Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "British Stand"
channel.
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@melvinplant8637 Oxo cubes typically cost around £1 to £2 for a pack of 12 cubes in the UK, depending on the store and any ongoing promotions. Prices can vary slightly depending on the type of stock (beef, chicken, vegetable) and where you purchase them.
If you assume the lowest price, £1 then making a nutritious meal for £1 can be challenging, but it’s definitely possible by focusing on simple ingredients. Here’s a basic recipe for a hearty, budget-friendly lentil and vegetable soup that costs around £1 per serving.
Ingredients (serves 2–3):
• Red lentils (100g) - £0.25
• Carrot (1 medium) - £0.10
• Onion (1 medium) - £0.10
• Garlic (1 clove) - £0.05
• Vegetable stock cube (Oxo or similar) - £0.10
• Canned tomatoes (400g) - £0.30
• Salt, pepper, and any spices you have on hand (e.g., paprika, cumin) - £0.05
Total Cost: £0.95 for 2–3 servings (roughly £0.32–0.48 per serving).
Instructions:
1. Prep the vegetables: Peel and chop the carrot and onion, and mince the garlic.
2. Sauté the base: In a pot, add a little oil or water, then sauté the onion and garlic until softened.
3. Add the carrot and lentils: Add the chopped carrot and lentils, and stir everything together for a minute.
4. Add stock and tomatoes: Dissolve the stock cube in 500ml of boiling water, then pour it into the pot along with the canned tomatoes.
5. Simmer: Bring everything to a boil, reduce the heat, and let it simmer for 20–25 minutes until the lentils are tender.
6. Season: Add salt, pepper, and any spices you like for extra flavor.
7. Serve: Enjoy as a warm, filling meal.
You can add a slice of budget bread to make it a more complete meal. This soup is nutritious, filling, and stays within the £1 budget easily!
For a £2 meal, you can expand your ingredients and create a more substantial dish. Here’s a recipe for a vegetable and chickpea curry that can serve 2–3 people for around £2.
Ingredients (serves 2–3):
• Chickpeas (400g canned) - £0.50
• Potato (1 medium) - £0.15
• Carrot (1 medium) - £0.10
• Onion (1 medium) - £0.10
• Garlic (1 clove) - £0.05
• Canned tomatoes (400g) - £0.30
• Curry powder (1 tbsp) - £0.10
• Vegetable stock cube - £0.10
• Rice (150g dry) - £0.40
• Salt, pepper, and optional chili flakes - £0.05
Total Cost: £1.85 for 2–3 servings (roughly £0.62–0.92 per serving).
Instructions:
1. Prep the vegetables: Peel and chop the potato, carrot, and onion. Mince the garlic.
2. Cook the base: In a pan, sauté the onion and garlic in a little oil or water until softened.
3. Add spices: Stir in the curry powder and let it cook for a minute to release its flavor.
4. Add vegetables and chickpeas: Add the chopped potato, carrot, and drained chickpeas to the pan.
5. Add tomatoes and stock: Pour in the canned tomatoes and 200ml of water, dissolving the stock cube in it. Stir well.
6. Simmer: Let the curry simmer for about 20 minutes until the vegetables are tender.
7. Cook the rice: While the curry is simmering, cook the rice according to the package instructions.
8. Season and serve: Once the curry is done, season with salt, pepper, and chili flakes if you like it spicy. Serve the curry over the rice.
This dish is filling, nutritious, and flavorful, with plenty of protein from the chickpeas and a good balance of vegetables. It’s a perfect budget-friendly meal for £2 or less!
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasoncdebussy well you can of course do that, but then you have to agree to all these consequences:
Cutting aid to all foreign countries by the UK could lead to several problems, both domestically and internationally:
1. Global Instability
• Humanitarian crises: Many developing nations rely on foreign aid to provide basic services such as healthcare, education, and food. Cutting aid could worsen humanitarian crises, leading to famine, disease outbreaks, and extreme poverty.
• Increased migration: Lack of support in impoverished regions can lead to mass migration, as people seek refuge in more stable countries, including the UK.
• Geopolitical instability: Reducing aid can destabilize regions where the UK has strategic interests, potentially increasing conflict and security threats.
2. Diminished Global Influence
• Loss of soft power: Aid is a crucial tool for exerting influence on the global stage. Cutting it would reduce the UK’s ability to shape international policies, resolve conflicts diplomatically, and build alliances.
• Reduced diplomatic leverage: Aid can help build partnerships, strengthen trade relationships, and foster cooperation in key global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and global security.
3. Economic Consequences
• Impact on UK businesses: Foreign aid often comes with trade agreements that benefit UK companies, creating jobs and boosting the economy. Cutting aid could reduce export opportunities and harm sectors that depend on international trade.
• Loss of investment in long-term growth: Aid is often directed towards building infrastructure, education, and economic growth in developing countries, which in turn helps create future markets for UK goods and services. Withdrawing aid risks slowing this process.
