Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "TalkTV"
channel.
-
177
-
158
-
126
-
76
-
@brianconnelly-s5e Farage has no power, but, like the rest of us, has the right, at least for now, to express his opinions.
The Dear Leader is Prime Minister. He needs to learn, and quickly, that, unlike when he was Leader of the Opposition, his behaviour now matters, and that his words, and actions, have consequences.
74
-
70
-
64
-
55
-
49
-
47
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
I think it is more a case of trying to protect their core vote of the public sector, and keeping the bosses of the big unions on side.
The others, such as farmers, the elderly, and those from the private sector, are of no interest, and can therefore be considered expendable.
After all, in the world of Rachel from Accounts, a dead pensioner is both one less pension to pay, and, potentially, one less non labour vote.
39
-
38
-
38
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
Isn't the problem that Starmer hasn't yet realised that he is no longer Leader of the opposition, where he could say more or less what he wanted and no one would much care, but is now Prime Minister, and that his words have consequences.
Labelling the bulk of the British population into the category of 'far right thugs' is likely to exacerbate the current situation, especially when he has also promised special levels of protection for Mosques.
In short, in the first crisis of his Premiership, he is failing badly. There are, without doubt, a number of unpleasant far-right thugs in the country, but all Starmer has done is give them a spurious credibility, by refusing to listen to the concerns of many ordinary British people.
Hopefully, there are some wiser politicians in the labour camp, who will be able to make him aware of what he has done.
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Sorry, but the Barrister is correct in his explanation of how the law works. Whether the CPS was right in concluding that there was a case to answer in the first place is not the issue. Once it had, then the trial had to proceed. It did, and the correct verdict was reached. If anything, that demonstrates that the Legal System is still fit for purpose.
Consider the alternative. If the facts and the evidence had not been properly tested before a Jury, how do you think the usual subjects would have reacted?
What is more dubious is the way the BBC and others portrayed Kaba as a young angel, 'unarmed. training to become an architect, and about to become a father' when those responsible within the organisation doubtless knew the facts, but chose not to report the events in an impartial manner.
The BBC had, it seems, concluded, for reasons of their own, that the Firearms Officer was guilty until proven guilty, as the virtually unconcealed fury of their presenters on Monday's news made obvious.
When the facts became public, the startling hand brake turn undertaken by that same BBC on Tuesday was 'mirabile visu.' Wonderful to behold.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Seriously, expecting Mr. Lammy to know who Archbishop Cranmer was is akin to expecting my cat to write an erudite thesis on Pope Innocent III.
Thomas Cranmer, by the way, was Archbishop at the time of Henry VII, Edward VI, and (briefly) Mary. But not, oddly, of Henry VIII's successor, Henry VII, Mr, Lammy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The most recent statistics available, those from 2022, suggest that in terms of population per square kilometre India, for example, is at 435. The United Kingdom is 274. However, this is misleading, when the British figures are broken down further, as they reveal the following :-
Scotland 70. Wales 153. Northern Ireland 137. England 434.
Gaza, by the way, in 2022 was 365, Germany 233, and France 117.
Perhaps this explains why, when 'Refugees welcome here' demonstrators are asked if they would be willing to accommodate an asylum seeker, they almost universally say 'I wish I could, but I don't have the room' without realising how ironic the comment really is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billyliar1614 'Yes, foreign aid is unjustified, but isn't Starmer sorting that?' Perhaps, but only for so long as he pretends to be a war leader. His own left wing will not tolerate this as anything more than a temporary pause.
Where exactly do you think that the monry to fund pay rises in the Public Sector comes from? Increased employer National Insurance contributions and, soon the Emnployment Rights Bill.
As someone who has spent most of his working life in the private sector, unlike, it seems, anyone in the Cabinet, let me explain how these things work. My old MD, after a few minutes shouting at us in Managers' Meetings, explained lot as follows :- To make £1 of profit, you need to make £10 of extra revenue, or make £1 in cost cuts.
That is why the sector is now abandoning potential recruitment, and looking at redundancy plans. You need to be an economic ignoramus not to grasp the fact that reducing the sector will, far from growing the economy, contract it, thus generating less revenue from the National Insurance leaving less to be poured into the bottomless well that is the NHS and, indeed, many parts of the public sector as a whole.
As to pensioners, instead of spouting platitudes like 'the over-65s are the richest demographic' why not think instead about those who were already in difficulties, but did not make the cut? Certainly, many pensioners did not need the allowance, but does that justify considering the rest as mere collateral damage, as Reeves apparently did?
As Matthew Rycroft, told the UK Mission to the UN at the Security Council Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict 'How a society treats its most vulnerable is always the measure of its humanity.' Apply this to the current government, and Starmer has been found wanting.
That's it. I will not explain further.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathijomac 10 Downing Street, like Chequers, is the residence of whoever might be the Prime Minister at any given time. No previous PM has done anything similar to Chequers, largely because neither is the property of the PM.
Changing tne interior of the residential quarters in No. 10 is perfectly acceptable, and has been done on numerous occasions, but the Thatcher Room, and the portrait, do not come into that category.
The portrait, by the way, was commissioned by one Gordon Brown, by no means a Thatcher groupie, but someone mature enough to understand her place in British history, and someone more than mature enough not to be unsettled by the images of his predecessors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christinearthur5546 Perhaps you are unaware of the way the British system of Governance works. The 'King in Parliament' makes the law, and the Judiciary enforces it. Sir Keir has the means at his disposal to change any law, or any government policy, he chooses. That is what, in fact, Prime Ministers do, and have done, for good or ill, since Robert Walpole.
