Youtube comments of janburn007 (@janburn007).

  1. Our present civilisation is being "dragged backwards" by "hokery pokery wokery" nonsense.
    567
  2. I'd never even heard of Meghan Markle until I read media reports that she was the woman Prince Harry was dating & then became engaged to & married. At that time it was mentioned that she had been an actress in the cable TV series "Suits" - of which I had never heard. I thought that her very name "Meghan Markle" sounded silly - something like that of many cartoon characters - Peter Parker (Spiderman), Clark Kent (Superman), Lex Luthor, etc. At first I did not believe that Meghan Markle could have been her real name at all. The only reason she has become well-known now, is because she married into the British royal family, & without that, she would still be an unknown cable TV actress. If Prince Harry had not been born into the royal family by chance, he would be a nobody as well.
    222
  3. If the British government believes Turkey is an "unsafe" country for people to be deported back to - then they should also prevent any British citizens travelling there for the purpose of tourism & holidays. Just see how that goes down with both the travelling British public & Turkey!
    207
  4. I've already cancelled my donations to & purchases from Oxfam as a result, & changed them to a different charity - one that is not "woke"..
    169
  5. I wonder what would have happened, had it been a pro-Israeli protester interrupting an Islamic religious event. Somehow I don't think the hosts would have been quite as gracious as the ones at the Carols by Candle-light event.
    113
  6. I wonder what would have happened if pro-Israeli protesters disrupted Ramadan or Eid celebrations - I somehow don't think Muslims would have appreciated that - so why do protesters go to all that trouble to disrupt the Christmas celebrations of Christians - who are not even really involved in the present conflict? And by the way - there was no such place/land/country/state as Palestine when Jesus was born. Therefore Jesus was not a Palestinian - but he WAS a Jew, wherever he was born. And if Muslims had existed at the time Jesus was born - you can bet that the baby Jesus would have been one of the first babies to be murdered/mutilated/massacred by Hamas - just like what they did to many other babies & children on 7 October - after all, Jesus was a Jew - so why not? Perhaps Christians should have put on their own special "nativity" display - showing the baby Jesus in the manger, his body all bloodied - because it had been murdered & mutilated by Hamas.
    103
  7. Wow - those farmers' markets do look very well-presented & professional, with stalls/stands that look like they are permanently located there & used for other things from time to time. Most of the farmers' markets that I've been to in my own country, are much more basic, with no permanent stalls - but just something set up temporarily. And there's certainly a very good range of farm produce there in Russia as well.
    95
  8. Excellent informative video. I was already aware of much of the information provided, based on what had already been covered in a range of previous videos. But this would be an excellent source of information for new viewers to this channel.
    80
  9. It's not Israel's fault that children in Gaza are being killed as collateral damage in this conflict. That is clearly the fault of Hamas who are using Gaza civilians - including children - as human shields & not allowing them to evacuate to safer areas.
    63
  10. It's interesting to see what one of the smaller, local suburban supermarkets is like, & their range of products & prices. It's also interesting to hear you say that the prices tend not to vary very much between the supermarkets - so you don't necessarily have to travel far away to a hypermarket to get the best prices for your groceries - unlike in some English-speaking countries. I noticed the ice-cream freezer/cabinet appeared to have mostly smaller, individual serves of ice-cream rather than big 5 or 6 litre tubs of ice-cream. Are large ice-cream tubs not popular products in Russian supermarkets? Lastly, when you were heading home, you did not appear to be carrying any supermarket purchases of your own. I hope you did not forget to buy the items your wife wanted you to buy - or did you have to go to a different supermarket to purchase those items?
    62
  11. Maybe we & the authorities need to be more critical of the Mums for allowing their children to watch that drag show, or for specifically taking them to see it in the first place. But it is strange that the festival's organisers would make some aspects of such an event specially for babies & young children. Did they need to seek permission from the authorities for that show to be determined/declared as suitable for young children, I wonder?
    59
  12. The issue of client-side scanning has previously been discussed in other videos on this channel - but this video is a very timely reminder of the threats that this sort of technology poses for everyone who values their privacy. Now that some countries are trying to implement laws which make this kind of invasiveness legal & compulsory - I would strongly suggest that such laws are opposed in no uncertain terms. I wonder how much longer it might be before governments seek to make things like the use of VPN's & de-Googled phones illegal - because it almost seems like that could be a future step in the same direction. Once a particular type of technology is developed - albeit supposedly for a "good reason" - there's absolutely nothing to stop it from being used for '"other" purposes (legal or otherwise). And for the developer of such a technology - it obviously would make good business sense to have the technology sold & used for as wide variety of purposes as possible - in order to maximise the market & profit from that technology. And of course, the maker of such technology can always wipe their hands of it once they sell it as a product. They will claim that they just make & sell the technology but do not actually use it themselves. They will claim they are just "filling a need" in the market, & they, as the maker, are not responsible for what the buyer may use that technology for.
    59
  13. An ambulance "convoy" sounds like a military operation, using civilian ambulances instead of military vehicles, to move military equipment & troops. But as Hamas is a terrorist organisation - this is the sort of thing they would likely do - commandeer civilian ambulances from serving their own civilian population, & use them for their own military purposes, in the hope that the IDF would not realise that Hamas are using ambulances for their own terrorists & military equipment.
    53
  14. I am now boycotting these Olympics, as well as all French products, & all products & services made by the sponsors of these Olympics. I'm also boycotting the people who performed in that filthy disgusting event which France mistakenly labelled an Olympic games opening ceremony. It should have been "R" rated & definitely not suitable for children.
    52
  15. Just thought I'd mention that most Indian people from Kerala (& I have some good friends from that part of the world) actually pronounce it KErala (with a short, stressed "e" sound). While I support the right of people to protest about things, I do not believe that anyone has the right to disrupt a person's enjoyment of a film they have paid to see - whether that film happens to be historically accurate or not, or whether it's just a dramatisation of real events. I should also say that I have read in the international news on several occasions in the past, of young girls of other religions in effect being forced into marriages (after sometimes being kidnapped) with Muslim boys/men, then eventually "converting" to Islam, supposedly voluntarily. And there have been court cases in India about these kinds of things which have happened - & not just in the state of Kerala. In 1 or 2 cases that I heard about, the girls were eventually returned to their families, after the court ordered it. Just because some people may not agree with the teachings of Islam, & may disapprove of the practices of Muslim people, does not make them "Islamaphobic". Genuine Islamaphobia only occurs where people have no real identifiable & logical reason for disliking the religion of Islam. And just because one may dislike Islam & its teachings, does not mean that one also dislikes specific Muslim people. The term "phobia" implies having a truly unfounded fear of something - & therefore in most cases, the term "Islamaphobia" is being used by people who really do not understand its correct meaning. Most people's concerns about the religion of Islam are indeed well-founded, from its own actual teachings in the Quran & hadiths, & the actions of many of its followers. Therefore "Islamaphobia" is really not the correct the correct word to use & perhaps just calling people "anti-Islam" would be a better term - because it more accurately reflects that people do not agree with the teachings of Islam in the Quran & hadiths.
    52
  16. I feel it's just a great shame that the rest of the team members were to cowardly to stand up for their 7 victimised team mates who were discriminated against & say something like "if these 7 team mates of ours are not playing, then we're not playing either". Now that would have shown them all to be a "real" team! It would have been great to see the looks on the faces of the team officials if that had happened - it would have put the whole match in jeopardy, unless a decision was reached that none of the team members had to wear that awful pride jersey if they did not want to. I wonder if the team was being paid lots of money to wear that special jersey & they risked losing all that money if they did not wear it - or maybe there was some type of "contract" involved with the "pride" movement that forced the team to wear the terrible jersey which is nothing more than a political statement about sexuality. But in a way, I felt sorry for the coach - who was the one who was left o make the apology to the public. After all, it was probably not his decision for the whole team to wear that abominable "pride" jersey - that would have been the decision of the team officials, I'm fairly sure. Yet those same team officials were far too cowardly to front up to the public & make that apology themselves & left it up to the coach to do all their dirty work for them. I think those 7 will forever be known as "the 7 manly men of Manly" - because they were the only men in the entire team who were "manly" enough to take a stand for their beliefs & all the other team members & officials were too cowardly to stand up for their 7 victimised & persecuted team mates, who were being discriminated against for their personal beliefs. It's not as though the 7 were asking all their team mates to run onto the field wearing jerseys with giant Christian crosses on the front & back - but they just did not want to wear a jersey emblazoned with a "pride" symbol. The whole of rugby league has become one giant "political football". It's about time the entire Manly team started kicking that "political football" - & kicking it to death - until there's absolutely no politics left in it at all - & all that remains is just the "football" - pure & simple. It seems the rest of the Manly team & all its officials are simply way too stupid to realise how truly stupid they sound to anyone with an ounce of common sense, when they say things like - "the only way we can be truly inclusive, is by excluding all those who don't agree with us". It's sad that none of the other Manly players & team officials seem to be capable of understanding that it's entirely possible to tolerate others in this world, without necessarily wanting to go out & actively promote & advertise them, or their lifestyles. It' not normal for people to go around advertising & promoting themselves as heterosexual - so why would they want to go around advertising, promoting, & celebrating that someone else is gay/LGBTIQ+? And why should they - if they don't even advertise/promote themselves. Whatever happened to "live & let live" or "let's just agree to disagree"? According to the Bible, "pride" (in the true dictionary definition of the word, & without any reference to sexuality at all) in itself is actually a sin. So why would anyone (let alone a sports person) claiming to be a Christian, want to be seen to be promoting & advertising anything at all related to pride - let alone a form of "pride" that supposedly relates to one's sexuality, which most Christians would believe is something very private & personal. Yes - Christians can & do "love" & care for others in the platonic sense - but that does not mean they expect those "others" to always be perfect people & agree with & condone their behaviour & everything they do. But just because they may disagree with or dislike some of the things other people do, does not mean that they then hate those people, or do not love them. It seems like it is always the supposedly "woke" people proclaiming inclusiveness, tolerance & diversity - who turn out to be the least inclusive, tolerant & diverse of all - & they are usually out to get anyone & everyone who disagrees with them. And even if they can't do anything to them legally - they will usually victimise, harass & intimidate people in/at their workplaces by campaigning against them & often contacting their employers to try to make them lose their jobs & their livelihoods. They seek to cancel/ban/block people entirely from many areas of life. They can also become very violent & threatening towards people with different opinions. There seems to be no end to the cruelty & evil that these "woke" people will indulge in. It's about time the rest of the world put all these "woke" people back to sleep - never to be woken again!
    47
  17. Maybe all that money that this Australian government has given to UNRWA since 7 October, 2023, should be matched by giving an equal amount of money to the Australian Jewish community, to help them combat, & to protect themselves from all the anti-Semitic attacks & vandalism that have taken place in Australia against the Jewish community since 7 October, 2023 - & which the current Australian government has done extraordinarily little to stop. And of course, it goes without saying that there should be NO further Australian aid money being given to UNRWA or ANY other UN organisation.
    45
  18. Wow - that Fay woman certainly does not come across as a very nice person in that video of her that you showed. She lost my vote, I'm afraid.
    39
  19. I think the whole reason Harry & Meghan really left the UK, was precisely so they could "monetise" their lives/private lives as royals/ex-royals & make a lot of money out it. That was something they were not able to do as working members of the royal family in the UK - where they would live in assigned accommodation provided for them, & receive a more modest income as working royals, & have their royal duties assigned to them. By stepping down from all their official royal duties & moving to California, they could then in effect "sell themselves" & their image, in a controlled manner, to the highest bidders, & make a lot of money - so much more than they would ever have, in the UK. That was something they would never have been able to do as working royals, as their public images & reputations would have been controlled by the royal family - & as Harry was only 6th or 7th in line to the throne, as royal family members go, they would have been relatively "unimportant". But if they really only wanted to sell themselves to the highest American bidders - that reason would not go down very well with the British public, as a reason to step down from royal duties, & move to America. So they had to manufacture another story about wanting privacy from all the media intrusion in the UK, & racism against Meghan etc. Once they were in America though, & no longer working royals, & no longer involved in royal family life in the UK - their source of "stories" to tell about the British royal family, would eventually dry up. What is being told in this documentary series, together with Harry's book, & Meghan's podcasts, & the previous Oprah interview, are mostly stories about their former lives as royals in the UK. Once those stories have all been told, they are unlikely to have any new stories to tell, & the media no doubt, won't want to keep hearing from them those same stories all over again. So I expect then, that their prominence in the media will start to dry up & they will drift into the obscurity that they claimed they wanted, when they moved to California. And thank goodness for that. I don't think most people believed many of their "stories" in any case - as while they make a lot of claims & accusations, they don't provide a lot of hard evidence to back them up, & we know that a number of statements made by Meghan in the past, have actually been factually incorrect. So I really don't think many people believe most of their claims in any case.
    38
  20. I always thought the "legal" names were on the child's registered birth certificate & the title of "Princess" would not be on the US birth certificate, so it is not part of her "legal" name & therefore could not be put on official documents, like a US passport etc. The names with which one is Christened or baptised, can be different to the names on one's legal birth certificate - but if they are different, those Christening names are usually only recognised/acknowledged by the church in which one is Christened, & carry no legal weight for official purposes. But I guess that is one way for Meghan & Harry to give their daughter a so-called "title" (even though the title has not been authorised by King Charles) - even though it may not be legally or officially recognised anywhere - either in the US or the UK, or anywhere else.
    37
  21. In Islam, according to the Quran & hadiths, Aisha was actually 6 years old when Muhammad married her, & Muhammad at that time was around 50 years old. Muhammad then consummated that marriage with Aisha, when she was 9 years old. The way Muslims actually explain/excuse this to non-Muslims, is by simply saying that in Muhammad's time, it was not at all unusual for such young girls to be married off to much older men, at the age of 6. But Islam came along roughly 600 years after Christianity, & in the Bible, one never reads about such young girls of 6, being married off to men who are 40 - 50 years old. So, in that 600 years after Christianity, the moral values of that Islamic society must have severely deteriorated from that of Christianity. In Islam, Muhammad is upheld as the most perfect specimen of a man that ever lived, & he is greatly revered as a prophet.
    37
  22. I agree with Dr Akib Ehsan - so many people these days confuse genuine "discrimination" with simply legitimate criticism or negative comments about something. The minute one criticises some sections of the community - whether that criticism is genuine or not - some less intelligent people are very quick to immediately accuse those people of discrimination or hate crime, or call them anti-Semitic, Islamophobic etc. Clearly those people are just not smart enough to understand the correct meaning of the word "discrimination", "anti-Semitic", "phobia/phobic" etc & they're also not smart enough to be able to look up the correct meaning of those words in a good quality dictionary. If they did do that - they would soon realise that they are completely mis-using those words in so many cases. But whenever anyone criticises Christianity - they always seem to get away with it - no-one jumps up & down & accuses those people of being "Christophobic". I think there are very real double standards in the community - which treats some religions more favourably than others & makes it okay to discriminate against the Christian religion - but not any other religion. Some people are quick to label things as "hate crimes" - when they are usually not "hate crimes" at all, according to the legal definition of that term. In order for something to qualify as a "hate crime" as defined by law, there first of all needs to have been an actual "crime" committed. Secondly, that crime needs to have been committed, because the person/thing against which it was committed, was a member of or represented some kind of minority group, as specified in the legislation. But if there was no actual crime committed in the first place, then there is no "hate crime" as such. Some stupid politicians have even gone so far as to say that the Church of England should just change its beliefs/teachings on some issues. But I don't see them saying to the leaders of any other religion in the UK, that they should change their beliefs/teachings on certain issues & "modernise" themselves. Why single out just one religion? Better still - politicians & the government should just keep their noses out of all religion. When a religion is based on the teachings in certain books of scripture - they cannot simply change their beliefs/teachings "at will" - they have to continue to follow the teachings in those scriptures. This is something that British politicians just don't seem to be capable of understanding.
    36
  23. Yes - these so-called "woke" people will always defend the minority religions in any country (even if people of those religions have recently committed acts of violence) - but they will never stand up to defend Christianity - which is the majority religion (& the traditional/historic religion) in most western democratic countries. But even before the western countries withdrew from Afghanistan, Christianity was the most persecuted religion in the world, simply because of all the persecution that was happening to it in so many of the majority Muslim countries around the world. Persecution of Christians in those countries is very widespread & common - almost an everyday occurrence in fact. But unless it's a major event of Islamic terrorism in a western country, we rarely get to hear about (in the mainstream western media) all these incidents of persecution of Christians in majority Muslim countries. And whenever a major incident of Islamic terrorism happens in a western country - the media is always very quick to assure us that Islam is a religion of peace (even though they've never read the Quran & hadiths for themselves, to find out), & this act of terrorism was not encouraged by the religion of Islam - but merely the act of a "lone wolf" Muslim (in which case there seem to be many "lone wolves" in the religion of Islam!). If only those in the media would take it upon themselves to read the Quran & hadiths for themselves, they would soon find out that Islam in fact DOES encourage violence against non-believers in Islam, & also those who leave the religion of Islam. But apparently none of our media people are smart enough to read those books for themselves. I've also never understood why Christianity cannot at least be given the same privileges & support as say Judaism & Islam. People would never dare treat Jews & Muslims the way they treat Christians - or they probably would be labelled as racists & discriminating against them on the basis of their religious beliefs. They would also probably be labelled anti-Semitic & Islamaphobes. And people might also be afraid that they may become the victims of terrorists if they do not treat Muslims favourably. But the world over the last 20 years or so, seems to have become very antagonistic towards Christians & has become extremely "Christianophobic" - & people are just expected to accept this discrimination against Christians - when all they really want is to be treated the same as the other religions. And at least practising Christians have not gone around committing acts of physically violent terrorism in the name of Christianity in recent years - so it's hard to understand why Christianity receives such unfavourable treatment. The only conclusion possible is that most people in the west responsible for this treatment of Christianity, are simply hypocrites with double standards.
    35
  24.  @ronstephen-wy4ib  I'm neither biased nor ignorant. The destruction of Israel & all Jews is a part of Hamas' written Charter document, which is readily available for anyone to read - though it sounds like you may not have read it as yet. If that's the case - I strongly suggest that you read it.
    30
  25. I agree that something does seem strange there. Could it be that Captain Tom himself was under the (mistaken) impression that the proceeds from the sale of his books were to go to his charitable foundation - yet behind the scenes, someone made alternate contractual arrangements for the book proceeds to go elsewhere - namely to his daughter's family business. If so - that does seem rather misleading - especially when in all the media & publicity articles being written about it at the time, it was clearly stated that the proceeds were to support Captain Tom's charitable foundation. Given that obvious disparity - surely the daughter should have stepped forward at that time, after seeing those media articles, to correct the misunderstanding that the book proceeds were supporting the foundation - since she obviously would have known that was not the case, if the proceeds were set up to go towards her own family's business. So why did she not come forward to clarify that at the that time? Did she believe there was some benefit in allowing the public to think the book proceeds were going towards the foundation? Or did she not want to embarrass her father by publicly correcting his misunderstanding as to where the book proceeds were going? Did Captain Tom even realise that the book proceeds were NOT set up to go to his foundation? The daughter does appear to have left herself open to claims of misrepresentation in this regard.
    30
  26. The so-called "prophet" Muhammad had a total of 13 wives - but then told his followers they were only allowed to have a maximum of 4 wives. According to Muhammad, Allah "commanded" him to have those 13 wives (& he also had numerous concubines & slave girls). As long as the men are "married" to the women in the eyes of their religion (which means that some of those "marriages" are not legally recognised in the countries in which they happen - especially if those countries don't permit bigamy or polygamy) - then the religion does not consider them to be committing "adultery" as such - although the law will just see those subsequent "marriages" as adulterous extra-marital affairs.
    27
  27. I don't feel in the least bit sorry for the Hezbollah terrorists who were targeted in these exploding pager & exploding walkie talkie attacks. These people are members of an Islamic terrorist group after all, & they had planned attacks against Israel. And when Hezbollah attack, they do so against random groups of civilians - like young children playing on a sports field - they do not try to specifically target enemy combatants. Also, one cannot start a war/conflict by attacking civilians - like on 7 October - then claim to be a victim when the people you attacked retaliate & then look like winning the war. That's simply called being a coward (ie those who started the war on 7 October).
    26
  28.  @el_killorcure  Abdullah has stated in a previous video, that it was his wife's own personal choice not to appear in any of the videos, even though she would still be making a significant contribution to the content of the channel.
    23
  29. I don't think most people would find that sort of comment/question racist. The person asking the question would have merely been interested to know the ethnic origins of the person they were asking - that is, they were interested to know what country the person's family was originally from - as they were obviously not indigenous to the British Isles. That's just being curious or inquisitive - not racist - as it's not implying that the person they were asking was in any way inferior because they were not an indigenous British person. The press & the lady who was questioned are clearly reading way too much into the question that was asked. They seem to be making out that it's racist just to be interested in someone's ethnic origin. That's way "over the top"!
    23
  30. Clearly now, the British police are good for doing nothing at all - except the "macarena" - at least that's one thing they DID manage to teach them at the police college!
    21
  31.  @yamnjam  Yes - it certainly is very hypocritical & having double standards. I'm sure there would be an outcry by Muslim men if Muslim women started taking 4 husbands.
    21
  32.  @YossiaNorth  The skin colour & racism issue was yet another thing that was highly dubious at best, in what Markle said in that interview. It's common knowledge that most couples of mixed ethnicity where one of the couple is caucasian/white will often discuss amongst themselves & their family members/relatives, about what colour skin their child will have - & that is not at all unusual. It doesn't necessarily mean that the parents & family/relatives are simply being "racist" by discussing such matters. And given that Markle admitted that that information had only come to her 2nd hand from Harry - how would she even know that those comments were racially motivated by whoever said them, & that it was intended as a racial slur against Markle & her child?
    21
  33. A great timely reminder - to practise browser isolation & use a de-Googled phone to maximise privacy.
    21
  34. It looks like a lovely shopping centre, with lots of great shops & facilities.
    21
  35. Oprah is an absolutely terrible interviewer. She just swallowed up everything Markle said & took it all at face value & as the truth - without ever trying to delve deeper or ask her for any hard evidence whatsoever concerning some of her totally untrue claims. Oprah certainly won't win any awards as an interviewer, that's for sure...
    20
  36.  @iskanderstrel  Nothing I have said is racist - you obviously do not understand the dictionary definition of the word "racist" & when anyone says anything negative about something, which you do not like, you simply call them a name - such as a "racist". Nothing I have said is racist - I would say exactly the same thing about anyone at all who behaves in a similar fashion to some of those polygamous men in the above video. And yes - I will continue to dare to say whatever I want to say.
    19
  37.  @itsmorphed6416  Surely that's not part of their role - advising on how to teach controversial topics? Certainly that was not what I was giving them my donations for. Thank goodness I've stopped donating to them now!
    18
  38. Thanks very much for this message of support for the celebration of Christmas - no matter who may want to cancel Christmas this year! The religious season of Advent - which is the season of preparation leading up to Christmas Day - officially starts 4 Sundays before Christmas Day - so the actual start date of Advent will vary - but will usually be somewhere between late November & 3 December. But when Advent starts - it is generally thought that that is an acceptable time to start putting up one's Christmas tree & Christmas decorations etc. Then Advent ends & the season of "Christmas" officially starts on Christmas Day & continues after Christmas Day, for the full 12 days of Christmas (just like the song!), until 6 January, after which it is Epiphany. In some European countries, 6 January is also known as the "day of the 3 kings/wise men" - when the arrival of the 3 kings to visit the baby Jesus, is celebrated (contrary to the depiction in some nativity scenes, the 3 kings were not present at the time Christ was born). Also in these European countries, 6 January is traditionally when they exchange gifts (instead of giving gifts on Christmas Day - which is more of a religious celebration) - just as the 3 kings brought their gifts for the baby Jesus. Children in these countries will often dress up as the 3 kings, in a sort of processional. After 6 January, Christmas is officially over, & one must immediately take down one's Christmas decorations etc - as it's considered "bad luck" to leave them up after 6 January.
    18
  39.  @ledzebulon6235  I'm sure Turkey would not like it - just think of all those visa fees they would be missing out on from all those British tourists, if Britain were to ban tourism travel to Turkey!
    17
  40.  @visazomepfhuo9745  She deserves all that hate - for all the lies she told in her original Oprah interview - & there were many of them. In that same interview - she also revealed how stupid she was & Oprah revealed her own stupidity as well, for believing all of Markle's lies & for not delving deeper or asking more questions to prove the truth of Markle's claims.
    17
  41. I've also now emailed Oxfam to let them know what I've done & why I've done it. And I'll be encouraging all my friends to do the same. If Oxfam wants to go woke, then let them go broke I say.