4. National Security Risks
• Terrorism and radicalization: Lack of development aid can leave power vacuums in fragile states, allowing extremist groups to gain influence and recruit members. This could increase the risk of terrorism, some of which could have repercussions for the UK.
• Instability in Commonwealth nations: Several countries in the Commonwealth depend on UK aid for development. Instability in these nations could pose direct risks to the UK’s security and international standing.
5. Reputation Damage
• Loss of international goodwill: The UK has been seen as a leader in providing foreign aid, and cutting it would damage its reputation as a global humanitarian actor. This could reduce trust in UK leadership on global issues.
• International criticism: The UK could face backlash from global organizations like the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, affecting its international standing.
6. Moral and Ethical Concerns
• Failure to meet global commitments: Cutting aid could mean the UK fails to meet international commitments, such as the United Nations’ target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid, which could diminish its moral authority.
• Ethical responsibility: Some argue that wealthier countries have a responsibility to help poorer nations combat issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change. Abandoning foreign aid could be seen as neglecting this duty.
These challenges suggest that foreign aid serves not only as a humanitarian tool but also as a strategic asset for the UK, with wide-reaching implications if it were cut entirely.
Of course you can cut all aid to all countries. But anyone who does that needs a lot of good luck!
2
-
2
-
@EgoChip ok my pleasure
who said we want criminals? The reasons why many genuine asylum seekers do not use legal routes is very well documented.
The UK offers very few official legal routes for asylum seekers to apply for protection. For example, resettlement schemes or family reunification programs exist but are often limited in scale, have strict eligibility criteria, and do not cover all types of asylum seekers. As a result, many people cannot access these pathways.
In addition the UK generally requires asylum seekers to be physically present in the country to apply for asylum. Unlike some other countries, the UK does not allow people to apply for asylum from abroad (with some exceptions, such as refugee resettlement). This means that many have no choice but to reach the UK by irregular means in order to seek asylum.
There are other reasons too. Many asylum seekers flee countries with oppressive regimes, war zones, or failed states, where it may be impossible to obtain legal travel documents.
Additionally, it is almost impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain a UK visa for travel, as they may not meet the requirements of ordinary visa categories such as work, study, or tourism.
Furthermore Asylum seekers often flee life-threatening situations, such as war or persecution, and may have to leave their homes suddenly without time to navigate complex legal systems. Their priority is to find safety quickly, even if it means taking irregular routes, rather than waiting for potentially unavailable legal processes.
Many asylum seekers may not be aware of any legal routes available to them or may lack access to legal advice that could help them understand the options.
Additionally, misinformation or exploitation by traffickers and smugglers can lead them to believe that there are no safe and legal ways to reach the UK.
Finally, the UK is an island nation, which makes it more difficult for people to reach through regular travel means compared to countries accessible by land. This can force individuals to resort to irregular and dangerous routes to make it to the UK.
For these reasons, many genuine asylum seekers are unable to use legal routes and end up risking their lives on dangerous journeys to reach safety in the UK.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are right in that the UK’s national debt reached 100% of its GDP in August 2024, marking the first time since the 1960s that this level has been reached. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) provisionally estimated that public sector net debt (excluding public sector banks) had risen to this level, driven by factors such as increased public spending, benefits, and public sector wages, which outpaced government revenue from taxes  .
This rise in debt, while significant, reflects broader economic challenges, including higher borrowing costs and pressures on public services. If the Bank of England’s debt is excluded, the figure stands at 92% of GDP . Managing this debt will be a central issue in the upcoming budget, as the government looks to balance fiscal responsibility with public service demands .
2
-
2
-
Well it’s your opinion and you are welcome to it. Maybe you are right. It is however a complex issue: • Private Ownership: Consumers may face higher prices due to profit margins, but might benefit from greater efficiency.
• Public Ownership: Consumers might enjoy lower prices, but the service could suffer from underinvestment or inefficiencies.
• Foreign Ownership: Pricing and service quality can vary. Consumers might worry about foreign influence, but they could also benefit from better infrastructure or services, depending on the investment strategy of the foreign owner.
Ultimately, the success of any model depends on factors like regulatory oversight, competition, and the specific context of the utility in question. Strong regulation can mitigate some disadvantages, such as monopolistic practices in private or foreign ownership, while weak regulation can amplify them. It’s all a matter of opinion, and how old you are to remember!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drewward8522 by “its people” I assume you choose to exclude all those persecuted which were a wide range chosen based on a combination of racist, political, and social ideologies. Including but limited to Jews, Romani people, Disabled, Political dissidents, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, Africans and people of African descent, Freemasons, some Christian clergy who opposed the regime, and individuals deemed "asocial" (such as the homeless and habitual criminals). Oh and I almost forgot, I assume you also exclude the 4.5 to 5.7 million German and Austrian soldiers that died during WW2. And this is your example of a “caring” approach. Do you see perhaps why it’s not such a convincing line of argument?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2