The fact is, as I have already written and you have either misread or simply misunderstood, the rioting is the result of many people believing, whether correctly or not, that their concerns are being either ignored or marginalised.
The Prime Minister had an opportunity to call for unity in a time of crisis. Instead, in more than one statement, his response has to have been openly divisive.
Isn't it sad that, when people are struggling to make a sensible argument, they immediately resort to confrontational comments instead, as you have done?
1
-
1
-
@christinearthur5546 As I thought I had made clear, the Prime Minister, through the 'King In Parliament' system of governance which has existed, at least since the 'Glorious Revolution' and arguably since the restoration of Charles II after the collapse of the Commonwealth following the death of the Lord Protector, has the power to enact or amend any law he chooses.
As I am not Prime Minister, nor, indeed, a political animal, all I can do is express my views on the manner in which Starmer has acted to date, and so far he seems to have behaved in an unwise and blatantly partisan manner. At a time when those in power are expected to respond in a manner intended to pour oil on troubled waters, Starmer seems to be, rather, pouring petrol onto fire.
If you think that his demonising, en bloc, some 80% of the population, then I fear you are sadly mistaken.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eliopacheco Oh dear! You cannot imagine how tedious it gets having to educate people. Aside from the fact that the Channel Islands were, and are, self governing Crown Dependencies, not part of the UK, the British were never remotely likely to have lost WW2.
I appreciate that you are clearly not Clausewitz, but he would doubtless have agreed with the proposition that, if you seek to invade an island defended by the largest navy on earth, and your own fleet will fit into Adolf's bathtub and still leave room for his pet rubber duck, Franz, it is probably better not to try.
In short, mon vieux, the Germans were never able to invade Britain and thus defeat her. Indeed, after embarking on Barbarossa in June 1941, they were going, eventually, to lose the war.
The massive US involvement, after being reluctantly dragged in by Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, simply made assurance doubly sure, and speeded up the process.
Lesson over. You are fortunate, as normally I get paid to give lectures to the less well-informed!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some of these comments are so unfair. All poor Angela did was push the tea trolley up and down the corridors at Post Office HQ for years, whilst occasionally passing on e-mails to other, more important, people. Without, of course, ever reading any of them.
Her leaving salary of £420,000 p.a. was simply because she brewed excellent tea, and never, ever, forgot to put the biscuit tin, or the milk and sugar, on the trolley before setting off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LJ2K2025 That is the joy of First Past the Post:-
33.7% Voted Labour, 23.7% Tory, 14.3% Reform, 12.22% LibDem, and 6.4% Green.
In terms of Proportional Numbers, that would have left Labour with 219 seats, Tory 154 seats, Reform 93 seats, the LibDems 79 seats, and the Greens 42 seats.
In other words, after receiving around 500,000 votes less than they did during the Corbyn debacle, Labour ended up with a virtual dictatorship, despite only around 20% of the electorate actually voting for them.
The Tories in the past have, of course, also benefitted from FPtP, but it makes it neither right nor democratic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wildideas7368 Oh dear. Another one who never learned of the concept of sarcasm at school.
The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as a British dynasty was short-lived. It encompassed the reign of King Edward VII, who reigned for nine years at the beginning of the modern age in the early years of the twentieth century, and the first seven years of his son, King George V, who replaced the German-sounding title with that of Windsor in 1917during the First World War.
Perhaps it didn't help that the Germans, from June 1917, had been using Gotha aircraft to bomb London? Thus, although George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II. and Charles III might claim the dynastic name 'Windsor' in fact their actual House is the same as that of the Belgian Royal Family, that of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Of course, I am assuming much. Such as that you have actually heard of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, or George V.
Or, come to that, George VI, Edward VIII, George VI, Queen Elizabeth II. Or perhaps even Gotha Bombers, World War I, and Belgium.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see the problem here, Aside from you falsely attributing to me any opinion at all about the Soviet Union, you aren't aware that the British were outproducing the Germans in aircraft and in tanks from 1940 onwards, or that the Commonwealth and Empire were rapidly gearing up for war at the same time.
Of course the Soviets played a major role in the defeat of Germany, after their friends the Germans suddenly turned upon them in June, 1941.
But that wasn't wasn't you wrote, was it? If you recall, you wrote 'Also without the Russians, we would be talking German and Ukrainian. 'Which is simply nonsense. In 1940, and in the first half of 1941, the Soviets were eagerly supplying the Germans with raw materials, and, in particular, oil. Did the Germans attempt to invade then, and if they did not, what leads you to your strange belief that they might have done so later?
I won't waste any further time upon you, of course. You should go away and wallow in your own ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Presumably, like Rachel Reeves, you don't know, or don't care, how the Private Sector, which actually generates all the money being poured into the bottomless pit that is the NHS, actually works?
Put simply, when costs rise, as they will do now that Rachel has punished the sector, management has two options, which are to increase charges to their customers, or to cut costs. The easiest way to cut cost is by reducing the single highest individual cost element, which is the workforce. I won't, of course, mention the potential third, as that is the nuclear option of closing down the business entirely.
I look forward to Rachel explaining to those employees made redundant how the increase in minimum wage will benefit them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cyclingSausage You miss the point. Try this alternative :-
Definition of 'road.'
'A wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use.'
Did you grasp the relevance of the word 'vehicle?'
Next, try this :-
Definition of 'vehicle.'
'Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats, underwater vehicles), amphibious vehicles (screw-propelled vehicles, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, aerostats), and spacecraft.'
Would you define 'bicycle' as, 'A vehicle whose rider is empowered to travel along any road, pavement, or path, and to which normal road safety legislation does not apply?'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1