    17
  42. If you are too kind & tolerant towards Muslims & their faith, they will perceive it as a sign of your weakness, & that you are accepting of their faith & beliefs & perhaps may even wish to convert/revert to Islam. If you are not accepting of their faith & beliefs, you really need to be very firm with them & stand up to them & make it clear to them that you do NOT accept their beliefs. This is the only way that Muslims will understand that you do not accept their beliefs. If you try to be too "understanding" & "wishy washy", towards them they will simply have no respect for you & walk all over you, especially if you are of another faith/religion, & do not stand up for your own religion & beliefs. So, being very "firm" with Muslims, & standing up to them with your own faith & beliefs, is very important, & is the only way they will respect you.
    17
  43. Shame, shame, shame, Australia!
    17
  44. Woolies & Aldi are sending a very clear message to everyone that Australia & Australian citizenship are nothing to be celebrated. Grossly disappointing for anyone who has recently become an Australian citizen, or had their application for Australian citizenship approved.
    16
  45. All great advice & inexpensive actions a person can take to guard their privacy. Everyone needs to start somewhere & these are all things which a person can very easily implement right now, to limit the amount of information the big tech companies can gather about them, & ensure a degree of privacy. And the sooner someone starts doing these things, the less time the likes of Google, Apple & Facebook will have to accumulate information about them. So don't defer privacy - the best time to start is now.
    16
  46. I live in a city of almost 400,000 people, which has always been very "forward-looking" when it comes to retail store trading hours - & even around 30 -35 years ago, regular retail stores were open for trading all day Saturday & Sunday, & supermarkets were often open till around 11pm in the evenings. These extended trading hours in our city were even way ahead of some much larger cities of 2 - 3 million people, where the stores at that time were still not open on Saturday afternoons or Sundays & there were no supermarkets open for late night trading. Unfortunately, during the recent restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the supermarkets which were previously open until 11pm at night, started closing earlier, at around 9pm or 10pm - & even though the COVID-19 restrictions are no longer in force, the supermarkets have not extended their opening hours to what they were before the pandemic. So most supermarkets in my city are now closed by 10pm in the evenings. But I've not come across any supermarkets in my city that are open 24/7. I often pop into the main supermarket in the CBD of my city, on the way home from work, to purchase a few items - so by the time I get there, it's often around 7pm or a bit later. But the problem I usually find, with shopping at that time of the evening, is that a lot of the shelves are half empty by then & because of that the choices are sometimes limited & the items that I want are just not on the shelves &/or out of stock. So it always surprises me when I see supermarkets in Russia open 24/7, with such fully stocked shelves & scarcely an empty shelf in sight (like the supermarket in the above video). Of course I realise it was mentioned that the above video was filmed around 9am in the morning, which might explain why all the shelves are still so full. So I'm wondering if there could be a particular time of day that one might go to that supermarket, & find it has some empty/un-stocked shelves - just like the supermarket I go to in my home city. My city was also the first one in our country to completely ban the use/sale of light-weight single-use plastic shopping bags - like the ones that groceries used to be packed in at the supermarket check-outs. My city banned their use almost 10 years ago now - & we've managed just fine without them ever since then. As of more recently though, stores no longer sell plastic disposable cutlery (knives/forks/spoons etc) & crockery (plates & bowls etc). Instead, disposable cutlery & crockery now comes made out of recyclable materials such as paper/cardboard.
    16
  47. Yes - & Hasan's new (3rd) wife (who previously never wore a face covering, we were told) had to "cover-up" after her marriage to him - then at the end of the documentary we saw the message that they had separated/divorced after only 3 months of "marriage" due to "irreconcilable differences".
    15
  48. Thanks so much, for this lovely, televised Easter special!
    15
  49. If your ex were to claim that you committed adultery & your child was not his, then if that is not true - one way you might embarrass him in front of his "brothers" is by showing them the results of a DNA test, proving the child is his. At the very least, that would prove your ex to be a liar, & in front of his "brothers" too ...
    14
  50. The supermarket at which I regularly shop is just an average sized supermarket for my country & not a "hypermarket" - so does not have quite such a wide range of brands of products - but it has most things that I need. It was also interesting to note that some things like (clothes) washing powder/liquid are sold in quite large volume containers/packages - whereas some other grocery items are not (like ice-cream, for example - which is usually sold in much smaller size packages). I was also very interested to see the area where they process people's on-line shopping orders for either home delivery or pick-up. I had mentioned in one of my previous posts - wondering whether on-line grocery shopping in Moscow/Russia was popular - given that many people have good supermarkets within easy walking distance of their homes. I've never really shopped in a "hypermarket" before - but think I would really enjoy that & seeing the huge range & varieties of all the products. I could probably spend a few hours there just having a look around - of course, stopping in the cafeteria for a coffee & cake or a small snack along the way!
    13
  51. Don't forget that Charles himself is a divorced man - & he was divorced prior to Diana's death. So even though Diana is no longer alive - he is not a "widower" - because he was already divorced at the time of Diana's death. But sometimes divorced people are allowed to re-marry in the church, if their former spouse is no longer living. But in Camilla's case, even though she is divorced, her former spouse is still very much alive - so for Charles to re-marry such a divorced woman in the church, is still considered unacceptable - especially for someone who will one day be the head of the Church of England. And I'm assuming that is one of the reasons they were not allowed to re-marry in the church, & had to have a civil wedding ceremony. But it did shock me that they were able to have the Church of England "bless" their civil marriage later, in a Church of England ceremony. I think they both would have been happy to continue just living together without marriage - but that would not have looked good for someone who was destined to be the future king of England & also head of the Church of England. I think there was pressure on them from the rest of the royal family, to actually get married, rather than just continue to live together. But I really think that Charles should have had to abdicate the throne, if he wanted to marry a divorced woman - just like his great-uncle before him. His aunt, Princess Margaret, had also not been permitted to marry Group Captain Townsend, who was a divorced man, without losing her place in line to throne & all royal privileges. Unfortunately, abdicating the throne was not enforced in Charles' case, & I think that can only be put down to a change in the times, & perhaps also a change in the laws, since the time of his great-uncle. Or it may simply have been due to a decision of the reigning monarch at that time - Queen Elizabeth II. In any case, it was certainly not a good look for Charles to marry the woman with whom he had had an adulterous affair, when he was previously married to Diana.
    13
  52. I love the way that girl Victoria who had previously worked as a scam-bug in India, claimed that they really were not doing anything wrong because people were ultimately making the payments to them voluntarily. She clearly does not understand that even though that may have been the case, the money was obtained fraudulently & under false pretences, because they were actually not provided the service the people were supposed to be paying for. Most countries - even India - I am sure, would have laws against such fraud crime. If India did not have laws against such things - why would they be raiding such businesses 5 - 6 times per month & shutting them down? It's obvious that what they are doing is against the law - even in India. If people are genuinely honest people, I do not know why they would accept such a job as a scam-bug. They must be really desperate for money to do so. Or maybe India's bribery & corruption culture is so ingrained in its citizens, that they see this sort of thing as perfectly normal I'm aware that in India, things tend to move much more slowly than in other countries & there is a lot of bribery & corruption involved, if you want to get things moving along. I remember going with a friend to a government office in Bombay/Mumbai to be issued with her driver's licence (for which she had already passed whatever testing was required). She even had to pay a small bribe to the government officials there to be issued with her licence - on top of whatever the standard fee for the issue of the licence may have been at that time. So in a way, I guess it's understandable, that many Indian people will be used to, & have a culture of, making money via some rather dishonest means. And with these more recent types of scams emanating almost exclusively from India, sadly, this can sometimes reflect badly on expatriate Indians who have migrated to other countries - even though they may often be very honourable & honest people. I have an Indian friend who, whenever he receives one of these scam-bug calls from India, tries to play along with the scam & waste their time, even though they can sometimes tell because of his accent, that he is from India. Sometimes, after dragging out the call, he ends it by saying - "Boy, have I got a scam for you!" - before they hang up on him,
    13
  53.  @deansartorel7260  Taking down the pride colours from the shrine is not being disrespectful to the LGBT community - it's just trying to treat everyone equally. There have also been many other "minority groups" of people who have fought & died for this country - but they have not been singled out for special treatment in the same way as the LGBT community. There is absolutely no need at all to single out any minority group of people for "special treatment" at such a shrine. ALL those people (regardless of whatever minority group of people they may belong to) who fought & died for their country, are acknowledged by the very existence of such shrines & war memorials. To single out certain minority groups of people for special treatment, is to somehow indicate that their sacrifices were "more important", than the sacrifices of the others (who may not belong to such minority groups). ALL those service men & women who made sacrifices in times of war are being acknowledged by the very presence of these shrines. The fact that there is no signage at such places indicating that certain minority groups of people are excluded, means that everyone is included.
    12
  54. I was shocked to discover that George, following his release from prison, was actually able to marry & have a family. Surely the fact that he had strangled to death, tried to set alight, decapitated & disposed of Julie's body, would have been enough to deter any sane woman from wanting to marry him - with the thought that he might also want to kill them one day as well! I also found it hard to understand why Julie would want to remain romantically involved with a man who had tried to strangle her own mother. Surely that alone would have been a very bad omen for any future romantic relationship with him.
    12
  55. When it comes to dictionaries, I look at it this way: Why should we allow ignorant people who simply do not understand the correct meaning of words & therefore constantly misuse them, to then re-define the dictionary definition of words, based on their continual misuse of them? If we allow these kinds of people to misuse words to the point where they are able to change the definition of words, then we have a language whose usage will be largely determined by the ignorant & poorly educated. And that's not saying much for the language! Do we really want the usage of the English language to be determined & changed by such people? These days, I find there are many words which are quite simply misused by people - & often it is the "woke" crowd, who just want to make up their own definitions of words as they go along, to suit their own purposes. It should not be allowed - we should all adhere to the correct dictionary definition of words, & those who misuse words should be "called out" for it & corrected.
    11
  56. If the medical evidence proved that Jennifer had been strangled to death, then I fail to understand why the court could accept his account that she may have died when he just threw her to the ground in self-defence. Was he hinting that someone may have later come along & strangled her - if that was the medically-proven cause of death? But if he was only standing/sitting 100 feet away from where he had left her body - how could something like that have happened without him seeing them do that. And if that did happen - surely he would have told the police - as they could have investigated to try & find that other person who supposedly strangled Jennifer. The actions & verdict of the jury do not seem to make a lot of sense in this case.
    11
  57. I suppose the King has to be seen to be doing the "right" thing - especially when it comes to protocol & etiquette. But, if the Sussexes truly wanted to stand by their guns with their hatred of the rest of the royal family - surely you'd think they would, in principle, refuse to accept such an invitation, if they hate the royal family so much? However, if the Sussexes do accept the invitation & come to the UK for the coronation service - surely the King & his mistress Camilla, could just basically ignore them? They could pretend the Sussexes are absolute "nobodies" & ignore them as if they never even existed. And the rest of the UK should do that as well. The Sussexes are just not important at all - they are "nothing" people.
    11
  58. Yes - but his statement about the Bible allowing polygamy is totally incorrect - & he is simply using his own made-up statement as his excuse. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that God allows or permits polygamy. It's true that in the Old Testament of the Bible - there were some characters who had a wife/wives &/or concubine/mistress, or who simply committed adultery with women other than their wives. But that was just recounting stories/histories of what actually happened. And not everything that happened in the Bible was necessarily specifically commanded or permitted/allowed by God. So we need to be very careful about saying that just because things happened in the Bible - God approved of/permitted them. God never told men in the Bible to take more than 1 wife, & wherever the Bible speaks specifically about marriage, or giving advice about it, it is always that marriage is monogamous & between 1 man & 1 woman - even from as far back as Adam & Eve. And where men in the Bible did take more than 1 wife/concubine/mistress etc - it was often in direct contravention of what they had been told by God, & usually did not end well for any of the parties - especially in the case of Abraham & Sarah. But of course the "ginger man" in the documentary chooses to ignore the Bible - because Islam tells him he can have up to 4 wives - so he'd rather go along with that teaching. And in Islam, their prophet Muhammad had anywhere between 11 & 13 wives - which according to Muhammad, Allah told him he could have - while restricting all other men to a maximum of 4 wives.
    11
  59. I think it's also interesting to hear you say that so much of the produce you buy in the local supermarkets in Russia, is actually produced or manufactured locally - so much more so than in English-speaking countries. That probably helps to make the goods/groceries much cheaper as well - especially as I suspect the overall wage/salary levels in Russia may not yet be quite as high as in some west European countries. And while Russian supermarket prices may, on the surface, appear to be cheaper than in some west European countries or English-speaking countries - one needs to bear in mind that the cost of living always needs to be compared with what people earn in that same country. So I don't really think it's a fair comparison for someone in say London or New York to look at Russian supermarket prices & say that Russians are doing well because their groceries are so cheap. Some years ago, I recall buying a 2 kilo pack of frozen peas in a supermarket in my own country - only to discover when I got home, that it had printed in small print on the packet "Product of Egypt" - which was about as far away as you could possibly get, from my own country, & of course, that "travel cost" is obviously included in the price of the product.
    11
  60. The "thought police" are already alive & well in the UK, & have been for some time now. A few years ago there was a case of a man in the UK who received a visit at his home by a couple of police officers, one of whom said they were there to "make sure that his thinking was correct". The visit was prompted by a comment/post the man had made in an on-line chat, where he had quoted something another chat member had previously said - so the content the police were upset about, was not even originally his. The UK is in a really dreadful state at the moment, sadly.
    11
  61. ​@@TonyGramsci-rh9muIt's disrespecting the views of the majority to cater for a minority group. There are other ways to show respect for those minority groups - & Australia already does that in many ways.
    11
  62. I'm wondering why they simply did not return the child (by plane) to the city where he was meant to go. What if the grandmother did not have a car to be able to drive to pick him up?
    11
  63. I'm certainly no fan of Andrew Thorburn. I worked at the NAB for many years - including the years that Andrew Thorburn was there, & I never once would have guessed, based on his behaviour, that he was a practising Christian - as some of the behaviour he exhibited while there, I would say, was not very "Christian-like". But on principle, I do believe in freedom of religion, & it was wrong for the Essendon football club to ask him to leave because they did not agree with his Christian beliefs & views. Imagine if he had been a Jew or a Christian, he would most certainly have been treated differently & excuses would have been made for him on the grounds of religious freedom - or the club would have been labelled as racist & accused of discriminating against him on the grounds of his religion. They probably also would have been afraid of being labelled as anti-Semitic or Islamaphobic. They might also have been afraid of being struck by an act of Islamic terrorism. But instead, just because he happens to be a Christian, he gets treated much worse - & this is now generally the case with Christians in Australia & many other western countries - they get treated very poorly when compared with the treatment other religions receive. If it had been Ahmed Fahour (another former CEO of the NAB, who happens to be a Muslim) who had gotten that job with Essendon - he would have been treated very differently as a Muslim & excuses would have been made for him - because Islam holds almost identical views to Christianity when it comes to the controversial issues of things like abortion & homosexuality etc. When things like this happen, the only reason for it that one can possibly come up with is that most of the people promoting this kind of discriminatory behaviour are just hypocrites with double standards.
    10
  64. You cannot expect to indulge in risky & dangerous things like that without knowing that you & your family may not survive. What do these people expect? They're taking a huge gamble with their own lives & those of their families/children. Probably better not to make such a journey in the first place.
    10
  65. Lady Hussey was not rude at all towards Ngozi Fulani at that event. She may have been persistent in her line of questioning, to get the answer she was after - but that's not the same as being rude. I would say that she just had a bit of difficulty wording her question in such a way as to get the answer she was after - so she had to have a couple of goes at it & was persistent - but certainly not rude.
    10
  66. I love how in the final shot of the above video - the guy that we had previously seen walk past you, suddenly jumped into the shot just behind you & waved - to grab a bit of free publicity for himself! That supermarket does have a very good range of most products. Apart from that - I probably would have liked to see you comment on the prices in that particular supermarket & whether they would have been considered "good" prices, compared with other supermarkets in Russia. It's one thing for foreigners to compare Russian supermarket prices with what they themselves would normally pay in their home countries - but in other countries, everything is relative to the wages/salaries/incomes of the people in those same countries. So some commentary on whether the prices of basic food items in that supermarket, would have been affordable for the average Russian family/person, would also have been helpful.
    9
  67.  @Baracusagb  Thanks very much for clarifying that. When I did not notice any large tubs (5 - 6 litres) of ice-cream in the ice-cream freezer at that supermarket, I thought that perhaps Russian people did not like to purchase ice-cream in such large tubs.
    9
  68. Yes - not even the Archbishop of Canterbury & all his "hokery pokery wokery" can put a stop to the will of God - try as he might! And thank goodness too - or we might all end up in some terrible places - being led up the garden path by the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
    9
  69. If Woolworths & Aldi won't sell what I want - then I won't support them either!
    9
  70.  @buddy6743  I don't know all the details about the referendum - but if it was not recognised by Kiev, the US & the west, I expect it might have been because there was suspected interference in the outcome/result, or perhaps some coercian of the voters, which does happen in countries where elections are not adequately monitored & there can be some interference with voters & the voting process. I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "he also warned for years that NATO is a problem at its borders & yet no-one listened". But if you mean that Putin complained about a NATO presence at the Ukraine's borders - then surely as long as Putin is not attacking other independent countries like the Ukraine, a NATO presence at that country's borders should not bother him? An independent country should be able to form alliances as it sees fit - without having a foreign country telling it that it cannot form alliances with certain parties. The Ukraine should be able to join NATO if it so wishes, without being pressured by Russia, or told by Russia that it cannot.
    9
  71. Let's face it - as soon as the police decided to allow a pro-Palestinian rally/protest to proceed on Remembrance/Armistice Day - despite what promises they may have made - we all knew that events would not run smoothly for the veterans on that day. There've already been plenty of pro-Palestinian rallies in the lead up to Remembrance Day - so I don't know why they had to proceed with one on Remembrance Day as well. What's wrong with next weekend for it instead? No - they deliberately chose that day because it was a day of significance for most people & their aim was to cause trouble on that day & get more publicity for their own cause. Amongst those pro-Palestinian rallies, there are always plenty of idiotic, imbecillic, moronic twits who are only there to cause trouble & distress, for those who are there to genuinely commemorate Remembrance Day, & want to ruin it for everyone. Those idiots would really have no idea as to what the current Gaza conflict is really about. They just pick up on & repeat what others are saying & doing & mindlessly chanting.
    9
  72. At times it seems like the only qualifications a man needs, to gain entry into the UK police force these days - is how well they can dance the macarena, & whether they look good in high heels. Ability to solve crimes is no longer a job requirement - because they don't have to do that any more. The UK police have become the laughing stock of the entire world - & rightly so. Imagine top level police officers threatening journalists with physical brutality, when all those journalists have done is be constructively critical of the police force for perfecting their macarena skills while neglecting to do their real jobs of actuallt solving crimes. Being critical is certainly not a criminal offence - nor is it even illegal - so why would senior police officers threaten those journalists with such brutality. If such senior police officers think that behaviour is acceptable (rather than spending their time catching "real" criminals) - then they have absolutely no business being in the police force at all - let alone occupying a senior position within it. These senior police are setting the worst possible example & need to be sacked before they do any further damage. They are a total disgrace to the nation.
    9
  73. That's all excellent information & good to know. It's great to armed with information & prepared for all eventualities - just in case there are problems with the carrier. I assume that if I just put my exising SIM (which has already been activated) from my existing phone handset, into my new (Brax2) phone handset - it should all work fine. Looking forward to getting my new Brax2 phone from batch 4. I understand that batch 4 is due to be shipped by the end of this week, but it may be a little while before I receive it via international post. My country's postal service is not exactly renowned for its speedy delivery times - though occasionally they do surprise me. I recently received 3 items in the post much more quickly than I expected - though they were not items from overseas. I guess if one lowers one's expectations to start with, one will never be disappointed, & can only be pleasantly surprised if delivery is quicker than expected. It's disappointing to note, however, that some mobile phone carriers are obviously trying to take advantage of their customers, by telling them they need to purchase a new phone handset, because their existing handset is not compatible, when that is not the case at all. It's obviously a good money-making venture, if people then purchase a new handset from them, as a result. Or it might even be a deliberate rort/scam, on the part of the carriers. Perhaps the trick is to just change carriers to one where one's phone handset will be accepted as compatible & supported. And make sure that the existing carrier knows that you are changing carriers, & the reasons for it. And give them some bad publicity in the process.
    9
  74. Let's all boycott Woolworths & Aldi! Let everyone shop at Coles & alternative supermarkets!
    9
  75. On Saturday of this past weekend, at around lunch time, I was seated in a small food court area in a major indoor shopping centre in the CBD of my city, having a coffee & something to eat for lunch. I was one person sitting at a 4 person table, though there were still a couple of vacant tables nearby. There was a pro-Hamas rally in the city centre that day (as there is every Saturday), & as a result, many people wandering around the city centre wearing keffiyeh & carrying Palestinian flags etc. I was wearing a baseball cap with an obvious large image of an Israeli flag on the front. Anyway, as I was eating my lunch, two women came along & just sat themselves down at my table, just across the table from me - one was wearing a red & white keffiyeh & the other had a couple of small Palestinian flags painted on the front of her T-shirt. Both of them looked to be in their 30's. The first words they said to me when they opened their mouths were "you are not welcome here!". I was rather taken aback by that statement - because I had never seen them before, even though I regularly sit in that same general area to eat lunch most Saturdays. They proceeded to tell me they were there for the rally, which also had a police presence. They then proceeded to tell me much of the pro-Hamas propaganda with which they had been indoctrinated - much of which I politely told them was simply not true. Neither of them were Palestinian or Arab - they were just WASP's. They told me the Israeli flag on the front of my cap was akin to a Nazi Swastika & that some of the nearby shop-keepers were Palestinian & were offended by the Israeli flag on my cap - although none of the shop-keepers had ever mentioned that to me in person (not that it would have made any difference). After they realised they were not going to convert me to their side - they leant over the table towards me & then demanded that I leave! I told them I was there at the table first & was certainly not about to leave because of them, & they could call the police if they wanted to. But these 2 women just kept repeating their demand for me to leave, & got louder each time. When they realised I was never going to comply with their demand, they pushed back their chairs & stood up in their places & started loudly & repeatedly chanting/shouting at me "free free Palestine, free free Palestine" over & over. I just ignored them & continued reading emails on my mobile phone - which was what I had been doing before they so rudely interrupted me. But they were very loud & quite a crowd of people/shoppers gathered & were watching what was happening, including people looking down from the first floor balconies above/overhead. Of course, eventually the shopping centre's security staff turned up (6 guys) & they also called the police. Both the security staff & the police told women their behaviour was not acceptable in the centre & eventually they quietened down. They later left the centre to go off to their rally. What ignorant, gullible & rude idiots they were. Their manner was quite aggressive & confrontational - but I simply refused to swallow their bait. Putting it mildly, I would say their behaviour was akin to that of a pack of rabid African wild dogs, foaming at the mouth!
    9
  76. This is a very interesting topic & one which should make most people very way of making their data available to big tech. Some people have been arguing for some time that the reason "big tech" can censor views expressed on their platforms, is because they are "private" organisations & can therefore do anything they like (within the law). And the recent result of Donald Trump's court case obviously confirms this. Even if the content of what has been said on a platform, does not technically "breach the rules" of that platform - they can still find some other reason to cancel you if they want to - but in reality they do not even need a reason to do so. But if the rules of free speech only apply to the government, does this mean that if "free speech" is to exist in an on-line environment, it needs to be provided by a government platform? But does this in turn, mean that, if government itself is to exist in an on-line platform provided by big tech - it too will be subject to "cancellation" by the "private" big tech companies, which could then censor even the government, just as it did the likes of the President of the USA & Gab? The only way for the government not to be subject to such cancellation by big tech, would be the for the government to develop its own platforms which were completely independent of the platforms & on-line services offered by big tech & other private companies. So no-one would have the ability then to "cancel" the government from its own platforms. Having said that, I've noticed that even on existing platforms & pages of government entities on existing big tech social media platforms, the government is actually not allowing "free speech" & is censoring contributions by members of the public. Perhaps this is because these government entities know that they themselves risk "cancellation" by the big tech private companies whose platforms they are using. But this "censorship" by such government entities even includes such things as "cancelling" contributors to their pages, claiming they have been "spamming", simply because they posted responses to the comments of several other people, all in the one day. As far as I know, most of the big tech platforms themselves don't actually cancel/ban people for that sort of thing - so perhaps that was an example of censorship by the government itself, rather than being due to the rules of the big tech platform. So in some cases, maybe the government itself is not even willing to allow "free speech" on its own platform. While there may presently be no way to legally control the actions of the private big tech platforms at the moment - one way to do it in the future, may be for governments to implement some type of licensing system for any private companies offering on-line services such as social media platforms & related services, such as on-line servers & payment services providers. There could be a 2-tiered system - with a lower licensing fee to be paid by those providers offering a fully open service, & a higher licensing fee to be paid by those companies offering only a restricted or censored service. If those providers claiming to offer a fully open service, then started censoring & cancelling their users, the government could then take them to court & prosecute them for breaching the terms of their licensing agreement with the government. Or they could possibly revoke their licence altogether. These licensing agreements with the government could also possibly restrict the amount of personal data the providers are allowed to gather from their users, & what the providers are then allowed to use that data for. Food for thought!
