment of peoples all over the world, including in our own British Isles, Ireland for an appalling example.

We need one as much any other nation and the excellent largely British produced ECHR is ideal for the job, especially since it includes monitoring of our behaviour by others, already shown to be necessary in 2003.
.

 

[Woosh]

Electric cars are cheap to buy, cheap to run and friendly to other road users. What not to like?
CATL has recently disclosed that they should be able soon to make their sodium batteries for as little as 10 dollars a kilowatt hour. They currently make them for about 19 dollars a kwH while LFP costs about 59 dollars per kwh to make. Their new sodium batteries lose only about 15% capacity after 10,000 charging cycles.

 

[soundwave]

the cables in the floor cant handle all electric cars which i said years ago as the cables cant take the load so the hole lot needs replacing buy 2035 not going to happen.

its all about making more money and price the middle class of the road so buy a horse