    9
  77. It's really no different to when the Hollywood A-listers would fly out to Vietnam during that war, to entertain some of the US troops who were off duty at the time - putting on concerts & shows over there. Short segments of some of those shows were even shown in newsclips on TV in the US & other countries at that time. That's not to say that the war was still not dangerous for the soldiers who were fighting in it. And there were some "close calls" during some of those "shows", which had to be interrupted so people could take cover when the area suddenly came under fire/attack & the entertainers also had to "take cover". So it was certainly dangerous for the entertainers as well - but they believed they were performing a necessary service in entertaining the troops & keeping them motivated, & giving them perhaps a little something to remember about things at home. I suspect any Hollywood A-listers who are travelling to the Ukraine during this war, may be doing the same thing. Trying to keep the soldiers all motivated by entertaining them & reminding them that they're fighting for their country's freedom & independence from Russia - & also providing a glimpse of what a normal life is like, in the absence of war.
    9
  78.  @goodmorning993  Yes - Markle is certainly just an extraordinarily brash & loud American actress, who is severely lacking in scruples, discretion, & sympathy - for anyone other than herself.
    8
  79.  @robertjarman4261  He seems to already be fairly Orthodox in his beliefs as a Christian. I somehow doubt that he will renounce his Christian faith.
    8
  80. All very interesting indeed! And although the "ChatGPT" does not know whether the information it has gathered from various sources is true or not - I can well imagine that at some time in the future, some people & organisations may well become reliant on that information & treat it as though it is all true. Therein lies a danger.
    8
  81. I've always found something very strange about the claims of institutional racism in Britain. In countries that many years ago, were permanently colonised by the British &/or other European countries, any non-European indigenous people of those colonised countries, have in more recent years, been acknowledged & given special rights & privileges (eg the native American indians in the USA & Canada, the Maoris in New Zealand, aboriginals in Australia, & the native people in South Africa) to make up for the relatively poor treatment they may have been given by colonisers in times past. But when it comes to the British Isles - it is the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, & Celts who are the indigenous people of that nation - & they "allowed" people of other races/ethnicities/nations to migrate there & live in their country. Yet now many of those same people who migrated there, as well as the indigenous people themselves, are claiming that the indigenous people of Britain are racist towards the non-indigenous of Britain. Surely if the indigenous people of Britain were institutionally racist, they would never have allowed people of other races/ethnicities & from other countries, to migrate to Britain in the first place? And why should the indigenous people of Britain want to punish themselves for being racist against those of other ethnicities whom they have allowed into their country? In most other countries it is the indigenous people who are being given special treatment by the colonisers to make up for the past poor treatment they may have received. Yet in their own country, the British still want to punish themselves for racism towards other ethnicities whom they have allowed to live in their country? It just does not make sense. Based on what has happened with the indigenous people in other colonised countries - perhaps it is the non-indigenous migrants to Britain who need to be giving special rights & privileges to the indigenous British people. It seems that either way - whether abroad in countries they have colonised, or even in their own home/indigenous country - the British cannot win & will not allow themselves to win. They must always be the "losers", according to the "woke" generation. As I said, none of this "institutional racism" nonsense in Britain, makes any sense. In any case, these days, under the law in Britain, everyone is entitled to be treated equally & have equal opportunity - regardless of their race/nationality or religion. And it has been like that for quite some time now. I think it's time everyone started to look forward & not backwards. It's time Britain stopped wanting to punish itself for so-called "institutional racism" - when the majority of present day indigenous British people are probably not even racist at all.
    8
  82. There is usually some down time for certain sections of the troops & in certain areas, in any war. For example - did you know that during the Vietnam war - the participating countries like the US & Australia, would send over their celebrity entertainers, to entertain their troops & put on shows etc for them, during that down time? Segments of such shows/entertainment in Vietnam would often be shown in TV newsclips in the US & Australia. And in TV shows like "MASH" which takes place during the Korean war - you get to see some of the soldiers taking leave in the capital city, where life almost seems "normal" for a time. The British comedy TV show "It Ain't 'alf 'ot Mum" showed the life of a troop of British entertainers who would entertain the troops stationed in British India (though there may not have been an actual "war" there at the time). So these kinds of events can & still do happen during times of war. The purpose of such "entertainment" is usually to keep the troops relatively happy & motivated & to remind them of what life is like back home. In any case, the leader of a country such as the President is usually not fighting on the front lines when his country is at war. But because Ukraine is such a small country, it is also necessary for them to gain & retain the support of other much larger countries like the US & the UK etc. So the purpose of this interview is to garner such support & let everyone know that the Ukraine still needs that support. Without such interviews & keeping the war in the Ukraine at the forefront in the media - people in other countries may tend to forget that that country is at war & needs the support of the west.
    8
  83.  @Kmecha84  No Christian is perfect - but it's very sad indeed that children have been abused in the church - & those people should be prosecuted & punished with the full force of the law & the maximum sentence possible. But in reality, there are also many more paedophiles without any church affiliation whatsoever. So do you also refuse to associate with the secular world because of its many paedophiles - or only the world of religion, because you hold them to a much higher standard than the rest of the world?
    8
  84. Praying for you, & all the very brave soldiers of the IDF.
    8
  85. Agreed - someone should just put their microphone on "mute" if people get too loud or aggressive.
    8
  86. My main concern with biometrics/fingerprints/face-scans etc for logging in to things has always been the thought that someone could (without your knowledge or permission, or perhaps even forcibly) scan your face or use your fingerprint to log in to your device & gain access to its data/information, without the owner's knowledge. This might happen, if you are asleep, unconscious, or generally just not as alert as you normally should be. However, I guess this sort of thing is more of a "security" concern, than an actual "privacy" issue. But it does explain why I have always used a PIN code/password log-in on my devices, rather than a biometric log-in. But I do understand what Rob Braxman is saying about the technology involved with certain forms of biometrics & how it contributes to privacy on one's devices, especially if it avoids the need for 2FA/MFA & revealing one's mobile phone number or email address etc. While biometrics may be good for "privacy" - I'm still not sure that there is anything that can fully overcome the "security" concerns associated with the use of biometrics on devices, that I mentioned in paragraph one above. Which leaves me wondering - is there any way to cover both "security" & "privacy" issues at the same time, when using biometrics? Is this even possible?
    8
  87. I don't think any apology at all was warranted. Enquiring about a person's ethnic origins is not racist - but by Ngozi immediately taking her claims of racism to all the media etc, public damage was done to the reputation of Lady Hussey & she lost her job as a result of Ngozi's racism claims. So, thank goodness many people in the media also castigated Ngozi for her false claims of racism, & also, thank goodness that her charity is now being investigated. I for one, certainly will never be making any donation to her charity, & neither will many others, I am sure. And Charles has now proven what a weak & woke king he is & Mistress Camilla is no better.
    7
  88. Yes - for Oprah's part, she did an absolutely dreadful job as interviewer - never questioning any of the responses Markle gave, nor trying to delve further.
    7
  89.  @dapofam5549  From what I understand, Kay was still in gaol. But it really makes no difference to my opinion of Fay - she still comes across as a really horrid person in the video - someone you would not want to encounter on a dark night.
    7
  90. I think the sooner all countries introduce laws making forced marriages a criminal offence the better. Parents who would do that sort of thing to their children need to be imprisoned & punished for their wrongdoing. We need to send a very clear message to these people that this type of behaviour is simply not acceptable, & we need to remove any other children form their care, because they are also at risk of being forced into marriage.
    7
  91. I don't understand why weather apps necessarily need your location so they can give you the weather for that location - then in the process, pass your location & other data on to their advertisers. Surely it should simply be possible to key your postcode into the app, or tell them the name of the city/country you would like the weather information for - & they should be able to deliver the weather information for that location, from their data/information.
    7
  92.  Alex Holmes  I don't think that's the case - he probably just does not like the way homosexuality & the LGBTIQ+ community are promoting themselves so boldly, when they are clearly a such a minority in the general community. And those who do not agree with such promotion & are vocal about it, are liable to find themselves in trouble with the police & authorities.
    7
  93. Very interesting video - but obviously with a lot of west European countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand, USA etc all not to be found there. Needless to say - I'm sure there will be plenty of other countries there, ready to fill their void & take their place in the Russian market.
    7
  94. Yes - I definitely get the impression that some of the children are very "molly-coddled" & treated like kings & queens by their parents & not expected to do any household chores etc. When I was growing up, I used to have to stand on a small stool at the kitchen sink at the age of 4 or 5, to wash the dishes & was also expected to do other household chores at that age, like sweeping, mopping, polishing, vacuuming the floors, polishing everyone's school/work shoes, peeling & chopping vegetables for the evening meal. Both my parents worked full-time jobs, so it was expected that the children in the family (3 of us) "pull their weight". We were then rewarded with pocket money if we did our household chores satisfactorily.
    7
  95. With a physical letter in an envelope - you are still relying on another "service" (ie the postal service - often run by the government, but sometimes may be a private service) to deliver the letter to the addressee. In theory, anyone whose hands that letter passes through, could still open the letter & read its contents, without necessarily anyone knowing. And that has happened in the past - especially in times of war, where government did open mail that it considered "suspect".
    7
  96. Interesting. In my city, some of the car parks attached to large indoor shopping complexes require you to take a ticket when you enter the car park at the boom gate entrance - then you park your car & take the ticket with you. After you've finished your shopping, you go to one of the parking stations on the same level where you've parked your car (usually located at the exit points of the shopping centre on each level), insert your ticket, then the machine tells you how long you've parked for & calculates the parking fee/charge. You then pay that parking fee by cash or card, & the machine gives you a ticket indicating you've paid the fee for the time you've parked there. The system then allows you a bit of extra time to get to your car & exit the car park - & upon exit at the boom gate, you insert your ticket & the boom gate allows you to exit. This sort of system I feel helps to avoid "overstaying" at a car park & incurring a fine/penalty - because you don't "pre-pay" for a fixed period of parking - you just pay for whatever amount of parking you actually use. Usually at these shopping centre car parks, there's at least one hour of parking for free - so if you enter the car park & cannot find a vacant parking spot, then exit - you're not charged anything. Also, if you want to take your time to read the terms & conditions for parking there - you have time to do so (during that 1 hour of free parking) without needing to pay for parking. Or if you manage to get your shopping done within that 1 hour of free parking - then when you go to "pay" for your parking at the parking station before leaving - the system recognises (from your parking ticket/card) that you have been there for less than 1 hour. So it does not actually charge you anything - but gives you a ticket which will allow you to exit the car park through the boom gate exit.
    7
  97. Generally speaking - if a spouse becomes very angry & highly defensive when you raise these issues about them spending too much time with another member of the opposite sex - then it's a very good sign there is something more happening between them than just friendship. If someone is married then their top priority & the person they should be spending the most time with, is their spouse. And any social activities should be done together, as a married couple. Neither spouse should really be attending social activities & functions as a single/on their own - they should be there as a couple.
    7
  98. Just goes to show how very stupid the people working at Vodafone really are. And now they are trying to cover up that stupidity by claiming the sending of that nessage was a mistake!
    7
  99. If you did not know anything about those other religious traditions to start with - such as Zen, Taoism etc - how do you know that what he was teaching about them was the truth & that he was not misrepresenting them?
    7
  100. The Church of England does not need to be "inclusive" in terms of the language used in the Bible, nor does it need to modernise & move with the times - it only has to "obey" the "inerrant" Word of God in the Bible - & it now looks like the Church wants to re-write the Bible to make God gender-neutral - which is almost to the point of becoming heretical! Imagine, the very Church itself becoming a heretic! As punishment for that, someone would obviously need to be "burnt at the stake" - & it would need to be either the Archbishop of Canterbury (as spiritual head of the Church of England), or the King (as ultimate head of the Church of England). But as the Archbishop is the one who would be largely responsible for such "woke" changes - it would probably have to be him at the stake - being punished for heresy. The Church is effectively saying that God, in the Bible, made some "mistakes" & now the Church of England intends to "correct" God's mistakes - placing the Church itself, above God. The Church obviously no longer believes that the Bible is the "inerrant" Word of God. It is primarily the "woke" people who are demanding these kinds of changes in the rest of (secular) society, but there's no need for such changes within the Church. Most of those "woke" people are certainly not practising Christians, nor do they even attend church regularly - & they're never likely to - even if the language of the Bible were to be made "gender-neutral". So I'm not sure what exactly it is that the Church expects to achieve by making the Bible "gender-neutral". Those woke people will not suddenly start flocking to church every Sunday, just because the Bible has been made gender-neutral. On the other hand, such changes to the Bible WILL actually turn a lot of people away from the Church & cause an even further dramatic fall in numbers - as if those numbers were not already sufficiently low. And with no offsetting gain in church attendance numbers - the church will go even further into decline - & the clergy will be directly responsible for that. The Church in large part, will have become no different to secular society & there will be almost no point to its existence any more.
    7
  101. I would suggest that the husband probably had to pay for the stripper in the hotel room, because he was old, fat & ugly, & his own wife probably did not find him attractive any more.  One wonders how the husband would have felt if things were reversed & it was the wife who had cheated & the husband was finding it hard to forgive her.  Would Pat Robertson have given the exact same advice to the husband? It seems that often the men expect the women to keep themselves attractive, while the men often "let themselves go", & see no problem in that "double standard".
    6
  102. It's not just Jewish customers who will be offended by this.
    6
  103.  @Skylar.alx8  Thanks for confirming that.
    6
  104.  @PorterB  No black lady was "scorned" - she was simply asked some questions by Lady H, out of curiosity. If the black lady somehow finds that offensive - that cannot be helped. As Lady H has now lost her job, as a result of the accusations of racism - I am sure that would count as sufficient financial loss. Apart from the false accusations of racism, there might also be the possibility of legal charges concerning slander/libel/defamation. And if the conversation with Lady H was illegally recorded, then possibly charges could be laid against Ngozi for that as well.
    6
  105. What a shameful protest that would have been by the pro-Hamas protesters. I'm glad that ultimately, it did not go ahead.
    6
  106. Actually, the wine you showed in the video, which was on display at the Chinese petrol station, is quite an old, well-known & reputable brand of Australian wine. In particular, the Penfolds Bin 28 Kalimna Shiraz, which was on display sells for anywhere between about A$35 to A$50 in Australia, depending on where one buys it, & the year is was made. Not only is it recognised as a good quality wine, but if it's sold at that price - one would automatically expect it to be good quality. So, the fact that it's selling for around US$31 in a convenience store attached to a Chinese petrol station, is probably not such a bad price - because convenience store prices are usually much higher than elsewhere in any case. So it does rather surprise me that it was referred to as a "crappy" wine - because most people who know anything about wine, would not refer to it as such. So I think we can probably fairly safely assume that the presenter does not really know much about wine. Also, "petrol" is the correct, accepted & standard word used in most English-speaking countries - except in the US, where the word "gas" is used. However the use of the word "gas" in the US is in reality a misnomer & a mistake, because petrol/petroleum is actually a liquid & not a gas at all - so the correct word to use is "petrol".
    6
  107.  @bigbrisk8423  Maybe you should have told that to the US government when they went to war & almost totally destroyed 2 middle-Eastern countries, following the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks on the US. Maybe you should have told that to Britain & its allies, trying to defend itself from Hitler's attacks in WWII. Most people will support the war efforts of their own countries, if their countries are under attack, or when helping other countries which are being attacked. Does that automatically mean those people don't have good values?
    6
  108. He was referring to the phone's "IMSI".
    6
  109. In some cases the parents have no say in the matter - the courts sometimes over-rule parents not wanting their children to have this kind of surgery/treatment, & allow the children to have these treatments. In some cases, parents not wanting their children to have such treatment, is deemed to be illegal, under new laws banning what may be deemed to be "gender conversion therapy". What is deemed to be "gender conversion therapy" can be something as simple as children receiving counselling for gender-related issues. If it is the courts which have allowed the child to have such surgery against the wishes of its parents, then I would say that it is not the doctors who should be sued for the surgery in such instances, but the legal system & the judges, who have permitted the child to have such treatment against the wishes of their parents.
    6
  110.  @lynncw9202  That issue only arises when they don't want "trans women" competing against "real women" in sporting events. Then they will acknowledge there is a difference.
    6
  111. So, were you legally married to the man about whom you are speaking, or were you just in a domestic relationship with him? Or were you just in one of those temporary "misyah/mutah" Islamic so-called "marriages" that are not legally recognised at all?
    6
  112.  @-Justme123-  Thanks for explaining what happened more fully. I think I probably have a somewhat better knowledge about the beliefs & practices of Islam, than the average non-Muslim person on the street, including knowing about their practice of polygamy & "temporary/secret marriage". I feel that had you known a little more about Islam at the time, you may have been able to avoid entering into a relationship with a Muslim man. I am also from a western country & during my university days, I lived in a residential college on the university campus, & was made aware of a couple of cases of boyfriend/girlfriend relationships in the college, where the boyfriend was from India. At one stage the boyfriend went back to India for the holidays, & when he eventually returned, he had become married while he was away. Obviously the girlfriends were heartbroken when that happened. I can't recall whether the boyfriends were Muslim - but I guess these kinds of things do happen with people from overseas, & of whose backgrounds one has limited knowledge. In western countries where "polygamy" as such is illegal (in the sense that one can only be legally married to one person at a time), only the first marriage is usually the "legal" marriage. To be considered "legal", the marriage also needs to be registered with the appropriate government authority. Because some non-Christian religious marriage ceremonies (eg Muslim & Mormon) are not considered to have the necessary requirements for a marriage to be legally binding, the religious ceremony on its own is insufficient for the marriage to be legally registered - so those people also need to have a separate civil wedding ceremony, in order for the marriage to be legally registered. In some cases, Muslims marrying in the west have been known simply not to bother with having their religious marriages legally registered (even with their first marriages), so in effect they are not legally married at all - though they may be considered married, in the eyes of their respective religious communities. But the fact that they may not be legally married at all, may place the women in particular, in a difficult situation, when trying to enforce their rights as a woman & a wife. This is especially the case for any second & subsequent "wives", whose so-called "marriages" can never be legal, but only "religious". While it is possible for women in Islamic marriages to Islamically divorce their husbands, it is certainly not as easy as it is for the man to divorce his wife. If one is not a first wife, & therefore not legally married in any case, it may be easier to just walk away from the marriage & start over. But if one is a Muslim woman & eventually hoping to re-marry to a Muslim man, getting an Islamic divorce may be important, because one may not be permitted to re-marry Islamically, without such an Islamic divorce. Also, while Muslim men are permitted to marry non-Muslim women (& the woman does not need to convert to Islam - though in some cases, there may be pressure on her to do so) - it should be pointed out that Muslim women are NOT permitted to marry non-Muslim men. So the marriage options for practising Muslim women are much more limited than for Muslim men. Then they are further limited by the discrimination against them if they have been previously married &/or may have a child/children. Fortunately, for non-Muslim & western women, their options are not as restrictive. I feel truly sorry for you & what you & your child went through with your Muslim partner. Four years is a long time to spend with someone, who it now appears, had no genuine intention of legally marrying you. As a western woman, I'm not sure what made him believe you would ever settle for just being his second "Islamic" wife, without ever being legally married to him. He may have thought that after being together for four years, you were sufficiently involved with him, that you would then (even reluctantly) accept any domestic arrangement. Had you legally married this man towards the beginning of your relationship, you would have been able to get a legal divorce in the US, presumably. But to also be granted an Islamic divorce, would have been more difficult. It is also very true that Christianity & Islam do not worship the same God. Their Gods are so very different that there is no way they could possibly be one & the same God. After all, if one of those God's has a son & the other does not - they could not possibly be the same God. I do hope that you are now starting to recover from that experience. It is indeed fortunate that you never converted to Islam. And I am sure that you now realise what a truly terrible religion it is for all women - including Muslim women.
    6
  113. Interesting to watch - I've never watched anything like this before, even though I work in the Technology & Security Division of a government department. But the "robots" appeared to be more mechanical than computerised.
    6
  114. Good information on how the technology behind Tik Tok works, & what it may be able to do (& how it might affect our privacy) - even though I've never used it myself. Looking forward to Part 2 next week.
    6
  115.  @Rapscallion2009  It's been quite a well-known fact for some time now, that when one's memory declines - it is the "short term memory" which declines first. Which means that it is increasingly difficult to remember things which happened just yesterday, while those which might have happened 20 years or more ago, can still be easily recalled.
    6
  116. But homosexuality & homosexual practices also go directly against the beliefs/teachings/doctrines of Islam - so they are still "sinning" in the eyes of Islam, by engaging even in homosexual relationships. Islam has always taught against homosexuality & those found to be indulging in it are usually punished quite severely. Which is why many Muslims will try to hide their homosexuality & homosexual relationships.
    5
  117. It's certainly a very interesting story, hearing about Jonathan Aitken's journey into Christianity. I think it's true, what he said, figures/statistics on numbers of followers, not being the be all & end all for Christianity. It's certainly possible to be a Christian without going to church. But that then poses the question - what kind of a Christian would one be, if one did not attend church regularly? Quite possibly someone who was not very serious about their faith. After all - in the Bible, Jesus' followers are instructed to meet together for worship regularly, so as to encourage each other in their faith. The Bible also says that wherever people are gathered together in Jesus' name, He will be there in the midst of them. So if someone is serious about their Christian faith - surely they would be wanting to do those things, by attending church worship services regularly.
    5
  118. Let's all ditch Vodafone now, since they are clearly a very stupid company.
    5
  119. The authorities & the colleges should have controlled & limited all the pro-Hamas rallies from the very outset & not allow them to become so out of control. Now that these rallies are out of control, it will be very hard to get them under control again.
    5
  120. Taking down the pride colours from the shrine is not being disrespectful to the LGBT community - it's just trying to treat everyone equally. There have also been many other "minority groups" of people who have fought & died for this country - but they have not been singled out for special treatment in the same way as the LGBT community. There is absolutely no need at all to single out any minority group of people for "special treatment" at such a shrine. ALL those people (regardless of whatever minority group of people they may belong to) who fought & died for their country, are acknowledged by the very existence of such shrines & war memorials. To single out certain minority groups of people for special treatment, is to somehow indicate that their sacrifices were "more important", than the sacrifices of the others (who may not belong to such minority groups). Where are the light displays for other minority groups that served their country in the wars - such as the indigenous/aboriginals, Jews, Muslims etc? Indigenous veterans in particular got a raw deal from the government at the time, when returning from the war, & did not always receive the same benefits as other veterans. ALL those service men & women who made sacrifices in times of war are being acknowledged by the very presence of these shrines. The fact that there is no signage at such places indicating that certain minority groups of people are excluded, means that everyone is included! These shrines should not become "political footballs" for various minority groups merely wishing to promote their own interests over & above the rest of the community. And it's even sadder to think that the people/governments responsible for these shrines of remembrance & war memorials have somehow allowed themselves to be duped & coerced, by such small groups of people, into promoting the desires of what is really just a handful of people. Perhaps they have even been threatened as being anti-LGBTIQ+ if they do not promote the desired agenda of that community. Our government officials need to be much stronger than that, & not succumb to such bribery, corruption or blackmail. Perhaps all the people responsible for that rainbow display at the shrine, need to be publicly named & shamed.
    5
  121. Personally, I enjoy all the videos the way they are - factual & genuine - without drama & hype.
    5
  122. Just because commentary may seem "anti-Islamic", does not automatically mean that it is not legitimate or constructive criticism. As soon as one says anything negative about Islam these days, one is almost immediately labelled "Islamaphobic" - which in most cases is totally incorrect, because the true dictionary meaning of the term is a person who has an irrational or unwarranted fear of the religion of Islam. But with all the Islamic terrorist attacks that have been happening around the world in more recent years - one could hardly blame people for having a legitimate fear of the religion of Islam - & therefore negative comments would not be "Islamaphobic". So, people throwing around that word without knowing its true meaning are simply demonstrating their own ignorance of the meaning of the word.
    5
  123. The problem is that a small minority of supposedly "woke" people want to control the lives of everyone else in society by telling them how they should think & what they should believe. If they had their way - we would all be mindless morons & automatons, & not allowed to believe in any religion at all.
    5
  124. A hearing in a court of law does not actually prove anyone "innocent" as such - the court can usually only find the accused "guilty" or "not guilty". A finding of "not guilty" does not necessarily mean the accused is automatically "innocent" - just that there was insufficient evidence before the court to find them "guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. In the same manner, a finding of "not guilty" does not necessarily mean that the allegations are automatically considered to be "false". In order to prove that the allegations themselves were actually "false" - a separate court case might need to be pursued to determine whether the allegations WERE in fact, false - but that may not be an easy thing to do, as good evidence would need to be provided to the court, demonstrating that the initial allegations were false.
    5
  125. And men don't get ovarian or cervical cancer either.
    5
  126. The very best way I can think of to describe that opening ceremony is that it was nothing but a pile of disgusting filth. And instead of trying to bring people together it has created massive divisions. It would not surprise me at all now if even some of the athletes were to decide to boycott these games. And I'm sure that some of the other celebrities who performed in that opening ceremony are now greatly regretting their decision to participate in such a disgusting event. That was not an Olympic games opening ceremony - it was just a pile of filth...
    5
  127. A very interesting tour around the transport Expo! It was also very interesting to see there was only ONE "campervan" on display. Judging from what you said - it sounds like the Russian people are not very interested in camping/caravaning/campervaning - which I find unusual, given that in many other parts of Europe, camping is very popular in summer time. Some of the nice features shown on the buses which were on display, have actually been around for a number of years. In Canberra, Australia, the buses used in the public transport system there have had "wheel-chair friendly" buses for quite a number of years - buses which lower their front suspension when the bus stops, & at the front entrance/door to the bus, instead of stairs/steps there is a "ramp" which can roll/fold out, to allow wheel-chairs to board the bus (which can also be handy for prams & strollers & elderly people). There are fold-down seats with their backs against the side walls towards the front of the bus, which can be folded up to make a space for the wheel-chair to be "parked". There are usually also at least 2 rows of seats towards the front of the bus, which are "facing each other" - which means that one of those rows of seats is "facing backwards" - just as shown in the above video. Seats facing backwards (to the direction of travel) are quite common in some military aircraft, as they are deemed to be "safer" in the case of an emergency or emergency landing/stop - as passengers are not then "thrown foward". Many of the Canberra buses also have the braille signage on the "stop" buttons - just as shown in the above video. A couple of years ago the public transport system in Canberra also introduced a number of new electric buses, that have the USB charging ports for passengers - usually 2 charging ports in the wall of the bus alongside each row of 2 seats - so, enough for each seated person to be able to plug in their mobile device & charge it up while commuting - which is a very handy arrangement.
    5
  128. It just goes to show how ignorant & uneducated in these matters Pocock really is. He is just playing follow the leader, without doing any independent research.
    5
  129.  @stevehowell231 Indeed - if Turkey is as unsafe a country as the British government claims it is - then all British people should boycott Turkey & refuse to go holidaying there. After all, there are plenty of other places to go holidaying!
    5
  130. If people's practice of Christianity is being controlled to the extent that they are told how they can/cannot practice their religion in terms of what they preach/teach/read from the Bible, & being told not to proselytise, & perhaps only being able to have a version of the Bible which has been heavily censored by the Chinese government - then that is obviously not going to be very satisfactory for more devout Christians who are serious about their faith. It also means that the Christian churches one sees in China are probably just a "front" for the Chinese government's own version of "Christianity". That probably also helps to explain the reason why many Christian organisations feel the need to "smuggle" Bibles into China. These are probably the un-censored "real" versions of the Bible which are not allowed in China. I also don't see the great harm in proselytising - which is usually just spreading the word & informing people about the beliefs & practices of particular religions - & in most cases it is not done in a forceful manner. Obviously I have my own personal beliefs, but am more than happy to speak with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Sikhs, etc whom I see on the street, or running street stalls trying to promote their religions. Obviously, if people are strong enough in their own personal beliefs, they are not going to be easily swayed by what any "proselytiser" may have to say - though they may be prompted to try & learn more about that religion. Only those people who have something to fear, or are not strong enough in their own personal belief system, would need to fear such proselytization, & attempt to restrict what people can & cannot teach about their religion. Obviously the Chinese government does not have enough confidence in itself - or in the beliefs of its own people & that they won't be easily swayed by people informing them about other religions. At the end of the day, this is not a good look for China.
    5
  131. A few weeks ago I was having a meal in an indoor shopping complex food court in our city centre on a Saturday, when 2 Hamas supporters sporting keffiyeh & a T-shirt with a picture of a Palestinian flag on the front, sat themselves down at my table, just across the table from me. Their opening words to me were "You are not welcome here". They proceeded to tell me that my baseball cap with a picture of an Israeli flag on the front of it, was causing offence to people in the shopping complex. This was despite the fact that no-one else had come up to me to tell me they were offended by my cap. In fact, quite the opposite - a number of people had come up to chat with me & tell me that they also supported Israel in the present conflict. And I'm sure there probably would have also been people in the shopping complex who felt offended by many people wandering around that day with keffiyehs & Palestinian flags (there was a pro-Hamas rally out in the main public square of our city centre that day) - but I did not see anyone telling those Hamas supporters that they were not welcome in the shopping complex because their keffiyehs & flags were offensive to some people. Anyway, those 2 Hamas supporters proceeded to spout their Hamas propaganda to me - much of which I recognised as being factually incorrect. When they realised they were not going to convert me, they repeatedly & loudly demanded that I leave the food court/shopping complex. I responded to each of their demands, confirming that I was not going to leave. The 2 Hamas supporters then stood up in their places & started loudly & repeatedly shouting "Free free Palestine". I just ignored their noise & watched a video on my mobile phone. But their noise attracted a significant number of onlookers, some of whom obviously did not agree with those 2 Hamas supporters. Of course, the shopping complex's own security staff & also several police officers soon turned up & told the Hamas supporters to either stop their noise, or leave the shopping complex. So they did stop their noise, & eventually left the shopping complex as well. And the security staff instructed the gathered crowd to disperse. The security staff told me that if such an incident happened again in the future, I should immediately call their control room - & they gave me the phone number for that. But this just shows how rude & aggressive some of these Hamas supporters can be. They have no hesitation in going up to people sitting in a food court, & harassing them.
    5
  132. In some cases the parents have no say in the matter - the courts sometimes over-rule parents not wanting their children to have this kind of surgery/treatment, & allow the children to have these treatments. If the courts have allowed the child to have such treatment, then it is highly unlikely the doctors can be successfully sued for something which the legal system permitted. In some cases, parents not wanting their children to have such treatment, is deemed to be illegal, under new laws banning what may be deemed to be "gender conversion therapy". What is deemed to be "gender conversion therapy" can be something as simple as children receiving counselling for gender-related issues. If it is the courts which have allowed the child to have such surgery against the wishes of its parents, then I would say that it is not the doctors who should be sued for the surgery in such instances, but the legal system & the judges, who have permitted the child to have such treatment against the wishes of their parents.
    5
  133. When people have no decent arguments to put forward of their own, they will often resort to raising their voices & name-calling/personal attacks. They clearly are of the opinion that "he who shouts the loudest, wins the argument".
    5
  134. Those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance & forgiveness, have clearly never read the Quran & hadiths - & that applies to all the ignorant politicians & other celebrities who have loudly proclaimed that Islam is a religion of peace. One only needs to read the Quran to discover that is not the case. But many celebrities who claim it is a religion of peace have just had the wool pulled over their eyes by Muslims & Islamic clerics, who want to portray their religion in a good light. Their reason for doing this, is so they can win new converts to their religion - as they are an "evangelical" religion which believes in converting people.
    5
  135.  @kimgrattage6049  They really mean "Margaret" - that is, Princess Margaret - who was Queen Elizabeth II's younger sister (now deceased). When Margaret wanted to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend, back in the '50's/'60's, who was a divorced man, with his former wife still living - the Queen advised Margaret that the only way she could do that, was if she gave up her place in line to the throne, & lost all her royal status & privileges. So Margaret chose not to marry Peter Townsend & ended up later marrying Lord Snowden instead - & that marriage ended in divorce.
    5
  136. In my country, most phone carrier stores do not actually sell dual SIM phones - I discovered that, when I went shopping for a new dual SIM phone some years ago - when I told them I was looking to buy a new dual SIM phone, they simply told me that they do not sell dual SIM phones. I'm not exactly sure why that is - but I suspect it's because they don't like the thought of their customers also putting another carrier's SIM in their phone handsets as well. They want to make sure that you only us THEIR services.
    5
  137.  @fionaforward3358  Charles has indeed done terrible things - having an adulterous affair with someone other than his wife & not being able to keep the marriage vows he made to his wife, is indeed a very terrible thing - no matter how much a person may love nature or history.
    5
  138. For me, one of the unanswered questions is - why was Captain Tom himself, in his Twitter comments at the time, indicating that the book proceeds would be helping to support his charitable foundation - if that was never the established intention & in fact, alternate arrangements were put in place from the outset? And if the money from the book proceeds was NOT going to the foundation - why then did someone from the foundation not correct Captain Tom's Twitter statements that the book proceeds WOULD BE supporting the foundation? Did the daughter's family deliberately not correct Captain Tom's Twitter statements, in the hope that more people would buy the books, believing the sale proceeds were supporting the foundation rather than their family business? Or did a small amount of money from the book proceeds indeed go to the foundation, but the majority of the money go to the daughter's family business?
    5
  139. The Free Church of England is not actually a "new" church - it separated from the mainstream Church of England in 1844, & is now also a part of the worldwide Anglican group of churches known as "GAFCON". It is a much more orthodox & traditional branch of the Anglican church, than the mainstream Church of England. The particular Free Church of England parish church of Christ Church Harlesden, where Calvin was ordained, is not actually a "new" parish church either - it has existed for some time. It is the church where Calvin will serve his curacy as an ordained deacon of the church, before being ordained as a fully-fledged priest of the church, in around 12 months time.
    5
  140.  @rightherethereeverywhere  Yes - & as mentioned in my post - I'm wondering which government authority specifically authorised these shows, containing sexualised content designed specifically for young children.
    5
  141. If figures show that members of a certain ethnic minority are more likely to commit crimes - it stands to reason that the police would be more likely to keep an eye on those people. Of course, they would still need to have "reasonable cause", or reason for suspecting a young person was doing or carrying something illegal, before being able to stop them & conduct a bodily search on them. But in the film footage we were shown, those were simply "body searches" & not actual "strip searches" - which would mean removing the person's clothing as well. So what is the article meant to be referring to - is it about actual "strip searching" (ie removal of everything, including the clothing), or just body searches - similar to those being conducted in the footage - which may be conducted in public & on the street? If it really is about actual strip searching, then I think it should be conducted in the presence of 1 or 2 police officers together with a medical doctor. If it's possible to have the person's parent there without delay - then a parent could be present as well - though I don't think that is absolutely necessary, if the person is suspected of having committed a crime, & there is a medical doctor there together with the police officers conducting the strip search.. Obviously a full strip sech would need to be done in private - usually at a police station - with the person having been closely observed/monitored in the meantime by a police officer, to ensure they do not destroy any evidence. And let's not forget that in most cases, it appears we are talking about youths/young people here - who might still be under the age of 18 years - yet above the age of adult responsibility for criminal activity & old enough to be possibly involved in criminal activity. The way some of the media headlines have been reading - it made it sound as though young children of 5 & 6 years old were being strip searched at school by either their teachers or the police. But if there was good cause for the police to believe that a child of 5 or 6 was involved in illegal/criminal activity - then there is nothing wrong with conducting a strip search of the child - providing someone is there (eg a parent or teacher) for the child, in addition to the police officers conducting the search. And that would certainly not be considered child abuse - & it would not matter what colour the child's skin was - they can still be searched if there is reasonable grounds to suspect them. And also, let's not forget, if talking about "respect & dignity" - something that was raised in the above video - that most people who are arrested for criminal activity are not necessarily treated with respect & dignity, because in many cases they have been caught in the act of committing a crime, & simply do not deserve respect & dignity for that. And it does not matter what colour skin they have - white, black, pink or purple - they are treated just the same as anyone else who has committed similar crimes.
    5
  142. What a load of rubbish Pocock ha s shown himself to be on this issue. He is showing his total ignorance & lack of education on this matter. He needs to do some proper independent research on the matter & educate himself. I for one certainly won't be voting for him again at the next election. I refuse to support any politician who supports Hamas & terrorism.
    5
  143. My Oxford English Dictionary still defines the word "woman" as "adult human female" - & that's good enough for me & for the majority of people.
    5
  144. Too right - this is truly the very worst Olympics ever...
    5
  145. Unfortunately, this was probably a situation which could have been avoided, if the children had had adequate adult/parental supervision. Children of that age are simply too young to be left to their own devices.
    5
  146. I think it's a well-known fact that minority religions/groups like Jews, Christians, Hindus etc, do not fare well at all jn any majority Muslim country - yet Muslims expect to be treated well in any country they go to. For quite some years, I've been learning/reading about the persecution & brutal murders of Christians & Hindus in particular, in countries like Pakistan, & Muslim areas in India, as well Nigeria. Islam is certainly not a very tolerant religion in this regard. Yet these events rarely get coverage in the mainstream western media, which wants us to believe that Muslims, as a minority religious group in many western countries, need to be supported & given special privileges. Somehow we are all just supposed to believe what we are told by our highly ignorant politicians & various celebrities (who've probably never even read the Quran themselves) - that Islam is a religion of peace. They've undoubtedly been hoodwinked into wrongly believing that by some Muslim friends, or Islamic clerics, who've quoted verses from the Quran which have been totally taken out of context. Anyone who's ever read the entire Quran for themselves (& therefore, in context as well) - as I have - knows full well that Islam is not religion of peace. That's not to say that peaceful "Muslims" do not exist - but ironically, the peaceful Muslims are the ones who are NOT following the teachings of the Quran & hadiths to the letter of the law. But if they are not following the teachings in the Quran & hadiths to the letter of the law - can they truly still call themselves "Muslims" - is the question I would then ask. Those Muslims who ARE following the teachings of the Quran & hadiths to the letter - turn out to be Islamic terrorists. Of course, I could go on about how the prophet Mohammed's views of non-Muslims appeared to "change" for the worse, over time - or how history shows that Islamic communities have gradually taken over the regions/countries in which they live - but that's a story for another time. It sufficeth to say that Islam has much to answer for, when it comes to tolerating other groups of people. Yet they are all too quick to shout "genocide!" whenever some Muslims are killed during a legitimate act of war - a war which the Muslims started, by deliberately attacking/targeting Jewish civilians.
    5
  147. I don't feel personally insulted by someone claiming I'm a "caveman" for caring about my privacy & not wanting my mobile phone tracking me everywhere & anywhere I go, & knowing everything I do. I just feel sorry for such people - because they are not sufficiently intelligent to be capable of understanding the risks of not caring about one's privacy & giving it up way to easily. Those are people who will always just blindly follow the mainstream trends, without knowing about or caring about any of the risks involved. They are simply not capable of understanding that history has proven time & time again that the majority is not always right - & these stupid people will blindly follow that majority, just like sheep - every time. We should not concern ourselves with such stupid people - become some people are just too stupid to even realise that they are stupid. And they can never be changed.
    5
  148. Yes at the time the laws were introduced allowing same sex "marriage" - the public was told that it was just going to allow same sex marriage & nothing more. But there were those of us who knew better, & that it would lead to much more aggression in the woke community - with them actively campaigning for more & more things on behalf of the LGBTIQ+ community. And as it turns out - we were absolutely right!
    5
  149.  @Commander-Rem  If members of the public in the audience cannot tolerate the views of someone who sees things differently to themselves - then surely they themselves are the intolerant & bigoted ones. They do not have to stand there & listen if they are offended - they can simply leave. No-one is forcing them to accept or believe what the person is preaching.
    5
  150. Everyone needs to now ridicule, make fun of, & laugh at the administration of this university, as being way too weak-kneed to simply "say no" to handful of students who claimed they might be offended by a certain speaker. This incident needs to be given as much bad publicity as possible, in all media forums. Future university students need to boycott this university - as they will obviously learn nothing worthwhile by attending that university. But most importantly, the government should cut off funding for any university which does not allow freedom of expression & debate - no matter who that may offend. It's about time everyone recognised that just because someone expresses a different point of view, that does not constitute "hate speech".
    5
  151. It's the parents' responsibilities to put food on the table for their families & it's a very sad indictment of parents these days that they are not providing the very basics for their own children - like breakfast & a packed school lunch, & dinner in the evenings. This is just parental neglect - caring for their own children ought to be their top priority & I don't know why the schools are not reporting these families to the authorities. Even in these days of cost of living increases where family budgets are stretched, they can always switch to very basic food options to cut costs. A whole kilo of plain rice costs less than $2. Something like a chick pea curry can be made with a few tomatoes & onions & few spices very cheaply. But if they can't afford even that - approach one of the many charities for assistance with food items, so they DO have something to give their children for breakfast, lunch & dinner. A basic loaf of bread costs less than $2 & would be sufficient for several school lunches with a bit of butter/margarine & some filling. There are also various food kitchens they could take their family to for a free meal if they have nothing at home to feed their children. But l would find it hard to accept any excuse from a parent for sending their children to school hungry.
    5
  152. "Gay" & "Muslim" are a contradiction in terms, because it's very true that Islam forbids homosexuality - so I don't know how he can claim to be both gay & a Muslim - unless he means he is Muslim in name only because he was born into a Muslim family. But he clearly cannot be a "practising" Muslim - because Islam forbids homosexuality & prescribes severe punishments for it.
    5
  153. Because, believe it or not - many people are interested in it, & want to hear it. Television rarely gives people what they "need" to hear. Rather, it gives people what they think will interest them & what they want to hear & what they will actually watch or listen to. Which is not necessarily the same as what they may "need" to hear.
    5
  154. Yes - Peter Beatty would certainly have to be the biggest joke of them all - being "inclusive" by excluding people! Onya (bike!) Peter - way to go Mr Dunderhead! His excuse is that he's suffering from a severe medical condition known as "foot in mouth disease".
    5
  155. I think the womanising husband's parents are also partly to blame because they recommended to him that he take a 2nd "wife", if he was finding his1st wife not satisfactory to him. And unfortunately the young guy was not smart enough to say no to, or to stand up to, his own parents. So it seems his parents also have some really strange ideas about marriage as well. But the 1st wife, being his only legally-recognised wife under UK law (because bigamy is illegal in the UK), & having 3 children together with him, & actually already living in the UK with him - definitely has the advantage over the 2nd "wife" back in Pakistan. Because the 2nd "wife" is not a "legal" wife in the eyes of the UK law - which sees that 2nd "wife" as no more that just an extra-marital affair, or his "bit on the side" as it were. It is probable therefore that the 2nd "wife" will never be allowed to migrate to the UK to join her "husband", & will need to remain in Pakistan. However, the 1st wife could easily & without any problem in the UK, get a legal divorce from her womanising husband, if she wanted to - & find herself a better & more decent husband in the UK, & take the 3 children with her - because the husband, by taking a 2nd "wife" & thus having an adulterous affair on the 1st wife, is setting a very bad example for their 3 children - & the children definitely should not be exposed to that kind of terrible behaviour. However, I'm not sure that the 1st wife would necessarily want to legally divorce her husband, because at least while she is still legally married to her womanising husband - she is probably preventing the 2nd "wife" from being able to migrate to the UK as the man's "wife", & therefore their 3 children are not being exposed to the womanising husband's adulterous relationship with the 2nd "wife" - or whatever you want to call her. If the womanising husband wanted to take another wife - the decent thing to do would have been to agree to divorce his 1st wife (before taking a 2nd "wife" in Pakistan) - which he had initially seemed to want to do - & so did the 1st wife. But then apparently because he decided it might "look bad" for him, he reneged on that initial decision - & she was also under some "pressure" from her own family to take him back, unfortunately. But that kind of man really is not worth having as a husband at all, & the 3 children would really be much better off without him around, if they are going to grow up to be decent human beings at all.
    4
  156. It just goes to show that Islamic terrorists will kill anyone at all - even their friends - to make a point, & for a show of supposed superiority, if they feel so inclined. It would be interesting to know the real cause of his death. Did the Islamic terrorists strangle him & then pelt his body with stones/rocks - just as they did with those 2 little Bibas children?
    4
  157. From what I know, many Muslim people marry their cousins, in order to keep their wealth "within the family", & sometimes also to assist them in migrating to other countries - by marrying a cousin who already lives in the country to which they want to migrate.
    4
  158. The girl actually did answer that question - she indicated it was because they kept changing the schedule between her mother & father (due to public holidays & work commitments etc), that she was reluctant to go - & they had a big argument about the schedule changes.
    4
  159. It's such a very sad day, to have this happen in the UK. The predictions of the novel "1984" have already been with us for a number of years now. You'd think that having been forewarned about this sort of thing in the novel by Georg Orwell, we would try to steer clear of it. It's unnerving to think that despite supposedly living in a democracy, a small minority of people & their demands can totally control our freedoms & way of life. I think it will take a revolution of the masses to stand up & revolt against this sort of thing.
    4
  160. Of course, Ngozi's accusations of racism would not stand up in any court of law, because what happened & what was said, simply does not fit either the dictionary definition, or the legal definition of racism. I'm sure that if Ngozi thought she could win a case of "racism" against Lady Hussey in a court of law - she would probably would pursue it. But she knows she does not have a leg to stand on legally - so instead, she is just making a big deal out of the incident in the media & seeking her 15 minutes of fame, & maybe making some money out of it in the process. And there are plenty of gullible fools out there who will fall for that, hook, like & sinker. They are not interested in whether the Ngozi's racism accusations are factual or not, nor whether they can be proven in a court of law - they are just looking for a good story - whether it's true or not. It would be interesting to see whether ruining a person's reputation by such false accusations, & causing them to lose their job, would be sufficient to pursue legal charges - but then of course, one would also need to have the money to pursue such a legal case.
    4
  161.  @Nutt-u  After Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah Winfrey, I don't think Meghan was being criticised by the general public for simply "talking about racism" - it was the fact that she was making unsubstantiated accusations of racism against the royal family. I'm not yet convinced of any of the accusations of royal family racism that Meghan Markle made in her interview with Oprah Winfrey. Meghan provided no hard evidence of any of her accusations & did not mention any names - which only then tainted the whole of the royal family as racist. Surely if she's a woman of real conviction, she can at least provide some hard evidence & name the individuals responsible. Even Prince William himself subsequently denied the allegations of racism, stating that the royal family was not racist. The Queen herself around that time, stated that "recollections may vary" (of the events that took place). With regard to Meghan's comment to Oprah that a member of the royal family had asked about how dark her then unborn child's skin might be - well, that's actually a very common question within mixed-race couples & their families & it's not perceived as a racist question. In fact, even within couples of the same non-Caucasian ethnicity, where one of the 2 may have slightly lighter/darker skin - it's a rather common question - & usually asked in the same vein as "I wonder what colour eyes our child will have" - so it's not usually a racist question. But on top of that, Meghan admitted that that comment was not said to her personally/directly, but in fact said to Prince Harry himself, & Harry had then mentioned it to Meghan, who then claimed it was racist, in the Oprah interview. So Meghan only heard about the comment 2nd hand through Harry - & she probably had no idea whether the comment was intended to be racist. And Harry himself never made any accusations about that comment being racist, in the Oprah interview. There were a number of other things that Meghan had said in that Oprah interview - which were simply factually incorrect - & which makes me less likely to believe her other accusations of royal family racism. Another racist accusation of the royal family Meghan made in her Oprah interview, was that their child may not be given a "title", because of the colour/darkness of its skin. Whether their child was given a title or not, is totally dependent on royal protocol/rules, & not the "colour of their skin". Only descendants of the reigning monarch as far down as grandchildren generally receive a title under royal protocol. Prince William's children were bestowed their "grace & favour" titles by the Queen, as they are in the direct line of ascent to the throne, & their father is now the heir apparent. On the other hand, at the time of Archie's birth, his father, Prince Harry was only 6th or 7th in line to the throne, which is a long way down - so it's not likely Harry & Meghan's children would be bestowed such "grace & favour" titles by the Queen. And as Harry & Meghan's child would have only been the reigning Queen's great grandchild - they would therefore normally not receive a title, under royal protocol. But Meghan wrongfully attributed this lack of a title for Archie, to royal family "racism" - when it was really due to her very own ignorance of royal protocol. You'd think that if she was smart, she would have at least studied up on the protocol pertaining to royal titles, before making such a blatant blunder in a world-wide interview with Oprah, which only made her look rather silly. Or perhaps it was simply a deliberate attempt by Meghan, to make the royal family look like racists. In addition to that, Meghan had, quite some time previously, indicated she had not been interested in titles for her & Harry's children - but it seems she suddenly changed her mind on that for some reason, when she realised that her children may not receive titles - & blamed it on racism. An interesting point to note as well, is that the Queen's own daughter, Princess Anne (now the Princess Royal), had, many years previously, actually "refused" titles for her own 2 children, who were the Queen's grandchildren. So what makes Meghan feel that she needs her own children to have titles, when they are not entitled to them, under royal protocol? I could go on about some of Meghan's other factually incorrect statements in her Oprah interview - but it would make this comment even longer - so I will end it here.
    4
  162. To me, there's no such thing a "secular" Christmas - because the very word "Christmas" itself is a word for a religious celebration. So you either celebrate Christmas, or you don't celebrate Christmas - but there's no such thing as celebrating a "secular" Christmas. And it's strange the way those people who may want a "secular" Christmas, don't also state that they want a "secular" Eid, Ramadan, Hannukah, Purim, etc when it comes to other religions. They are still more than happy to wish people of other religions "Happy Eid/Ramadan/Hannukah, Purim" etc - even though it may offend some people - it's only the Christian religion that they want to persecute & discriminate against by not wanting to say "Happy Christmas". And although this attitude is quite obviously two-faced & the very height of hypocrisy - the people who are doing all this are obviously just way too stupid to even realise how stupid & hypocritical they are being.
    4
  163. It's not really the parents who are to blame for much of that - it is the religion of Islam itself, if people want to be traditional/fundamental Muslims. Islam does not allow dancing or secular music etc.
    4
  164. "Polygamy" as such, is actually illegal in most western countries, in the sense that a person is not allowed to be "legally" married to more than one person at any given time, & the first "legal" marriage will always take precedence over any subsequent "marriages", whether they purport to be "legal" or not. So the way "polygamy" is done in Islam, & also in the Mormon church, is that in most cases, only the first marriage is a "legal" marriage (ie registered by law with the government, after recognising it as a legal marriage), with any subsequent so-called "marriages" only having been conducted by way of a religious marriage ceremony, but not recognised as legal & not registered with the government at all. In actual fact, in most cases, for both Islamic & Mormon marriages, the religious marriage/wedding ceremony does not meet all the requirements for a legally binding marriage in any case - so if they want the marriage to also be considered a "legal" marriage (so it can be registered with the government), then in addition to the religious marriage ceremony, they also have to have a separate legally recognised civil marriage ceremony. This applies to even the first ("legal") marriage. But there may still be some first marriages even, where they only have the religious marriage ceremony, & not the recognised "legal" marriage ceremony. So in the eyes of the law, they are still not "legally" married, but they are recognised within their own religious community as being "married", because they have gone through the religious marriage ceremony. But in western countries, where there is a so-called "polygamous marriage", whether it be an Islamic marriage or a Mormon marriage, as far as the legality of it goes, only the first marriage can be acknowledged as "legal", while the subsequent so-called "marriages" are not recognised as legal marriages at all & therefore the best that could be said about those subsequent "marriages" is that they are simply adulterous relationships where the man is cheating on his wife by having affairs with several other women.
    4
  165. @Jim Will fix it I think the point is that this couple seem to think that even though they are not married but only engaged, then just because they have a baby together, they should be given some sort of special treatment by immigration. Normally when it comes to immigration, whether an unmarried or married couple may have a baby together makes no difference at all. The circumstances of the spouse wishing to immigrate is considered purely on its own merits - eg what skills & qualifications they have & whether they are likely to be able to get a job when they arrive, & if they don't get a job, will their spouse be able to fully support them financially. The process is usually slightly easier for married couples than for unmarried couples, because it indicates a certain level of legal commitment & obligation to financially support. And who's to say that an engaged couple may not eventually get married after all & the engagement may be broken off for some reason? In that case, the foreign spouse may not be granted a residence permit/visa & may have to leave the country or be deported (if they're only in the country on a temporary visa, granted on the condition that they get married, if they were engaged at the time entry was granted).
    4
  166. Quite true - but the man in the story who ran the Muslim marriage bureau did indicate that the number of women on his books vastly outnumbered the number of men. And he also indicated that most of those women had previously been married & divorced - so their chances of finding another (monogamous) husband were not good - because many Muslim men may be looking for a woman who has not previously been married & with no children. So the women probably saw themselves as having very limited prospects of another (good) marriage - so were prepared to accept the fact that the best they might be able to do, would be to become someone's 2nd or 3rd wife. So the women end up settling for something which is far from the ideal marriage - but something they see as being the best that they can expect, in their current situation. Most of them are from overseas countries & are not native-born British - so they are probably looking for some sort of security for their existing family & possibly even in order to remain living in the UK. It's sad to think that women have such low expectations for themselves & their children in their marriages - to settle for just being a 2nd or 3rd wife - & as we can see in the above documentary - some of those women are definitely not happy in those kinds of marriages - & why would they be? There's certainly nothing to be happy about in that kind of lifestyle - & money is always a problem when there are so many children to 1 husband - let alone multiple wives/mistresses/girlfriends etc. Because it is only the 1st wife who is legally married to the husband under British law. The subsequent wives are not legally married to the man - they are just married in an Islamic religious "marriage" ceremony which is not recognised under British law & therefore never registered at the British Registrar's office. So when the marriage to a 2nd or 3rd wife breaks down - they cannot seek a "divorce" through the British legal system - because they were never legally married in the UK in the first place & cannot produce a British marriage certificate (which one needs to produce in order to seek a divorce through the British legal system. If they were legally married overseas - they would need to produce a copy of that overseas marriage certificate, in order to get divorced in the UK). Given that they cannot seek a legal divorce in the UK - they would need to seek a "divorce" under Islamic religious law, in the UK - through the UK's Islamic "sharia" courts.
    4
  167. I think that everyone should now start boycotting the BBC, Gary Lineker, & Match of the Day. No one wants to pay the BBC to hear Lineker's personal political views, while he is under contract to the BBC. They should really have sacked him & anyone else that "went out in solidarity" Gary Lineker.
    4
  168. Even though their availability may improve - if the price is too high & still not competitive with similar products - I think they will lose the market share they may have once had, when they were much cheaper.
    4
  169.  @amrita3000  He was always a Muslim - just mostly a non-practising Muslim. Then he "converted" to a different sect of Islam, & became a very devout practising Muslim for many years. Then he eventually became an ex-Muslim.
    4
  170.  @carmenmiranda7653  That's certainly my understanding as well. She just wanted to be able to make as much money as possible, from being a member of the royal family, & did not understand that she would be expected to undertake royal duties, in exchange for all the benefits of being a royal. She just thought that she would be able to make a lot money by monetising the fact that she was now a member of the royal family. And that was never going to be possible in the UK, because working royal family members are not allowed to commercialise/monetise their roles.
    4
  171. It might have been that the child's journey involved more than one flight/connecting flights - & he was put on the incorrect "connecting" flight (by the airline staff) where the parents obviously would not have been present. I can't imagine any parent would simply drop off the child at the aerodrome at the commencement of their journey, without seeing him off onto the correct flight to start the journey.
    4
  172. The reality is, the people of Gaza could have had themselves a beautiful land of Gaza, if only they had spent all those billions of dollars in aid money they have received over the years, in building up Gaza, instead of spending it on building tunnels & arming itself with weapons to attack Israel. And let's face it, no-one handed the Jewish people of Israel a ready-made beautiful country. The only way Israel got to be the lovely modern country it is today, is by plenty of sheer really hard work from all its people. So why can't the Gazans themselves work really hard to build up their own region - instead of having a nice ready-made modern country handed to them on a platter, as Trump seems to be proposing? Maybe the Gazans would value it more if they had to all work hard for it themselves. The only hard work they ever seem to want to do is waging war on Israel.
    4
  173. I recall an episode of a TV series I saw many years ago where an abused wife escaped from her physically violent/abusive husband using a discreet organisation that had a pre-arranged "network" of female members with whom abused women could stay, for a limited period of time, before being moved on to the next person in that network, & before eventually reaching their "final" location. The members of this "network" were all people who were not previously known to the women using this service, & each member of the network only knew the contact details of the next person in the network & the previous person in the network - so most of the network members had no idea where abouts the women they helped, eventually ended up. At the time it seemed to me like a good way for abused women to escape from their abuser - but these days would still be dependent upon the person escaping, observing many of the precautions mentioned in the above video.
    4
  174. I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it was due to the age gap between Charles & Diana. Charles had been in the public eye for a long time as a member of the royal family & was much older than Diana, who was barely 20 years old & had not long finished secondary/high school. Diana was not so used to being in the public eye & had only had a couple of jobs as a nanny, or working at a kindergarten, since leaving school. She was shy & not used to the publicity/limelight.
    4
  175. That's really what should have happened - after all, Charles great-uncle, King Edward VIII had to abdicate the throne (but before his coronation ceremony had actually taken place) in order to marry the twice-divorced woman Wallis Simpson - both of whose previous husbands were still living. Charles aunt, Princess Margaret, also was not allowed to marry the divorced Group Captain Peter Townsend (whose former spouse was still alive), without losing her own place in line to the throne & all her royal status & privileges - so she did not marry him. The same should have happened to Charles - he should have abdicated the throne in order to marry Camilla, & passed the reins on to William & Catherine.
    4
  176.  @noodles8203  It's true that many things are "woke" these days - but I just check out their web sites for any signs of "wokeness" & if they look in the least bit woke - judging by their policies & the kind of language they use - then I don't use them. Another good way is to check out religious-based charities - which will usually not be "woke".
    4
  177. I really enjoyed watching this video about Mexico City - just one city with almost as many people as in my entire country! And the guide, Lalo, really made it what it is. He comes across as a truly honest, genuine, & personable/likeable guy, with a great sense of humour, & an excellent command of the English language. Who wouldn't want someone like that as a guide around Mexico City? Lalo is prepared to go almost everywhere - even to parts of the city he himself has never been before. And he helps show the country as it is - the good & the bad. As with many Latin-American & Spanish-speaking countries it is often the outgoing & friendly nature of the people themselves who really make the country what it is, from the visitor's point of view, even in some of the poorer parts of the city/country. I guess that for someone who had gone to live in Australia for 7 years, from a place like Mexico City - Australia would indeed seem very dull, quiet & uneventful, compared with the usual hustle, bustle & continuous action of a place like Mexico City, with all its contrasts. I loved Lalo's joke about Australia only being interesting if you live close to nature & those dangerous, wild animals that might kill you - I guess that would have creates the excitement he was missing! Thanks for showing us around your home city, Lalo - a great tour!
    4
  178. I understand that as low income earners, there may be some srt of welfare payment for each child. But I also understand that sometimes it is the women who may engage in some sort of paid "work" such as childcare, or teaching in Jewish schools, or other suitable form of work. In some cases they may also receive some financial assistance from their own parents. But in many cases, these ultra-orthodox Jewish families with large numbers of children, where the fathers do not work but just study Torah full-time at a Yeshiva, do actually live in very poor conditions & below the poverty line in many cases as well.
    4
  179.  @fredbear-sf9st  Constructive criticism is not an irrational fear either.
    4
  180. I am one of those people who uses public transport in my city every day - as I don't have, nor have I ever held a driver's licence. So for that reason, I also don't own my own car, & am totally dependent on public transport. I live in a city of about 350,000 people, & where the public transport is okay, I would say - though obviously nowhere near as good as, or as frequent as in larger cities & countries, like Moscow. My city's public transport system consists mainly of buses, but we also have a relatively new (in the last 5 years) & still rather limited tram/light rail service. It's about a 5 minute walk from my home/house, to the nearest bus stop, from where I can catch a bus (a maximum 15 minute bus ride) to an "interchange", from where I need to catch the tram the rest of the way into the city centre (a further 6 minute ride). The tram is of course heated in winter & air-conditioned in summer (as are the buses) & have a free wifi service on board - though there is more standing room than actual seats on the trams. The trams & buses can sometimes get a bit crowded during peak periods - though at the times when I catch them, that's usually not a problem. The only thing people sometimes complain about is the low frequency of the suburban bus services, especially at night time & on weekends. However, when you are familiar with the timetable as a regular user (like me), you know how to time your journeys accordingly. But understandably, people who use these services only occasionally & just show up at a bus stop with no real planning, could be in for a rather long wait for a bus to arrive, if it's on a weekend.
    4
  181. The Greens probably know that lowering the voting age to 16 would win their party a lot more votes & win more seats for their candidates in Parliament. I'm not in favour of lowering the voting age, as most people at that age ae still in school & not yet working full-time & paying taxes. Most of them would also have limited knowledge about the full range of issues that need to be addressed in the country.
    4
  182. I wonder what our politicians would do if, when hiring their own staff, they were not allowed to "discriminate" against people who had different & even opposing political views. In such circumstances, an ALP politician, could be forced to hire someone who is a member of the Liberal Party, & holds totally different views to the ALP. It's totally ridiculous!
    4
  183.  @tysondog843  Certainly not - I was referring to the man in the car who had been doing the stabbing.
    4
  184. Actually, Brand's YouTube channel, since the allegations have been made public, has had more views of his last 3 videos, than almost any of his prior videos. So it seems that Brand's popularity is not waning & he is more popular now than ever. His subscriber numbers have also increased slightly on both YouTube & Rumble - even though his YouTube channel is no longer monetised.
    4
  185.  @Isabel-jb7vd  I never said anything against the people of France as such. But unless the government of France changes its ways - there is always a price to be paid by the government for terrible events it puts on - like that Olympic games opening ceremony. Thank goodness the games are off to a bad start already, with rain at the opening ceremony & the transport system being sabotaged. Lots of people are already boycotting these games as a result of that disgusting opening ceremony & some of the athletes might boycott it too now. These will be the worst games ever.
    4
  186. Over the last few days - I've still not been able to access Chat GPT - I keep getting an error message telling me that it's not available at the moment & to try again later.
    4
  187. I was somewhat amused by the above video. Definitely some people just cannot wait until new technology is released & are very quick on the uptake when it is finally available. When I was growing up, our family was usually quite late on the uptake when it came to new technology & electrical devices etc - even though my father was an electrical engineer & an executive of the local electricity board/supply company. I guess he knew that if we just waited a while, the price of those new electrical devices would soon reduce - & all their "teething problems" would be ironed out. But the 3 children in our family (including me) did not always appreciate that, & of course wanted all the latest "mod cons" - like television (originally black & white), & then later, colour TV. If our TV ever broke down, we children thought it was the end of the world, when my parents were never in any hurry & took their time to get it fixed. One thing my father was quite quick in getting for our family though - was a dishwashing machine (in the early 1960's). I think he thought it would help out our family & my mother at home - since my mother also worked full-time as a teacher. In the early 1960's, not many average families had dishwashing machines - & I remember the kids at school almost not believing me (thinking there was no such thing as a dishwashing machine) when I mentioned that our family had a dishwashing machine at home. Our family did eventually get a home computer at home - but initially it was mainly because my mother used it as a word processor to replace her typewriter. When it came to mobile phones, our family was also quite late on the uptake - none of us were in a hurry to buy a mobile phone, & my father only initially got one because he won one in a competition. I personally was quite a latecomer to getting a home computer, & have only had one since about 1995, even though I had been using computers at work for many years prior to that. While I have had a mobile phone for quite a number of years now - I only got my first "smartphone" about 5 or 6 years ago, & before that, I just used a feature phone. So I don't really think I'm a tech "normie". In fact, even the word "normie" amuses me, because it is a familiar/short form of the name "Norman", & reminds me of an extremely popular 1960's pop singer in my country whose first name was "Normie"! When I heard the word "grammarly" mentioned in the above video, it also amused me. I fail to understand why people would even need to use computer programs/applications like "grammarly", if they've had a sound education & know how to use correct spelling & grammar etc. Maybe that's just a sign of the times & indicates that the education system these days does not always give students a good grounding in things like spelling & grammar. In fact, even the word "grammarly" itself is a made up/invented word.
    4
  188. I think it almost goes without saying, that no-one in their right mind would want to make money out of giving some publicity to the fact that it is the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It was a very sad event, & I'm certainly glad that someone is reminding people that it is the 30th anniversary of the TSM - otherwise I think it is a significant event that could easily be overlooked. As I mentioned in another post on this video - the fact that it was the 30th anniversary of the TSM did not even make it into the news in my country - though I'm not sure why that was - perhaps because of concerns that China might be offended if it was given some publicity. But I'm glad that it's at least been given some publicity here.
    4
  189.  @Fraxzor  If, even with the "said sensory moments for babies", the babies don't know what's going on anyway - then surely there's no point to any of it at all.
    4
  190. ​ @paulheydarian1281 One does not need to be there at the time, to know the history. One just needs to read the historical records of that time.
    4
  191. This woke university's practice of "cancel culture" has prevented a debating society from doing just that. If the university stops events from proceeding simply because a few students claim to find a speaker offensive - then it's a wonder that university allows any student events at all. I wonder what the university would do if all of the students from the debating society were to claim to "be offended" & "not included" by another speaker appearing at the university, with whose views they disagree. Would the university then cancel the appearance of that speaker? Or does it demonstrate bias by only cancelling speakers who are not seen as "woke". It seems to me as though student organisations like this university's debating society may have to find alternate venues outside of the university campus, if they wish to conduct serious debates & other such events in the future. And this is such shame - because universities were never intended to be "safe" spaces for people who are so easily offended by opposing views. Better still, any universities who do not allow such genuine freedom of expression & debate need to have government funding terminated.
    4
  192. I've often thought that, with all the attacks on our personal privacy these days, combined with all the censorship & biased perspectives on current issues being put out there by MAGA - FT (that's Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook & Twitter - not that other "MAGA") - some of the scenes from that 1976 movie "Network" (starring Peter Finch, Faye Dunaway & William Holden), could appear very relevant, even today. There is one very memorable scene in the movie, where Peter Finch, during a live US TV broadcast, encourages viewers to stick their heads out their windows (just as he has done) & shout "I'm mad as hell, & I'm not going to take this anymore!" The outlandish tactics of the Peter Finch character in previous live broadcasts had garnered a massive viewer following, so when he encouraged his viewers to stick their heads out their windows & shout that message - literally millions of people around the country did that. If only a similar reaction could be invoked in people, in relation to all the attacks on our privacy & the censorship of big tech!
    4
  193. Clearly for Woolworths - selling Halloween merchandise is much more important than selling Australia Day merchandise!
    4
  194. Yes, it is very worrying - but certainly not surprising at all, given that the minority "woke" & cancel cultures have dominated British society for some years now.
    4
  195. So why not ask those same young people to read the Quran & then vote on whether the Quran & hadiths should be banned? Would not the banning of the holy books/scriptures of any religion amount to the banning of religion & people's present right to freedom of religion & their right to practise their chosen religion? And surely if you are going to ban the Bible - & in order to treat all religions equally - the holy books/scriptures of all religions would need to be banned. I can assure everyone that there are plenty of holy booksof other religions which are far worse than the Bible. Try reading the Quran for one.
    4
  196. It's the decision of the school Principal, to determine which "outsiders" get to come & talk to their students - & before giving authorisation to any outsider to come & talk to the students, they should first of all know what the outsider is going to talk to the students about & what activities they are going to do with the students. No matter what has happened previously, the Principal should always ask for an "advance copy" of the presentation the outsider is going to give to the students & on the basis of that, determine whether it is appropriate material for the students, & whether to allow the outsider to come to the school & give that presentation to the students. If the outsider is then allowed to come & give that presentation to the students, on the basis that the Principal has determined it is appropriate for the students - it should be shared with the classroom teacher, who will hopefully be supervising the outsider as they are giving that presentation to the students (& not just using that time as their own "free" time). If the outsider's actual presentation to the students then veers off track from the advance copy of the presentation that was given to the school Principal - the classroom teacher should immediately pull the outsider into line & tell them the material they are presenting has not been pre-authorised by the Principal & they should stick to the pre-authorised material. If the outsider is not prepared to do that, the classroom teacher should immediately call a halt to the presentation & inform the Principal of what has happened, & that the outsider did not adhere to the pre-authorised material. It's always the responsibility of the Principal to know beforehand, what any outsider is going to do, by way of presentation to their students. And it's the responsibility of the classroom teacher to be informed of what that is, & to enforce it & take action if the presentation goes off track.
    4
  197. Anyone "vouching" for any asylym seeker needs to put their money where their mouth is & be required to put up a financial surety for any asylum seeker for whom they vouch.
    4
  198.  @Zendukai  Yes - that would be the best solution - for any civilians in areas that are being targeted as Hamas strongholds by the IDF - & they are receiving forewarnings about that. But the problem is, when civilians in Gaza try to leave - Hamas are not allowing them to leave - Hamas are telling them to remain in their homes in Gaza. Other nearby Muslim majority countries in the region should offer them temporary shelter until the conflict has ceased, & they can return to Gaza - but this does not seem to be happening. Then the international community would need to ensure that all the foreign aid Gaza is receiving, in future goes towards legitimate benefits for the civilians in Gaza - & not used to purchase arms for Hamas & build tunnels for them.
    4
  199.  @lozzy2587  Yes - "normal" people are definitely the majority of people - & they all need to speak out more & make their voices heard. Sadly, the minority voices of the hokey pokery wokery crowd have been given way to much media attention & for way too long!
    4
  200.  @shadowcat889  Looking at it from the female perspective - rather than claiming the woman is not sufficiently "tight" (after giving birth) - it might just be a case that the man's private part is not as "big" as it should be...so the man is to blame, as far as the woman is concerned...
    4
  201. Putting simply "old age" on someone's death certificate as the primary cause of death is simply a cop-out. Correct medical terminology should have been used, to describe the main cause of death. It probably goes to show that the quality of the doctors in Scotland is not as good as elsewhere - even for someone as important as the Queen. It also makes it seem like the attending physician was simply too lazy or incompetent to use the proper terminology. My own mother was 91 years old when she died, but at least the attending doctor used the correct medical terminology to describe her primary & secondary causes of death on her death certificate. He did not take the easy way out by simply saying she died of "old age" - that would have been total nonsense & a cop-out.
    4
  202. Looks like if Coles or IGA do not have the Australia Day merchandise we want this year - we'll all have to go on-line & import it directly from China ourselves, & cut out the middle man.
    4
  203.  @englishboy993  In that case, Islam seems to have an awful lot of radicals, compared with other religions
    4
  204.  @englishboy993  Most people do understand that the term Jihad can have a more general meaning. However, acts of violent Islamic terrorism have become so common these days, that we are more likely to hear the term, when applied to such acts of terrorism.
    4
  205. But even childen throwing stones at the Israeli army/soldiers is not likely to improve their situation - in fact it is probably only making it worse. If they are caught & convicted, that conviction could have serious repercussions on them a little later in life, if they are living outside the fence & need to apply for a permit to cross various checkpoints to enter Jerusalem. Only those without any convictions can be granted such a permit. It's mentioned in one of the later episodes, that in order to be granted such a permit, there are 3 requirements - men have to be at least 25 years old, be employed by an Israeli company to work in Jerusalem, & have no criminal convictions. So once a young man has a criminal conviction - even though it may have been obtained when he was under 18/21 years of age - he may never be granted a permit to enter Jerusalem.
    4
  206. And those British "thought police" as well - visiting people in their homes, to make sure that their "thinking" is correct!
    4
  207. If we are to be a truly tolerant & diverse society, then all kinds of diverse views need to be tolerated, including the views of religious people, who have particular set beliefs. They are not forcing themselves or their views on others - but merely expect to be allowed to practice their religion & religious beliefs as they see fit & to educate their children in those same beliefs, as they also see fit. People are not being forced to send their children to private religious schools, if they do not share its religious views - that is a personal choice all parents make. All parents need to be prepared to accept the rules of whatever school they choose to send their children to. If they don't like the school's rules - they cannot expect the school to change its rules just for them - obviously the school is just not the right school for them or their children & they should simply choose another school whose rules they can happily abide by. If they cannot find such a school - then they should consider home-schooling, where they can educate their children as they see fit - when it comes to teaching them their own religious beliefs. This is part of the reason why home-schooling these days is increasing in popularity - because religious parents often want to educate their children in their own religious beliefs - which often affects other parts of their education as well - & that's the type of education they likely won't get in any public school, or some other private schools. The above article concerns a private religious school where parents wishing to send their children there are well aware of the views & beliefs of the school, before sending their children to be educated there. I understand that the views of such religious schools may be distressing to some people - but they are not being obligated to send their children to that school & the majority of the 40,000 people or so who signed a petition against the school because of its beliefs & rules, probably never had any intention of sending their children to any kind of Christian school to start with - so the petition really does not carry much weight, & is pretty much a non-issue. The school probably already has a queue of prospective students a mile long, No matter how many people sign the petition, the school is not likely to change its views or beliefs. Most Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) have similar teachings in their scriptures regarding sexuality, male-female only religiously recognised marriage, & only acknowledging male & female genders. Those teachings are never likely to change, as those scriptures can never be changed - since they are considered to be the word of God. If people don't want their children to be taught the beliefs of any of these religions - then all they have to do is not send their children to these types of schools - because these schools are obviously not for them & why would they even want to send their children to such schools? So why bother protesting the school's rules & the beliefs that it teaches? If you expect them to be tolerant of your own views, you should also be tolerant of their views - it's a 2-way street. Many Jewish & Christian children are already being home-schooled by their parents, because their parents simply don't want them to be taught a lot of the things that they would be taught in other government or private schools - things which are not in accord with their own religious beliefs. No matter how much we may want to - we simply cannot force everyone to believe exactly the same as we do when it comes to things like sexuality, genders, marriage etc. If we were able to do that, we would all become mindless moronic robots, incapable of thinking for ourselves & deciding for ourselves what we want to believe. Let everyone have the freedom to believe & practise their own religion, as they wish, & to educate their children in that religion if they wish. There will eventually come a time when the children will be old enough to make up their own minds as to what they want to believe, as far as religion is concerned.
    4
  208. These pro-Hamas protesters can be very rude & aggressive towards others. Several weeks ago I was having a meal in one of the food courts of an indoor shopping complex in our city centre. I was wearing a baseball cap with an image of an Israeli flag on the front, as I wanted to show my support for Israel, & take a stand against terrorism. There was a pro-Hamas rally that day, out in the public square of the city centre, so there were quite a few people wandering around the city wearing keffiyehs & Palestinian flags. Two such Hamas supporters came up to my table in the shopping complex food court & sat down at my table opposite me. Their opening words to me were "You are not welcome here" (as if they owned that shopping complex!). They told me that my Israeli flag baseball cap was offending people in the shopping complex - although I personally had received no complaints from anyone at that stage, & had even had quite a few people come up to me & tell me that they too supported Israel. I'm sure there might also have been people in the shopping complex who were offended by the many people wandering around wearing keffiyehs & Palestinian flags - but they were not telling those people they were not welcome in the shopping complex. They were showing more tolerance. The 2 Hamas supporters then started talking to me in "Hamas propaganda" - most of which I knew to be factually incorrect. Eventually, they loudly & repeatedly demanded that I leave the shopping complex/food court. I responded to each request, stating that I would not leave. After all, I was there before they came & sat at my table. When they realised I was not going to comply with their demands & leave, they stood up in their places & started loudly & repeatedly shouting "Free free Palestine!". I just ignored their noise & watched a video on my mobile phone. But their loud noise attracted a crowd of onlookers - some of whom clearly did not agree with the Hamas supporters. The Hamas supporters noise also attracted the shopping centre's security staff, closely followed by a number of police officers from the nearby police station. They spoke with the Hamas supporters & told them they'd need to stop their noise, or leave the shopping centre. So they did stop their noise, & some time later, left the shopping centre. The security staff & police also instructed the gathered crowd to disperse. The security staff told me that if such a thing happened again in the shopping complex, I should immediately call their control room (for which they gave me the phone number) &/or the police. This kind of behaviour by Hamas supporters demonstrates how very rude & aggressive they can be, & that they are prepared to engage in unlawful acts, if need be. If only they could realise how stupid they make themselves look, in the process. Clearly these 2 Hamas supporters were "not the full quid", to say the least.
    4
  209. Perhaps such safety videos should be brought back - but probably, & more importantly, parents need to be taught that their young children of such ages, need to have proper adult supervision at all times. If those young children had had proper adult/parental supervision, that tragedy may not have happened.
    4
  210. She actually indicated they got out of Europe before the holocaust proper started (though maybe that was not mentioned till a later video in this series), but Jews were still being persecuted even then. They actually arrived in Israel in 1940.
    4
  211. Maybe Americans just were not very good at spelling these words to start with, & often spelt them incorrectly without the "u", which then, over time, became accepted as the correct spelling of those words in America.
    3
  212. The SIM card connects to its phone network by using the IMEI number of the SIM card slot that the SIM card is inserted into (& the IMEI's are usually unique numbers for each phone handset). This information may in turn may be able to link the IMEI number to the serial number of the particular phone handset being used. But there is really no way around all this if you want to use your phone handset as an actual phone to make phone calls, send SMS messages, or use the data provided by your phone carrier. In order to establish your account with the phone service provider/carrier, you would have already had to provide them with a certain amount of information about yourself as the user. And once the SIM card makes a connection to its phone network - the phone carrier will usually have at least a rough idea of the phone's location. That information may in turn be passed on by the phone carrier to, say, government authorities, if requested through something like a court order. It's hard to avoid this. Of course, you could always remove the SIM card from the phone & use alternate methods of communication through things like alternate messaging/communication apps using public access wifi connections with a VPN etc.
    3
  213.  @abazely2743  But the penalties in Islam for homosexuality are just as bad, if not worse, than those for fornication (sex outside of marriage).
    3
  214. Yes - after all, how can any court actually "prove" what someone may have been thinking, or doing "in their head"! They would need a highly accurate mind-reading machine!
    3
  215.  @clouddrifter650  The world may not yet be entirely at peace. But the main purpose of previous wars was to defend the countries which were being invaded. For example, in World War 2 - Germany was invading & taking over many countries in Europe & in the Pacific, countries like the US were being invaded (remember Pearl Harbour?) by Japan, which also came close to invading Australia & Darwin Harbour & some other parts of northern Australia were bombed. So if Australia had not participated in those wars - Germany may have succeeded in its hostile take-over of much of Europe (think France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria etc) & Japan may have invaded & taken over Australia. So, what has actually changed, by Australia's participation in those wars, is that Germany no longer controls all those other countries in Europe, & Australia was not taken over by Japan.
    3
  216. I'd suggest the BBC lets go of Gary Lineker & all staff who may support him. No-one is irreplaceable - not even Gay Lineker - no matter what he or anyone else may think.
    3
  217.  @calendula911  In some countries they can be very handy for families with 2 - 3 children who all like ice-cream - & it saves having to go shopping quite as often.
    3
  218.  @Faded_Romance  Yes - there is still the possibility of slander/libel/defamation charges in the UK, I believe. And after all, Lady H's reputation has suffered as a result of these allegations of racism - & she has also suffered financial loss, because she has now lost her job as a result of those allegations.
    3
  219. Even if falsely accusing someone of racism is not a criminal offence - Lady H may still be able to pursue a case for slander/libel/defamation. After all, her reputation has been damaged, & she has now lost her job as a result of those false accusations of racism - so she has personally suffered a financial loss as well.
    3
  220.  @jemcoop1  Based on the transcript of the conversation that was provided as evidence by Ngozi herself - nothing in that conversation that was said by Lady H, was actually racist, by the dictionary & legal definitions of the word.
    3
  221.  @mintywebb  Based on the transcript of the conversation that was provided as evidence by Ngozi, nothing in that conversation that was said by Lady H, fits the dictionary or legal definition of the term "racist".
    3
  222.  @Nutt-u  You're right - it is not a criminal offence to be a racist - people can certainly have racist beliefs - & they are entitled to believe whatever they want. But if they then seek to put those racist beliefs into practice in some way - for example, by discriminating against someone in the job market, solely based on their race/ethnicity - then there are specific laws against such racial discrimination - & the employer may have to answer a legal case for racial discrimination.
    3
  223.  @PorterB  Recording a conversation secretly, without asking the other person's permission, is usually illegal. Any so-called "evidence" which may have been obtained illegally, is usually not allowed to be presented as evidence in a court of law.
    3
  224.  @PorterB  When the news media interviews people for their news stories, the people being interviewed are made well aware that thy are being interviewed for a possible news story & that their interview may appear in the media or on the TV news. They can then respond to any interview questions in a manner in which they would like it to appear in the media. It's a slightly different scenario with private conversations. Ngozi was at that function as a private individual & did not represent herself as being there on behalf of the media. So what took place between her & Lady H was essentially a private conversation. If Ngozi was recording that private conversation without informing Lady H that she was being recorded, or asking for Lady H's permission to record their conversation - then that may have been illegal.
    3
  225.  @Flip-Da-Script  People are generally assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If Ngozi wishes to accuse someone of racism - it's up to the accuser to prove their point by providing suitable evidence. So far, I have not seen any evidence from Ngozi, that would satisfy claims of racism in a court of law.
    3
  226.  @ImaCountryGirl2  Thanks! I only ever saw Meghan mention that supposed "racist" incident in her interview with Oprah - so I can obviously only write about what I have seen myself. I was not aware that that issue had previously been mentioned in another interview, before they were married, & that Harry himself had even commented about the shade of skin any of their children might have. Whether a similar question may also have been asked by another member of the royal family - who knows? We certainly have not been provided with any hard evidence of it & neither Meghan nor Harry want to publicly name the royal family member who said it, it seems. It seems they would rather taint the entire royal family as racist, instead of actually naming the person who said it. In the Oprah interview, even if Harry himself had felt that there was nothing at all "racist" about such a comment being made by another royal family member - he obviously did not want to embarrass or upset Meghan & Oprah in that interview, by correcting/contradicting Meghan's message that it was a racist comment. And of course, we all saw Oprah's jaw drop when Meghan mentioned the comment - so it obviously had good "tabloid appeal", even if it may not have been totally truthful. I personally thought that that Oprah interview was very poorly done & that Oprah was a very bad interviewer. She simply accepted everything that was said by Meghan & Harry at face value, & never once asked for any supporting evidence, or queried any of their responses, or tried to delve deeper into the responses given, to try to confirm their truthfulness - as any decent interviewer would have done. One of the big "clangers" for me in that Oprah interview, came when Meghan stated that she & Harry had actually been "married" a few days before their official/televised wedding, in a private back-yard ceremony, with just her & Harry & the Archbishop of Canterbury. That sticks out to most people as just being blatantly "false" (but Oprah never even questioned it!) - because most people know that in western democratic countries, all legal marriages/weddings require at least 2 witnesses (who also sign the marriage certificate) in addition to the bridal couple & the marriage celebrant. It's also not possible to get legally married to the same person twice, without there having been a divorce in between the 2 marriages. Following that factually incorrect statement made by Meghan, even the Archbishop of Canterbury had to come out with a brief televised statement, saying that Meghan was incorrect & that he had not actually "married" them prior to the official/televised ceremony. Copies of the actual marriage certificate were also produced, to show that he "married" them on the same date as the official/televised wedding (Oprah had never requested any such supporting evidence from Meghan - she just accepted what Meghan had said). The most that could have possibly happened in that "back yard" was that it could have been some sort of "rehearsal" for the wedding, or perhaps it was just a pre-wedding exchange of personal vows - but it clearly was not a "marriage" as Meghan had stated. I don't believe that such a statement was simply a "mistake" made by Meghan - as she was not a young, naive, 19 year old, barely out of high school (as Diana had been, when she got engaged to Prince Charles). Meghan had already been an actress for some years - so she was an experienced woman of the world, who was well into her 30's, & had already been married & divorced - so she would have been well aware of the "legalities" involved in a marriage. So what was she hoping to achieve with such a factually incorrect statement, made in an interview on global television? It only made her look really silly/stupid/untruthful - & then would cause people to doubt the truthfulness of many of the other statements she made in that interview as well. For someone, whom we were told (when she became engaged to Harry), is a smart, educated, strong woman - she certainly does not appear to be very smart or intelligent at all, when she makes such false statements. Is she deliberately making these false statement, & if so, what is the purpose behind it? For a supposedly "smart" woman - why is her mind seemingly not capable of working rationally & logically?
    3
  227.  @Nutt-u  I disagree. I think people should be named if there is sufficient hard evidence that they were genuinely racist, according to the proper definition of the word. The problem with Harry & Meghan's racism claims in their Oprah interview is that they really did not provide any genuine evidence (& may not have had any such evidence) that racism had actually taken place. At least if they had named the person - it would have given the person the opportunity to defend themselves & completely disprove Harry & Meghan's claims of racism. Instead, Harry & Meghan made some rather vague, unsubstantiated claims about royal family racism & tainted the whole family as racists by not naming the person in question. The reason they probably did not wish to name the person, is that they could not sufficiently prove their claim, & they knew that the named person might be able to disprove them - & they did not want that to happen - because it would have been too embarrassing for them, & they may have risked legal action against them. But surely if Meghan & Harry were honest & decent people to start with, they should never have made such accusations without sufficient hard evidence - & should have then stood by their own claims, & named the person. Meghan & Harry have already been allowed to leave the royal family - it happened around 2 - 3 years ago, & that Oprah interview took place quite some time after they had left & eventually settled in California. But it seems they still expected a lot of financial support from the royal family back in the UK, after they moved to America. One of the things that Harry complained about in the Oprah interview, was that after he & Meghan moved to America, his father (Prince Charles) had cut him off financially, & the royal family & British government would no longer be providing Harry & Meghan & their family, with security. By that time, it was claimed that Harry & Meghan had already signed several multi-million dollar deals with Netflix & book companies. Harry also had a significant financial inheritance of many millions of pounds from his mother Diana's deceased estate. He also had a slightly smaller inheritance from the Queen Mother's deceased estate. Surely, if Harry & Meghan were the ones who had decided to leave the royal family, they should have made sure that they had sufficient financial resources of their own, to support their new American lifestyle, totally independent of the royal family, & without still being financially dependent on the royal family back in the UK, or the British government - especially if they are not going to be carrying out any royal duties & are seeking to "monetise" their status as former royals (which is not allowed, if one is a current royal). The Queen had already removed their "royal" titles of "HRH" (His/Her Royal Highness) after Meghan & Harry had announced (while still in the UK), that they were stepping down from all official royal duties - so they could no longer be paid as working members of the royal family, & could no longer expect all the benefits that go along with being a working member of the royal family. Besides which, being both well in their 30's now & having made the move to America - most people would think they should no longer be relying on their parents for financial support - especially if they were the ones who wanted to leave the royal family in the first place. And now that they are in America, it seems they are trying to make a lot of money by telling the media a lot of things that simply are not true, &/or that they can provide no evidence for. I guess they have to make money somehow - but why can't they do it in a more honest manner? Harry's inheritance from Diana's estate was around 20 million pounds - but Harry mentioned in the Oprah interview that most of that was spent on the purchase of their new home in California - so that would have only left them with a little bit of money left over, plus the much smaller inheritance amount that came from the Queen Mother's estate. I guess that's not a lot of "money to live on" when you're living in a house worth close to 20 million pounds. So they may now be effectively "asset rich" but "cash poor". So they need to somehow generate additional income for themselves as "money to live on" - which I suppose is why they need to be able to make money out of their story. I just wish they could do it in a more honest way, without needing to say things which just aren't true.
    3
  228. Agreed - let's hope these games are a total disaster for France. Thank goodness it rained on that opening ceremony & now the transport is being sabotaged! Maybe even some of the athletes there may now want to boycott these disgusting games - already the "worst games ever".
    3
  229. My own theory on this is that the publisher may have provided the Dutch translator with an old/earlier version of the English language manuscript of the book for translation. In this version, the author Scobie may have mentioned the names of the imaginary royal racists - prior to being advised, perhaps for legal reasons, not to specifically mention their names. So the English language manuscript of the book was then updated, not to include the names - but the Dutch translator was not then provided with that updated version of the English language manuscript, for translation. As someone who has studied several foreign languages at university - it is simply preposterous for the author &/or publisher to claim that the names in the Dutch version of the book were a "translation error". Honest & certified & accredited translators simply could not translate "some random words or blank spaces" into the names of specific members of the royal family - it would not be worth risking the translator's good reputation for something like that. Translators simply translate what is in the manuscripts they are given. So in this case, those names must have been in that manuscript. But I don't think that anyone would believe for one minute that either Charles or Catherine are racists. That is all just a figment of someone's highly vivid imagination. And if supposed racist comments were made by Charles to Meghan, prior to the wedding of Harry & Meghan - why would Meghan have then asked & allowed Charles to walk her down the aisle at her wedding to Harry? There also seems to be confusion about whether the racist comments were made before or after that wedding. If before the wedding - perhaps people were just generally wondering about what any child of that marriage might look like - but such comments are quite common among all families & not considered at all racist in nature.
    3
  230. Let's just hope that the police are choosing not to pursue J K Rowling because she is a high profile person who might attract bad publicity for the police & these new laws, but then later choose to pursue lesser known people for very similar things (because they may be less likely to attract publicity).
    3
  231. And not before time either! That's wonderful news! It's a win for the intelligent people in our community. Let transgender people compete in their own separate competition, if there are enough of them. Let them create their own competition for themselves.
    3
  232. I think you'll find the phone will probably still work in some form. You may not be able to make PSTN phone calls or send SMS messages without a SIM card or eSIM on the phone, but you should still be able to use the internet & apps on the phone, using a wifi internet connection etc. And as long as you can use the apps with a wifi internet connection, you can use messaging & video messaging apps to stay in touch with people. Also, if you want to send someone photos, for example, they can still be sent as an email attachment using the wifi internet connection on the phone.
    3
  233. It may not be "people" that are actually "watching" you - but your life might be being recorded somehow - by your computer/mobile phone, public cameras etc. And all that information gets stored away somewhere. Then when something happens & there's a need to examine that kind of information for certain people - that information will be brought out & examined for whatever the authorities may want it for. And all the available records for that particular part of your life might be looked at in detail.
    3
  234. In any employee/employer relationship - the most that an employer is usually able to do as far as background checks on prospective employees, is a "police check" - which will only check for actual criminal convictions in a person's background. It does not check for allegations of what some may consider to be "bad behaviour" in a person's background, or other "ethical" matters/situations. But the relationship between a social media site like YouTube, & their content/channel creators, is not quite the same as an employee/employer relationship - even though for some creators, the income they receive from their "channels" is their main source of income & entire livelihood. So, to shut off that source of income for a creator, without them even having been found guilty of anything in a court of law, is a very serious situation for any YouTube content creator to find themselves in. Yet YouTube does this sot of thing quite frequently, & without giving it a second thought on most occasions. And of course, how is a creator going to be able to create any further content, without having any income or "money to live on", because YouTube have completely de-monetised their channel? While YouTube has not actually shut down Russell Brand's channel - & he is still free to post further videos/content on his channel (& people can continue to view the videos that are already on his channel) - there is absolutely no motivation for anyone to do that, if their content is not going to be monetised & they are not going to be rewarded for the effort put into making that content - especially if that is their only income source. It may not be quite the same as cutting off a person's access to what may be considered essential services & utilities - like electricity, gas, water, telephone, banking etc - but cutting off someone's primary source of income at the drop of a hat (as YouTube so often does - & with relatively little accountability) & for rather minor reasons - does sound rather vindictive or punitive on the part of YouTube. I personally believe that social media sites should only be able to do that, if creators have actually done something illegal or been found guilty of a crime. In an employee/employer situation, that would not be able to happen unless the employee had actually been found guilty of an offence - or the employee may be able to pursue a claim for unfair dismissal. In the meantime, until the accused has their day in court, their employer may choose to stand them down on full pay, if they believe others in the workplace are somehow placed at risk from the accused's behaviour. In any case - I believe the "court of public opinion" will probably punish any content creator more than adequately, either if they no longer like their channel's content - or they come to believe that they do not like the alleged private behaviour of content creator. And the public does not need to wait for the results of any court case/legal proceedings, in order to do that. They can always simply unsubscribe from following the channel, or stop financially supporting them through "memberships" & livestream "Superchats", Patreon etc. So I see no reason for any big tech social media site like YouTube to de-monetise/censor/block/cancel a creator for alleged inappropriate behaviour in their private life, which is not related to their channel content, & which has never yet been proven in any court of law. Some content creators on YouTube have previously done things far worse than Russell Brand is alleged to have done (& I understand that some are even convicted criminals), yet have not been de-monetised by YouTube. So one can only come to the conclusion that it is due to Russell Brand's high profile as a celebrity, that YouTube have taken this stance to de-monetise his channel & cut off this source of income for him.
    3
  235. If I were Gina Rinehart, I'd be saying good riddance to supporting netball & indigenous Australians due to this "woke fiasco" created by Australian netball. I'm sure there are plenty of other women's sports out there that would simply love to have that 15 million dollars in sponsorship money - now that it obviously won't be going to Australian netball.
    3
  236. If the college itself is unable to make the campus safe for Jewish students, the Jewish students should demand a full pro-rata fee refund from their college & transfer to a college where it is safer for them.
    3
  237. Some of the prices may look cheap to a person living in another country. But in Russia, to determine how "easy" those prices would make life for the senior citizens actually living in Russia - you would need to know what the average income was for senior citizens living in Russia. And it may not be nearly as much, as where you are from - which might make a lot of those supermarket products quite expensive for the average senior citizen living in Russia.
    3
  238.  @wn.111  Yes - I realise these Muslim women are not being forced into these polygamous marriages as 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wives - but I do think many of them are doing it more out of desperation - for fear that they will not find a suitable marriage partner otherwise - especially if they are divorced with children, & are only allowed to "marry" a Muslim man. They do it to have some sort of security & respectability in the Muslim community. In any case, technically, their legal status under British law is not that of a "wife" - because British law does not permit polygamy. They are never actually married as 2nd, 3rd or 4th wives under British law - their solely religious marriage ceremonies are not recognised under UK law, & the marriage is never registered & no British marriage certificate is ever issued. So as far as British law is concerned - these 2nd, 3rd & 4th wives are just multiple de-facto relationships or girlfriends.
    3
  239. The problem is, if you do not plead guilty when you are actually guilty - you may end up with a much heftier penalty or prison sentence when you are found guilty by the court in the end. So if you want a lighter penalty/sentence - it's often best to plead guilty, if you are guilty.
    3
  240. In order to properly memorialise this date & year & what happened then - especially since this year is the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre - perhaps we should all send messages of condolence &/or memorial wreaths to our local Chinese embassies - expressing the view that human life is priceless & should never be extinguished by such forceful means when people are merely protesting. The message could also condemn the forceful actions of the Chinese government & army in killing & wounding many people in their attempts to suppress the protests. I consider myself fortunate in that I live in my country's capital city, & the Embassy of China is not too far away - so it is easy for me to take a wreath there & lay it near the front gate/entrance - though of course, I cannot guarantee how long it would remain there.
    3
  241. That was certainly a very nice video about Muslims - but it really did not give much of an insight into the beliefs & teachings of the religion of Islam. I have several Muslim friends (with differing levels of devoutness), & I don't have anything at all against Muslims as people, but I've always said, if you want to learn about a religion - you need to learn about the actual beliefs & teachings of that religion. And the best way to do that is not necessarily by just asking a follower of that religion (where one may perhaps get a slightly biased &/or not well informed representation) - but by going straight to the scriptures & acknowledged holy books of that particular religion. So, if one wants to learn about the teachings of Christianity - one should read the entire Bible for oneself. If one wants to learn the beliefs & teachings of Islam - one should read the Quran & at least some of the hadiths. What I have found from reading those books, is that because Islam came some 300 - 400 years after Christianity, the Quran actually does get some of the Biblical stories quite wrong - particularly in relation to Mary (the mother of Jesus, in the Bible), & how she was related to other Biblical characters. Although the Imam indicated that they view Islam as a sort of continuation of Christianity - unlike in the Bible, Islam does not believe that Jesus is the son of God - it sees him only as a prophet, & a slightly less important one than Mohammed. Islam does not teach the same things about Jesus as the Bible & therefore does not believe the same things about Jesus as Christianity. So if Jesus is not the son of god in Islam - how can Islam believe that it worships the same god as Christianity - when one god has a son & the other does not? How can Christians believe they worship the same god as Judaism, when Jesus is the Messiah in Christianity, but Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah? Although it is claimed that Judaism, Christianity & Islam have the same Abrahamic origins, they obviously do not worship the same gods - they worship very different gods, with different teachings & beliefs straight from their own scriptures. In order for someone to become a follower of a particular religion, what is important, I believe, is not necessarily how nice or hospitable the followers of a particular religion might be (because they may not always be fully aware of the teachings of their religion - especially if they have been born into it, or underwent a very quick conversion process, without fully investigating all the beliefs & teachings of that religion). What is important, is the actual beliefs & teachings of those religions, from their holy books/scriptures. If you can believe absolutely everything the religion teaches in its scriptures, then you have good reason to become a follower of that religion. If you cannot believe everything the religion teaches in its scriptures, then you cannot truly call yourself a follower of that religion. One cannot simply cherry-pick the bits one wishes to believe, & then say one does not believe other beliefs/teachings of the religion, but still call oneself a follower of that religion. The very fact that one does not believe certain beliefs/teachings of the religion, means that one does not follow that religion. Judaism, Christianity, & Islam indeed do have similar teachings in some areas - for example on some controversial issues like abortion, homosexual practices, same-sex marriage etc. But for some reason, it is mainly Christianity that usually gets a bad rap in the media for its teachings on those issues - while no-one seems to mention that Judaism & Islam also teach the same on those issues. I think there are 3 possible reasons for this. The first could be that those in the media are just totally ignorant, when it comes to knowing about the beliefs of Judaism & Islam on those same issues. The second is that, although they may be aware that Judaism & Islam have the same beliefs on those issues - the media has a double standard when it comes to the way they treat those religions. So it's okay for Judaism & Islam to have those beliefs, but it's not okay for Christianity to have those same beliefs. Perhaps they see Christianity as a "superior" religion which should have "better" beliefs than Judaism & Islam. They may think that Christianity should change its beliefs, to align with those of the secular western world. The third reason is that they may fear a backlash - because openly criticising the beliefs of what are minority religions in western countries, is usually seen to be "politically incorrect", & perceived as racist & discriminatory, whereas it's seen as okay to criticise Christianity for those same beliefs, particularly in western countries which have been traditionally Christian. One of the main reasons why Islam is growing as a religion, is not because people are necessarily converting to the religion (although indeed, there are converts) - but the majority of the growth is because Muslim families tend to be larger & have more children - especially in countries where Islam is the majority religion. I do understand why some Muslims were/are resentful of the scrutiny under which they were placed, after the events of 9/11. Obviously the majority of Muslims are good people, & only a very small minority actually commit acts of terrorism. But how can any government discern who is a good person/Muslim & who might be potential terrorists (from amongst those arriving from middle-eastern countries), without placing all such people under scrutiny? I think it's a difficult task indeed.
    3
  242. Getting married prior to arriving in the UK won't actually change much - he will still need to qualify for immigration on his own terms & having a baby together makes no difference at all either. However sometimes the immigration process can be slightly easier for married couples than unmarried couples, because being married demonstrates a certain level of legal commitment & therefore an obligation to financially support each other. Sometimes if a couple is only engaged or intending to get married, the intended foreign spouse may be granted a temporary entry/temporary residence visa, on the condition that they get married within a certain period of time. If the marriage does not eventuate & the couple breaks up, the foreign party's entry visa may be cancelled & they may not be granted a residence visa/permit & may be deported or asked to leave the country.
    3
  243.  @amrita3000  He means that he was always Muslim - but just converted from one sect of Islam (Shia Ismaili Muslim - where he was effectively a non-practising Muslim) to a practising Sunni Muslim. He actually goes into that in a bit more detail in some of his earlier videos.
    3
  244.  @margarethampson9490  Yes that's right as well - they wanted to have all the benefits of being a member of the royal family, without having to undertake any royal duties. They just wanted to be able to "do their own thing" - & probably did like having to perform the royal duties which they were assigned. They did not understand that, in exchange for all the benefits of being a member of the royal family, they would be expected to undertake royal duties.
    3
  245.  @jennifermarlow.  I think they're also pretending to be "victims" in the same way that Diana was often seen as being a "victim" of the press - though Harry & Meghan never even got half the amount of press coverage that Diana got. Also - Meghan is absolutely nothing like Diana, who at only 19 years of age when she got engaged to Charles, & barely out of high school, was a relatively young, innocent, & naive woman. On the other hand, Meghan was well into her '30's, was an actress & woman of the world & would have already been used to a certain amount of publicity & press coverage as an actress. She had also been married & divorced.
    3
  246.  @dianeframe7914  And that's why they would have arranged with the airline for the child to be treated as an unaccompanied minor, during his journey. When he was changing to connecting flights during his journey, the airline staff would have been responsible for making sure he got onto the correct connecting flight etc - since his parents were not with him. Children travelling as unaccompanied minors on flights is not at all unusual & the airlines are well used to this scenario. But obviously - sometimes mistakes are made by the airline staff. He was obviously "safe" during his journey - he just ended up at the wrong destination.
    3
  247. I will certainly be ordering one of these "non-Google, spyless" handsets, given all the "pestering" problems I've been having with the "Google Assistant" program on my present (Google) Android phone over the last 12 months or so. This handset looks nice & is very nicely presented in an elegant looking black box, & comes with a leather-look case & screen protector, & is handily dual SIM - & for many years now, I have always used dual SIM phones only. One of the differences between my present dual SIM handset & the Brax2 dual SIM handset, is that my present handset has both dual SIM AND the micro SD card slot (not the 2nd SIM slot being either a 2nd SIM slot or a micro SD card slot). I would be interested to know if both of the SIM slots are 4G, as in my country, many of the dual SIM phones sold are advertised as having the main SIM slot being 4G & the second SIM slot as 3G (or previously, a 3G/2G combination). It wasn't a problem before smart phones, as 2G/GSM phones would have both SIM slots being the same - 2G). Fortunately, when purchasing my latest dual SIM handset, I was very particular, & made sure I purchased a handset with both SIM slots being 4G - though there were not too many models available where both slots were 4G. The problem with having 2 different "G" SIM slots, is that when one of the "G"'s becomes redundant (as has 2G in my country - & 2G handsets will no longer work with the mobile phone system), then one of the SIM slots on the phone will cease to work & the phone will then effectively become a single SIM phone. This Brax2 handset is probably a bit bigger than the phones I have been used to - as I generally prefer a slightly smaller handset - but I'm sure I can get used to the slightly larger size, for the sake of privacy. Given the 2 options (the US & Europe) shown on the international plug in the above video, the plug does not look like it will be suitable for use in my own country - but that is not a problem for me, as I have a couple of spare full international plugs/adaptors at home. The thing I believe I may miss on the phone is the earphone/headphone jack - but I understand there is a work-around with the USB-C connection & also using a adaptor with the USB-C connection. I generally don't like using wire-less earphones, because they just create one more thing that needs to be battery-charged. Also, although the Brax2 is a 4G phone handset, it will be compatible with 5G. As 5G is quite new, it is likely to be a very long time before the 4G network is made totally redundant & 4G handsets will no longer work within the mobile phone system. It's only quite recently that 2G handsets no longer work in some countries - though I believe that in the USA, 2G handsets will still work with some phone carriers. Handsets that are 3G will still work with mobile phone systems. I think Rob may have cornered the market with these brand new custom-made non-Google, spyless Android mobile phones. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing quite like it on the market that comes out of the box fully functional for the average mobile phone user. The PinePhone & Librem5 either are not fully functional straight from the box, &/or may not be suitable for the average user. It's also great to hear that has been a very good demand for this privacy phone - much more than Rob was expecting, apparently.
    3
  248. ROFL - they can't even say "Gen Zed" properly! How ignorant!
    3
  249.  @Aaronwhatnow  They keep saying "Gen Zee" instead of the correct English English of "Gen Zed".
    3
  250.  @Aaronwhatnow  There is - according to the Oxford English Dictionary - it's "zed" - for anyone who speaks correct English English.
    3
  251.  @susanc4622  My comment was in relation to the Pride flag being on display - which is a political symbol that does not represent everyone - but represents a certain minority group of people. If they are going to allow the display of the Pride flag at the shrine, then there should also be other flags on display that represent other minority groups as well (eg aboriginals, Jews, Muslims - who also fought in the wars). I was not by any means advocating that anyone be categorised by their sexuality - I think you must have me confused with someone else.
    3
  252.  @covidcol3505  Yes - forced conversions definitely do happen in Islam as well.
    3
  253. At least both offenders are dead & the community/town will be a far better place without both of them, thank goodness. No-one will miss them. Even their parents/families are probably glad to be rid of them. Maybe if the police had done a good job in the first place (after the first few burglaries done by this pair had been reported to them), they would have been in gaol & not able to commit any more offences or hurt anyone else.
    3
  254. It certainly does not hurt primary school-aged children to miss a couple of days at school. I did, when I was in hospital as a child (& there weren't any hospital schools back in those days) & it did not affect my education & learning at all. I thinl most people just use that as an excuse when it is convenient for them.
    3
  255.  @viper_fan  Rest assured, they'll eventually all be put back to sleep...
    3
  256.  @natalikronwald6177  She comes across as a really "butch" woman - & using all those "F" words & seething with anger, certainly doesn't do her any favours. I would not want anything to do with someone like that & I'm sure many others probably got the same impression from that clip of her in the above video.
    3
  257.  @kimgrattage6049  Perhaps the person who called her Margot was just ignorant of her correct name.
    3
  258. Earlier in the interview - she said that plasma could be donated twice a week, but then later she said it was once a fortnight. Was her first statement just a slip of the tongue - or can plasma be donated twice a week in some circumstances (eg in urgent cases etc)? I was always under the impression the maximum was fortnightly donations for plasma - which is what I have been doing since 25 July last year (2022). I had previously been donating whole blood many years earlier, but then fell victim to the prohibition on donors who had been in the UK for 6 months or more back in the 1980's & 1990's - due to the mad cow disease in the UK at that time. Up until then I had made just over 25 donations. When I was finally allowed to re-commence donating in July last year - unfortunately the local blood bank had "lost" my previous donation records (as happened with many such donors, as I understand it). So my donation "count" had to start from scratch once more. But since July last year, I've now made 1 whole blood donation & 36 plasma donations.
    3
  259.  @audreykennedy90  Yes - or give them the very worst seats in the house.
    3
  260.  @Loulydollx3  It does not really matter whether they were the divorced women & widows - or whether he actually wanted to marry them. God's command to his creation from the outset - was to only have one spouse. Sure - there were some people - like Muhammad, & various people in the Bible, who disobeyed that command & took on more than one spouse - but that does not mean the rest of the community has to also disobey God & do the same. If anyone wants to help widows & divorced women - there are plenty of other ways to do it, without actually marrying them. Through acts of charity, it is possible to help support such people, without marrying them & thereby going against God's command.
    3
  261.  @one-lq6pk  I see no point in confirming whether I'm a Muslim, ex-Muslim, or non-Muslim. It makes no difference to my comment, & is not important, as far as my comment is concerned.
    3
  262. But what really "made" them was the fact that they were only allowed to read the Quran while they were in prison. And after studying the Quran so well in prison, they knew of ALL of its teachings - & that is what made them become fundamentalist Muslims - once they truly knew what Islam was all about - after having read it so thoroughly while they were in prison.
    3
  263. I think Meghan wants to be seen as some sort of "victim" - similar to Diana (Princess of Wales) in some ways. But Meghan is a far, far different person to Diana. Meghan was already a woman of the world who was well into her 30's when she married Prince Harry, & she had already been married & divorced at least once. Although she had a university level education, she was working as an actress in a TV series when she met Prince Harry - although most British people had probably never heard of that TV series, nor the name Meghan Markle, before it became known that she was dating Prince Harry. On the other hand, Diana was only 19 years old when she became engaged to Prince Charles - she was barely 12 months out of high school - so she had very little experience of the real world. She did not go to university, & had been working in a kindergarten since finishing high school (she had attended a private girls boarding school). So there's no way Meghan's claim to "victimhood" could be compared with what Diana may have experienced. I would say that Meghan's situation is far more like that of Wallis Simpson & the then Prince of Wales/Duke of Windsor. I suppose some people might try to compare Meghan to Grace Kelly & Prince Rainier of Monaco, purely because Grace Kelly was also an actress - but Grace Kelly was nothing at all like Meghan & certainly did not portray herself as a victim. Grace Kelly always conducted herself with dignity after her marriage to Prince Rainier. So I don't see any similarity between Grace Kelly & Meghan either.
    3
  264. Any flights coming from China SHOULD have some restrictions imposed - like COVID-19 testing both before take off & after they land in Australia. One only has to look at the LACK of restrictions imposed when COVID-19 was first brought to the government's attention - & look where that got Australia - a country on the fast track to being totally infected with COVID-19. The government at least should have some consideration for the health & well-being of its existing citizens & residents, by imposing some restrictions on all flights coming from China.
    3
  265. Other people have also mentioned this - but Rob Braxman has previously stated that the content of his videos does not really suit shorter time frames. To explain things properly, videos of the above length are necessary. He's not really worried about whether his videos "go viral".
    3
  266. Since Magda feels so free to criticise Jenny Morrison's personal appearance on social media - I think we should all now feel uninhibited in an open & frank discussion of Magda's appearance. So let's all talk about her use of make-up (or not), lack of good dress sense & her weight! No doubt if we all started doing that there'd be some loonie lefties jumping up claiming how we were being oh so cruel & unkind to Magda & that she'd probably now want to go out & commit suicide - since we'd all offended her & treated her so badly - & we'd all be to blame for that. Yet if Magda's comments had caused Jenny Morrison to be suicidal - do you think that Magda & the rest of her "team" would accept responsibility for that? It just goes to show what total hypocrites loonies like Magda really are - not to mention complete morons of course!
    3
  267.  @ГульнерТуребаева-т6з  It sounds like your area is very well serviced with stores, given the size of its population.
    3
  268.  @krino2  Really? That's interesting to note.
    3
  269. Sounds like too much hokery pokery wokery going on at those schools & not enough teaching of the 3 R's.
    3
  270.  @kingsentertainment786  It's not racist - because the same objections would be expressed no matter who the people were. The same objections are raised about polygamy in the fundamental Mormon church in the USA - & those men sometimes have more than 4 wives & are usually white Americans. So It's got nothing to do with race - but the poor behaviour of certain people whose behaviour is not accepted by the rest of society.
    3
  271. The British Consulate won't be able to do anything - apart from making sure he is treated the same as anyone else with similar accusations against them, & making sure he is allowed access to adequate legal representation - just like anyone else in a similar situation.
    3
  272. The altar is usually in the "sanctuary" of the church - the "holiest" part of the church building, & that is no place for any "pride" flag - especially when Biblical teachings go completely against pride as being one of the seven deadly sins, & also against homosexuality. If any flag is to be displayed on the altar - it ought to be God's flag - not a pride flag. The altar belongs to God - not to any pride or other political movement. If we allow the pride flag to be draped across the front of the altar - the next thing you know - someone will want to hang a flag there saying "Vote Labour" or some such nonsense. There are plenty of other places the pride flag is displayed - it does not need to be draped across the altar in a church. And the number of other places the pride flag is displayed is probably out of all proportion to their representation in the community in any case - so most people simply do not & cannot identify with it.
    3
  273. Yes - Mohamed Hijab is definitely the messer-upper, who just keeps on messing up. A bit like the Energiser battery bunny, who just keeps on going, & going & going...
    3
  274.  @gravy1219  If a court orders that a child can have such treatment (contrary to the wishes of its parents), then all that would be needed for that treatment to proceed, is a copy of the court order allowing such treatment, or the court's stamp of approval on the permission documentation for such treatment. The parents would not necessarily need to sign anything.
    3
  275. The Queen already removed their "royal" titles after Harry & Meghan announced they were stepping down from all royal duties when they were still in he UK. So they no longer have the titles of "HRH" (His/Her Royal Highness). However, they do still have the titles of Duke & Duchess of Sussex - but strictly speaking, those are not "royal" titles, as they can be bestowed by the reigning monarch to anyone has loyally served the monarchy, & it does not have to be a member of the royal family. Harry is still "Prince Harry" - as that is a title he was given at birth, when he was 3rd in line to the throne. But Meghan is now just (Ms) Meghan (Markle), Duchess of Sussex. However it's still possible that the titles of Duke & Duchess of Sussex could be removed from Harry & Meghan, at the monarch's discretion. And perhaps it should be done, so that Harry & Meghan cannot continue to cash in on their former royal status. After all, they appear to have done nothing at all for the people of Sussex - & how could they, if they don't wish to live anywhere near Sussex, & even in a completely different country.
    3
  276.  @scotttovey  Even if it's illegal, it could still be done without anyone knowing - people would be none the wiser.
    3
  277. Why can't Harry & Meghan just "move on" from the Princess Diana tragedy? After all, that was 25 years ago & Harry is not the only child to have ever faced tragedy in his life, such as the tragic death of a parent.
    3
  278. Some Jews studying the Torah on a full-time basis may be being sponsored by a donor/benefactor - or even being financially supported by their own parents or parents-in-law. As low income earners, they would probably be entitled to some kind of additional financial/social security type of support from the government, for each of their children. In some cases, the wives do also engage in some kind of paid employment that does not take them away too much from their own children - such as childcare, or teaching in an ultra-orthodox Jewish school - for which formal teaching qualifications are not required.
    3
  279. I enjoyed this video - it is indeed interesting to see the different types of products available in supermarkets in other countries.
    3
  280. We should be accusing that university of racism - for not allowing a student from one of its racial minority groups, to organise an event & invite a particular speaker of their choosing to that event. The university's excuse that some other students claimed that speaker would have been "offensive" to them - is merely being used as a cover & an excuse for racism, prejudice, & discrimination, against those ethnicities they do not particularly like. The "race card" needs to be played here against the university's "wokism". The university is simply using its wokism as an excuse for racial prejudice. Government funding of such prejudiced universities needs to stop.
    3
  281. Because their holy book, the Quran, commands them to do that, & if they are also devout Muslims, they will follow the commands of their holy book.
    3
  282.  @stuartstein7495  The difference is that such royal marriages were not necessarily or directly condoned by the teachings of the Bible. And the marriages usually took place at such young ages for strategic/political/military purposes, even though those same marriages were often not consummated until many years after the marriage had taken place.
    3
  283. @michaelscarport It's not only the inability to purchase Australia Day merchandise from the likes of Woolies & Aldi - it's also saying that those stores have no belief in Australia themselves. They're sending a very clear message that Australia & Australian citizenship is not worth celebrating. Certainly not a very good look for a couple of people I know who only a couple of weeks ago were advised they had been approved for Australian citizenship. And not all the Australia Day merchandise items are rubbish. Many people keep such items & re-use them each year, in addition to purchasing some new items.
    3
  284. One thing I've noticed about this channel is that, although at the time of me writing this, there have been some 7.7k views of the above video - only 802 have actually given it a "like". I do wonder about that, because after all - what's not to like about the video content, or indeed any of the videos on this channel? That kind of thing seems to be a common occurrence on this channel & some other channels as well. I always believe in pressing the "like" button if I've enjoyed/liked the content of a video on a channel. Clearly there are a lot of other people who just do not do that.
    3
  285.  @markpaul1154  It's actually specifically mentioned in the above video that if a warrant has been issued to access a person's property (for the purpose of TV licence inspection), then that person has a duty to provide "reasonable assistance" to the officer, as required under the legislation. This issue was also covered in a previous video on this subject. The recommendation in the above video, was that the person should then provide that "reasonable assistance" - or one might be then charged with/prosecuted for not providing that "reasonable assistance", as required under the legislation. I suggest you re-watch the above video - & you will notice where that is actually stated in the video.
    3
  286.  @markpaul1154  I don't work for Capita or TVL, or any TV station. Nor am I putting my own interpretation on anything - I am simply re-iterating what was said in the above video - which is provided as legal guidance. What I said, was stated in the above video starting at around 12 minutes 45 seconds - for anyone who cares to watch it. It was also stated in a previous video on this same channel.
    3
  287. As much as Charles may want his coronation to be a "diverse" event, with active participation by people of other ethnicities & faiths - the Church of England is quite right to counsel him against this. After all - Charles as King, is the "defender of the faith" - & that is the state faith/church - which is the Church of England. And as the coronation is taking place in the Church, the Church also has a right to determine who they will allow to actively participate in the coronation service, which is a Christian/Church of England coronation service. So it just would not be right, to have non-Christians actively taking part in the service & doing things like reading prayers, Bible readings etc. In any case, many devout people of other non-Christian faiths, would be highly unlikely to even want to actively participate in a Christian coronation service, by doing something like reading Christian prayers or Bible readings, which would obviously contain Christian wording & references to beliefs which are quite contrary to the beliefs of their own faith. So while they may be prepared to just "attend" the service, "active participation" would probably be ruled out by their own religion & beliefs. I cannot imagine a Jewish person or a Muslim wanting to actively participate in a Christian coronation church service. In fact, they may even have a hard time deciding whether they should even attend the coronation, since it will be a Christian service conducted in a Christian/Church of England church. Charles obviously does not know very much at all about the Church of England, or other non-Christian faiths, if he thinks that he will be able get people of other non-Christian faiths to actively participate in his coronation service. He's just trying to be "woke", without any genuine understanding of the issues involved.
    3
  288. The church into which Calvin was eventually ordained as a deacon, is not the mainstream/established Church of England - it is a branch of the Anglican church called the Free Church of England, which separated from the established Church of England, back in 1844, & is not a member of the the official Anglican Communion. In recent times though, the Free Church of England did join the GAFCON movement, which is a global group of Anglican churches with much more orthodox & traditional Anglican beliefs. Because the Free Church of England is not a part of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not his "boss". In fact, it was in part due to Justin Welby, that the mainstream Church of England refused to ordain Calvin as a deacon. So Calvin was eventually ordained by the Free Church of England at their parish church of Christ Church, Harlesden, in London.
    3
  289. I think Sikhs are generally a very well-respected group of people & the men are usually easily recognisable by their turbans. Some of the more modern Sikh male turban styles are becoming a bit "smaller" these days & some Sikh men choose not to wear a turban at all - but may choose to wear all or some of the other "5 K's" (symbols) of their religion - such as the metal bangle, the small sword/dagger, the undergarment etc. While the average American person would probably not know much about Sikhi (what Sikhs themselves usually call their religion - at least in the UK they do) & the teachings of their religion - it's generally quite a tolerant & peaceful religion, even though there is also the concept that Sikhs are a "warrior" religion & have been excellent soldiers/warriors in times of war. Whilst they don't actually proselytise for converts as such - there are definitely converts to Sikhi, & I know that in the UK there have been active campaigns & public events by the Sikh community, to inform the public of just what it is that Sikhs actually believe, as far as their religion is concerned - though with the intention to inform, not convert. The Sikh community also takes an active part in local community events & festivities, where they will often be walking around, handing out free snacks & water to people. You also see them out there assisting in times of natural disasters. What I like about Sikhi is that everyone is welcome in their gurdwara's (temples), provided they are respectful & remove their shoes & cover their heads (both men & women). Everyone sits on the floor in their temples (because everyone is equal), usually with women on one side of the aisle & men on the other. I also like their charitable concept of langar (free food) being available for everyone, at their temples. I also very much like the idea that Sikhs are there to help, & because they are so often readily identifiable by their turbans, could be called upon for assistance if needed. Sikhs are not meant to cut any of their bodily hair ("kesh"). For men, that includes their moustaches & beards, as well as the hair on their heads. That is why you sometimes see Sikh men with very long flowing beards & moustaches & their long hair on their heads is covered by their turbans. That same rule about cutting hair applies to Sikh women as well & although female Sikhs can also wear turbans - it is probably rather unusual that you would see a female Sikh wearing a turban, unless she is especially devout, or perhaps a type of Sikh preacher (yes - in Sikhi there are some female preachers/teachers). When you see Sikh families out together, it is usually only the males in the family who are wearing turbans. But the other day when I caught the tram home from the city, I was actually very surprised to see a young Sikh girl (about 20 years old) wearing a full turban.
    3
  290. But the Israeli government is not Christian, it is Jewish, & it is catering to a majority Jewish population, & that explains the difference.
    3
  291.  @englishboy993  The issues actually go back much further than when America became involved in the middle east (that is only something that is relatively recent). The scriptures of Islam - the Quran & hadiths, have always spoken against non-Muslims/infidels, indicating they should either forcibly convert to Islam, pay extra taxes, &/or be punished/killed etc. Islamic terrorists naturally take such teachings literally, & put them into practice. After all, it is stated that the teachings in the Quran need to be taken literally, & are applicable in all times & in all places. One only has to read the opening paragraphs of the Hamas foundational document, to realise that its ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel - because Hamas takes the teachings in the Quran very seriously & literally.
    3
  292. And most of these children are raised in poverty in these large extended families - & none of the wives seem truly happy.
    3
  293.  @tanengliang2749  I tend not to agree on that - because she is an 83 year old woman after all & would have grown up/had her formative years in a very different world to the present world, as well as probably leading a very sheltered life. So I think she needs to be given a reasonable amount of leeway - without being accused of racism right from the start. These days there's way too much of a tendency for any comments/questions about race, to automatically be labelled as "racist" - which is wrong. According to the correct dictionary definition of the word - being racist is when one believes that some races are superior/inferior to others, or when someone unfavourably discriminates against someone in a specific action, based on their ethnicity. For example, if a person of one race were to be given preference over someone of another race, purely on the basis of their ethnicity, when applying for a job (& not their skills/qualifications) - that would be racist & racial discrimination. Making a negative comment about someone because they committed a crime, for example, does not automatically make that comment "racist" if the person about whom the comment is made, turns out to be of a different ethnicity. The same negative comment might have been made about anyone who had committed a crime - regardless of their ethnicity. Some of these kinds of accusations of racism that I see in the press/media - just make me think how stupid these journalists must be - because they obviously do not understand the correct definition of the word "racism"/"racist" - & they obviously have not even bothered to look up the word in a dictionary.
    3
  294.  @vincepeacham7292  If it was Captain Tom's wish, as his daughter subsequently stated, that the book proceeds were to go to her own family business, then why did he tell the press/media that the funds would support his foundation? Either he was misleading people, or his daughter was, & sadly Captain Tom is no longer with us to tell his side of the story. Another possibility is that Captain Tom may have had problems with his memory at that age - so at that time, may have forgotten where the book proceeds were actually going.
    3
  295.  @highpath4776  Maybe not - but with the establishment of any charitable foundation - there are obviously costs/expenses/fees involved in the establishment process. And even if the foundation had not yet been established, people might have reasonably expected that, based on the Twitter comments, the book proceeds would be used to cover those establishment costs for the foundation.
    3
  296.  @Commander-Rem  If people in the audience cannot tolerate the different views & opinions of others (like a Christian preacher) - then they are the ones who are being bigoted & intolerant.
    3
  297.  @Commander-Rem  The Bible supports inclusiveness - to a point. Jesus met with many kinds of "sinners" - but in all cases he effectively told them to go away & "sin no more" if they wanted to be a part of God's kingdom. And some people that he met were clearly not prepared to do that. He never told people that they could be accepted just as they were, if they just went on sinning - they had to transform their lives & stop being so sinful. Christians are obviously far more tolerant than those who are wanting to have them arrested & locked up for supposedly having offended someone. When was the las time you heard of a Christian having someone arrested for causing them offence? Yet Christian people are regularly offended - but don't seek to have those offenders arrested by the police. Though maybe they should start doing that - reporting people to the police for having offended them & getting the police to arrest the offenders & put them in gaol & pressing charges.
    3
  298. Sergei Prokofiev - after whom your 2nd VIP Lounge was named "Prokofiev" - is a very famous/well-known Russian music composer & pianist, who passed away in 1953. This was a very interesting video about the VIP lounges in Russian airports. The lounges did look very spacious. I would use such lounges some years ago whenever I was travelling for work-related purposes - though the lounges I visited were not quite so spacious. However that was some years ago & maybe things have since changed.
    3
  299. If you did not know anything about those other religious traditions to start with - such as Zen, Taoism etc - how do you know that what he was teaching about them was the truth & that he was not misrepresenting them?
    3
  300. She is clearly not an indigenous Briton - because the indigenous people of the British Isles are the Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Celtic peoples - & the lady who was being questioned is clearly not of that ethnicity. She may have been born in Britain & may be a British citizen - but that does not make her an indigenous Briton.
    3
  301. I'm thinking that Charles may have deliberately not invited Harry & Meghan's children to the coronation, because that might then cause them to decline the invitation to the coronation, since no-one really wants them at the coronation in any case.
    3
  302. As Hamas was the one which broke the ceasefire on 7 October - then if there is to be a ceasefire - Hamas needs to be the one to ceasefire first & they also need to surrender ALL of the remaining Israeli hostages. As I doubt whether Hamas will want to do that - there is unlikely to be any ceasefire at all. So it's all dependent on Hamas.
    2
  303. ​ @theresalietaert5344 No - but at the very least Charles should honour the vow he made at his coronation, to be the "Defender of The Faith".
    2
  304.  @ExoplasmicDischarge  There have been a number of conflicts between Israel & the Palestinians since 1948 - none of which were started by Israel.
    2
  305.  @IamIam23-d9v  Israel is not preventing people from leaving Gaza. But they are not allowed to move to Israel for obvious reasons - because there have been way too many attacks by Gazans against Israel - & that is why there is a wall between Gaza & Israel - to try to prevent such attacks. Some Gazans are allowed temporarily into Israel for work purposes each day - but they cannot reside in Israel. But don't forget that Gaza also shares a common border with Egypt, which is also a majority Muslim country - so if Gazans wanted to leave Gaza, they could leave via that Egyptian border & Israel has never prevented Gazans from doing that. It is their Muslim brothers in Egypt who are preventing Gazans from leaving Gaza via the Gaza/Egypt border. This is because Egypt knows what trouble Hamas & the Gazans would probably cause, if they were allowed to enter Egypt via that border. Whenever they have been allowed to enter another country - eg Lebanon - the Gazans/Palestinians have caused trouble & wars. Much of the rest of what you mentioned was simply Palestinian propaganda. It's true that Israel has killed or arrested some people - but usually only because they were found to be committing crimes or conspiring to commit crimes &/or terrorist attacks against Israel &/or Israelis. Unfortunately, Hamas & the Gazans like to claim that these people were "innocents". Al Aqsa mosque is a point of contention between Muslims & Jews in Israel because that is the site of the original Jewish temple which was destroyed. The Jews were eventually going to rebuild the temple on that site - but then Islam came along 600 years after Christianity even, & insisted it was their own holy site & built their own mosque on it. Nowadays Jewish people are not even allowed to enter that site/mosque. So naturally, it is a very sore point for Jews, because it remains their holiest site - but now Muslims have built a mosque on it & won't allow Jews to enter. The port was blocked/closed & imports/exports restricted, due to security & safety reasons.
    2
  306. There seems to be an assumption (though not necessarily correct), that people will be wherever their mobile phone is. Every so often I will accidentally leave my mobile phone at home, or at work. It does not particularly bother me to be without my mobile phone (I'd be more upset if I had forgotten to put on my watch - as I would feel really lost without it), as there is nothing that I would urgently require it for, & anyone trying to call me could just leave me a message. In the criminal case mentioned above, even though the phone was turned off during the time the crime was committed, that was obviously one of the pieces of evidence that was used to make a case against him. It's incredible that this sort of thing - such as the lack of certain information at a certain time could be used to make a case against someone. I've also wondered for a long time now, whether such things as non-Google or de-Googled mobile phones may actually be declared "illegal" at some point in the future, because governments will want people to have phones that can always be tracked, so they can keep tabs & records on people. Eventually also, it might be illegal NOT to have a mobile phone - so that EVERYONE can be tracked from their phones. And to avoid instances where people might "swap" their phones with others (so tracking won't reveal their own location) - people might be forced to carry their electronic/digital ID card on their phones, which could be subject to random inspection by the authorities. All mobile phones might be set up somewhat like iPhones - so that their tracking never ceases, even when they are turned off.
    2
  307.  @MRsilverngold  The point I was trying to make, was that in many countries, like Australia, by law, the personal information/ID has to be handed over before the service provider can "activate" the SIM card which the customer has already purchased. So it's not possible to have an active SIM card in a phone, without having provided some verifiable personal ID documents. In many countries, after it is purchased, the SIM card needs to be "activated", before it can actually be used to make phone calls, or send text messages. The "activation" process is usually done either on-line at the service provider's web site, or over the phone. This is where the user has to provide things like their driver's licence number, &/or their passport number etc, together with other details from these documents (name, date of birth etc), which is then verified/confirmed via an electronic link up to the document issuer's own records. The phone company then sets up the phone account with the same name & details as on the ID documents which were provided.
    2
  308. Wow - congratulations Calvin! So glad you were finally able to be ordained a Deacon in the Church - in spite of all the grief you were given by the wickedly woke Church of England (C of E) hierarchy in recent months. I'm sure the parishioners of Christ Church Harlesden will be very fortunate to have you as their curate. I'm sure you'll also attract to the church some curious un-churched newcomers. If it had "played its cards right" the Church of England probably could have benefited from your high media profile, following your ordination. But I take the point from something you said in a previous video clip, that if the hierarchy of the C of E had ordained you, your life as a clergyman probably would have been an endless struggle against the wicked wokeness of the church, rather than being able to concentrate on "tending your flock". You looked so happy & joyful following your ordination - literally beaming from ear to ear! It seems that when it is the will of God - not even the C of E hierarchy can stand against it. And thank you, for standing up for "the silent majority" amongst us. Once again - congratulations "Reverend Calvin"!
    2
  309. Charles' great uncle - King Edward VIII - had to abdicate the throne (but before his actual coronation ceremony) in order to marry the twice-divorced American woman Wallis Simpson, whose 2 previous husbands were both still living. Charles' aunt, Princess Margaret, was not allowed to marry the divorced Group Captain Peter Townsend (whose former spouse was still living), without losing her place in line to the throne, & forgoing her royal status & all royal privileges. Charles should have been obliged to do the same (ie abdicate the throne), if he had wanted to marry a divorced woman, whose husband was still living - especially since their adulterous affair had caused the break-up of both of their former marriages - & that is the reason why they could only get married in a civil wedding ceremony & not have a church wedding in the Church of England. But after their civil ceremony, they did have a service of "blessing" in the church.
    2
  310.  @annewalden3795  Changes in social outlooks do not necessarily mean changes in Christian spiritual outlooks. It's hard for Christian spiritual outlooks to change if they are based on the teachings of the Bible, which does not change. Whether Edward may have been a Nazi or fascist sympathiser is immaterial - he was still the King of England & the political regime of the day could not just dismiss him, because his was an inherited role. As King, Edward was also the head of the Church of England, & the church would not allow the marriage in the church, of those who were divorced & whose former spouses were still living. This is based on the teachings in the New Testament of the Bible. In Wallis Simpson's case she was already twice divorced & both her former spouses were still living. So a marriage in the church was not possible. In the case of Charles & Camilla - they were not allowed to marry in the church either - for the same reason - because although they were both divorced - Camilla's former husband was still living. That's why they could only get married in a registry office ceremony.
    2
  311. In the eyes of the UK law the 2nd "wife" in Pakistan will never be legally recognised in the UK - because he already has a wife in the UK & bigamy is illegal in the UK. So as far as the UK law is concerned - the 2nd "wife" is just someone with whom he is having an extra-marital (adulterous) affair - his "bit on the side" so to speak.
    2
  312.  @FireTripperJeff  Even so - as long it is still a homosexual act (ie between 2 men - regardless of whether both of them are gay or not) - it is forbidden in Islam & severe punishments apply if it is discovered.
    2
  313.  @krino2  Thanks very much for that information.
    2
  314. A very interesting & informative video. I'm a single-person household at home & only have one laptop computer which connects to the internet via a pre-paid mobile broadband internet connection (which is assigned a mobile phone number & basically connects to the internet via a mobile phone call). This connection is made by inserting a USB dongle (containing the SIM card for the internet service) into one of the laptop's USB ports - so it is basically a cellular internet connection. I don't have any wired or wi-fi internet connection at home at all, & don't really have a need for one - since the only other "device" in my home is my own mobile phone, which has its own small cellular data supply, which comes with my mobile phone plan (& obviously I don't use that when I'm at home - as I can use my laptop's own internet connection while I'm at home). So I really don't have to worry about visitors to my home wanting to use my home wi-fi - because I don't have any home wi-fi for them to use, or that level of functionality at all. While I'm not particularly technically knowledgeable - I believe that, given my computer set-up at home, a Brax Router probably would not be of much use to me - though I may be able to put the Brax Bytz VPN to good use on my laptop, even though my laptop has an internet connection which is basically a cellular connection. I'm wondering if the Bytz VPN needs to use any other hardware apart from my laptop itself - can it just be installed as software on my laptop?
    2
  315.  @robbraxmantech  Thanks so much for that very prompt response, Rob Braxman Tech.
    2
  316. Yes - new Australian citizens will be made to feel that Australian citizenship is nothing to be celebrated - that is the message that Woolworths & Aldi are sending out. And I know a couple of people who were approved for Australian citizenship just within the last month.
    2
  317. I don't think all religions necessarily believe in the same God. If, by definition (from their own individual holy scriptures) their gods are actually very different - I don't think they can possibly be the same God. One could possibly say that most world religions believe in some kind of "supreme being" - but whether it is all one & the same "God" is quite a different issue, I think.
    2
  318. I think there are many people who knew that once the same sex marriage bill was passed - that that would certainly not "be the end of it", as far as the campaigning by the LGBTIQ+ community was concerned. Rather, it would merely be the start of some much more aggressive campaigning on their part. And those people have certainly been proven correct - because, ever since then, things have progressed very quickly. So we now have things like "drag queen story time telling for children" in public libraries & young children in primary schools being taught that they can be whatever gender they wish to be, etc.
    2
  319. I personally experienced an incident of anti-Israel bigotry on Saturday of this past weekend. I was sitting in a food court area of a large indoor shopping complex in the CBD of my city, when 2 women just came up to my table & sat at the 2 vacant seats across the table from me. One was wearing a red & white keffiyeh around her shoulders & the other a T-shirt with a couple of small Palestinian flags on the front. I was wearing a baseball cap with an image of an Israeli flag on the front. The first words the 2 women spoke to me were "you are not welcome here!" & proceeded to berate me with their pro-Hamas propaganda. They said the Israeli flag on my cap was akin to a Nazi swastika, amongst a lot of other rubbish. They indicated they were in the CBD for the pro-Hamas rally that afternoon - & those rallies have been held in the CBD almost every weekend since 7 October. One of the 2 women said she was aboriginal, & also raved on about the white settlers colonising Australia. When they realised their propaganda was never going to convert me into a Hamas supporter - they started almost shouting at me & demanding that I leave - because my cap was supposedly causing a lot of offence to people in the centre. When I told them I was not going to leave, they stood up in their places & started loudly & continuously shouting/chanting "free free Palestine". I just ignored them & sat there & continued checking my messages on my phone - which was what I had been doing before they showed up. Of course, their loud chanting attracted quite a crowd of onlookers, & about 5 or 6 of the centre's security staff eventually showed up & they also called the police, & 3 or 4 police officers turned up as well & told them to stop the racket. These 2 women were quite aggressive & confrontational - something akin to a pack of rabid African wild dogs foaming at the mouth! But these women were even worse than that - because even some wild dogs do have manners - but these 2 women had none!
    2
  320. Like Andrew Thorburn - I used to work at the NAB - in fact I worked there for many years - more years than Andrew Thorburn himself. When I was working for the NAB, it became (& I believe still is) an extremely generous & high profile corporate sponsor & supporter of the AFL. As a former chief executive of the NAB, Andrew Thorburn's recent high profile dismissal from the Essendon club (which is a member of the AFL) should send out extraordinarily loud warning bells to the NAB, that the AFL & its member clubs in general, is a far cry from the "tolerant & diverse" organisation that it claims to be. Therefore, if the NAB wants to be seen to be promoting genuine "tolerance & diversity" - the AFL & clubs such as Essendon are the very last clubs/organisations that it should be seeking to sponsor. I would therefore call upon the NAB to immediately cease its sponsorship of the AFL & any other associated sponsorships. There are plenty of other much more worthy & genuinely "tolerant & diverse" organisations out there which would greatly benefit from an NAB sponsorship. If Essendon & the AFL are going to be intolerant of people with certain beliefs (let alone a former NAB executive, with NAB being a major AFL sponsor) - then I say, let them be sponsored by other such like-minded "intolerant" people & organisations. The NAB certainly has no place being there, if they wish to be identified with true tolerance & diversity, of people of ALL religions - not just certain "selected" religions. Yes - let Essendon & the AFL bite off the NAB hand that feeds them. NAB should be saying "good riddance: to the intolerant AFL. I would also call upon all NAB shareholders & account-holders, staff & former staff, all Christians, & anyone else who is supportive, to call upon the NAB to immediately cease their sponsorship of such a highly intolerant organisation as the AFL & its member clubs. There are plenty of other organisations out there in the community which are far more worthy if its financial sponsorship.
    2
  321. Yes - let's all give Google a good hard kick in the groin with our steel-capped boots! As you would expect, the US are not too happy about Australia's stance on this, because it means less profit for their US-based company Google. But so often the US have managed to sell Australia their second-class & out-of-date products - whether it be teaching/educational systems, or expensive military equipment which turned out to be absolute duds etc. The US are only looking out for their own financial interests, so it's about time Australia started looking out for its own financial interests as well, & does not cave in to doing whatever the US wants.
    2
  322. Islamaphobia - it's a trick that's always used to stifle legitimate criticism of the religion of Islam. But with so many radical Islamist terrorist groups committing atrocities around the world - people who do fear the religion of Islam are more than justified in that fear - so it's not Islamaphobia at all - because the dictionary definition of a "phobia" - is an irrational/unwarranted fear of something. So if your fear is justified - then it's not a "phobia" - & people who bandy around that term "Islamaphobia" are just ignorant people demonstrating their ignorance. But of course, one only needs to read the Quran & hadiths for oneself, to know that Islam is actually NOT a religion of peace - & all those politicians & celebrities who kept telling the world that "Islam is a religion of peace" - have obviously never even read the Quran & hadiths for themselves - or they would have known better. Clearly, they were just parroting what they had been told by some Muslim friends (who did not know any better themselves) or Islamic clerics - who of course have a vested interest in making Islam sound like "a religion of peace". If people want to know what Islam truly teaches - they only have to buy a copy of the Quran from any good bookstore & read it for themselves. It doesn't take that long to read & is not even as big as the Bible. Then they can get into some more interesting reading by starting with a few of the better-known & more "reliable" hadiths - because not all of them are readily accepted or regarded as reliable by all sects of Islam.
    2
  323.  @mariahewitt9787  You'll find very similar verses in the Quran - in relation to what Muslims should do to non-Muslims/non-believers. But in any case, the Talmud is not the Torah, so it is not considered the word of God - it is merely a discourse on matters by well-known Jews & Rabbis of the past. On the other hand - the Quran, according to Islam, is the literal word of God as dictated to Mohammed by God himself.
    2
  324. I don't think any apology at all was warranted. Enquiring about a person's ethnic origins is not racist - but by Ngozi immediately taking her claims of racism to all the media etc, public damage was done to the reputation of Lady Hussey & she lost her job as a result of Ngozi's racism claims. So, thank goodness many people in the media also castigated Ngozi for her false claims of racism, & also, thank goodness that her charity is now being investigated. I for one, certainly will never be making any donation to her charity, & neither will many others, I am sure. One thing all this has shown, is that Charles is proving himself to be a very weak king already, & Mistress Camilla is definitely no better.
    2
  325. It was really Jesus who "preached" love & peace - but Judaism does not believe that Jesus is also God - so they have their own beliefs about what their God wants them to do.
    2
  326. I've never understood why anti-Semitism even exists. On a world-wide basis, Jews are such a small group of people, compared with the Christians & Muslims - what harm could they possibly cause on their own? For that very reason, they have never really been an aggressive group of people as a whole or militarily - though they will defend themselves now if attacked. Historically through the ages, they have often been discriminated against & denied any rights or privileges such as employment & citizenship in the countries in which they have resided. For these reasons they have often had to move to other countries from their traditional homelands in the middle-East, or start up their own businesses to make a living for themselves when denied employment. Then when those businesses proved to be highly successful - people started claiming that Jews "had too much power" - even though they had literally been forced to become business people because those same people would not give them jobs. It's almost as if the Jewish people will be damned by others, no matter what they do. And that's precisely why they need their own country - where they can all be safe & not discriminated against. Their traditional lands in the middle-East, where the Jewish people are indigenous, is a more than appropriate place for a Jewish state - particularly after what happened during the infamous Nazi Holocaust. Is there no end to the persecution of the Jewish people? It is so ironic that the very same "woke" & politically correct people who are so concerned about creating "safe spaces" for all kinds of people & minority groups - are not in the least bit concerned about creating safe spaces for the Jewish people - but want them to continue to be the victims of Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas. They are more than happy to watch as a bunch of barbaric Muslim butchers murder & mutilate Jewish civilians for whom it seems, no place on this earth can ever be safe.
    2
  327.  @I_r_i_  In countries like the USA/UK/Australia, I think large tubs of 5 - 6 litres of ice-cream are popular because people usually have to travel further to go to a supermarket & usually have to drive there & do a "larger" shop & bring all the items home in their car. So they tend to buy a lot more items when they do go to the supermarket. Also for larger families with 2 - 3 children - a large tub of 5 - 6 litres of ice-cream usually won't last that long.
    2
  328.  @Iv4Bez  Where I'm from, it's also the same - there can be a significant difference in the price of grocery items from one supermarket to another - so one needs to be careful about where one shops.
    2
  329.  @СветланаКовальская-и5б  In some countries the larger tubs of 5 - 6 litres of ice-cream are popular with families who have 2 - 3 children & it saves going shopping for ice-cream quite as often.
    2
  330.  @OluenRival  I think in other countries, it's not so much the case that people are eating so much ice-cream - but that the large tubs of 5 - 6 litres last a long time & are popular with families who have 2 - 3 children who all like ice-cream. Families in countries like the US/UK/Australia usually have quite large freezers in their kitchens - so it's not a problem to keep the ice-cream frozen for a longer time. Also, there are a lot of different ways to eat ice-cream - not just served/eaten on its own - but also with other things - like sweet pies/tarts etc. Also, in other countries, people tend to do their grocery shopping less frequently & buy more items because the supermarkets are located further away from their homes. Russian people are lucky to have lots of supermarkets so close to their homes.
    2
  331.  @ДмитрийКутнов  I think the main difference between the situation in Russia & other countries - is that in most other countries there's not a supermarket on very corner - so people go shopping for groceries less often & when they do, they tend to buy things in bulk & stock up on things, so they don't need to shop so often. Hence the popularity of large tubs of 5 - 6 litres of ice-cream in some countries outside of Russia. Russian people are fortunate in that they do not need to do that - because there are so many supermarkets in a relatively small area. And that could possibly be put down to the fact that there is a higher population density in large Russian cities like Moscow - where many more people live in high-rise apartment blocks - so having a couple of supermarkets in every such apartment block makes sense - because there is sufficient population to support it. But in cities in other countries where the majority of people live in detached houses, so the population is more sparse - supermarkets are likely to be much further apart from one another. So it requires more effort to go to the supermarket & people do it less often.
    2
  332.  @ellidano  Ha ha...& that's a good thing! But I think the main reason people in countries like the UK/USA/Australia buy the large 5 - 6 litre tubs of ice-cream, is because they go to the supermarket much less often than people in Russia - & they often "buy in bulk" when they do shop. And for families with say 2 - 3 children, a 5 - 6 litre tub of ice-cream may not last that long in any case.
    2
  333.  @SomewhereInRussia  I would hope there would be a lift/elevator to that 15th floor apartment - so it may not matter whether one is carrying a large bag of potatoes, or a large tub of ice-cream. But I appreciate that in large cities in Russia, one may never be very far from a supermarket. Sometimes buying things "in bulk" can also save money. And in some countries ice-cream is also popular as a dessert at home - not only on its own - but also as an "accompaniment" to something else - like a sweet pie or tart, or even just fruit. So, it might come in handy, & be regularly consumed at home in some countries. But maybe ice-cream is not eaten like that in Russia - as an accompaniment to something else.
    2
  334.  @Archaeopteryx_lithographica  I'm glad to hear you enjoy ice-cream so much. I do too!
    2
  335.  @Галина-м8ф6й  Yes of course it should not be eaten in large amounts all at once, nor every day. But in my country people often buy it in large quantities because they may only go to the supermarket once a month or so & they may have families with several children - in which case, buying it in large quantities may make sense.
    2
  336.  @obid7755  Then they'll just probably say you are racist - because you refuse to communicate with them.
    2
  337.  @Nutt-u  Of course - people are entitled to their own thoughts, beliefs, & opinions - even if they happen to be racist. But racially discriminating against someone in the workforce is illegal, & a person can be taken to court over that, But while such racial discrimination is illegal, it's not a "criminal" offence as such.
    2
  338.  @Nutt-u  I think you are getting confused here between Lady Susan Hussey (the past Queen's lady-in-waiting - who was accused of racism by Ngozi, & who has now lost her job as a result), & Meghan & Harry, who now live in California. The reference I had made in one of my previous responses to you, about the house which cost nearly 20 thousand pounds - was a reference to the house that Meghan & Harry bought for themselves in California. And Harry spent most of the inheritance money he received from his mother Diana, on that house - resulting in Meghan & Harry not having a lot of left over money, for their day to day living costs. And I guess it would take a lot of money to maintain a house which cost 20 thousand pounds. So that is why Meghan & Harry are now trying to generate a lot of additional income for themselves, by "selling" their stories about the royal family, to anyone who will pay them a lot of money for it. But don't worry - I've never shed any tears over Meghan & Harry, & I'm not likely to. On the other hand, Lady Susan Hussey, who lost her job as a result of Ngozi's recent accusations of racism, would probably NOT be living in a 20 thousand pound house - unlike Meghan & Harry in California. Lady Hussey was an employee of the royal household - but many of those jobs are either very meagrely paid - or even voluntary/honorary/unpaid roles. So Lady Hussey would not have been in receipt of a very large salary in any case (unlike the 65 thousand pounds per year salary that Ngozi is receiving from the charity she runs). But the clothing & outfits that Lady Hussey would have been wearing in public when accompanying the Queen on her official duties, would have been paid for by the royal household. I don't know what Lady Hussey's living arrangements would have been. If she was not married, it's possible she may have been provided with a "grace & favour" royal apartment by the Queen, for the duration of her service to the Queen. Beyond that, I simply do not know. But unlike Harry & Meghan, she certainly would not have been living in an almost 20 thousand pound house, I believe.
    2
  339. Yes - probably - but then for any false allegations to carry the same sentence, it would need to be dealt with as a criminal matter & you would then need to actually prove in an entirely separate criminal court case, that the rape allegations themselves were false. And it may well be a difficult thing to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal court. Just because the accused person may already have been found "not guilty" in a court of law, of any rape charges (the court never finds an accused person "innocent" - they are only ever "guilty" or "not guilty") - it does not necessarily or automatically mean that the rape allegations themselves were false & that the accused is therefore "innocent". A finding of "not guilty" in a criminal court trial just means that there was not enough evidence to find the accused person "guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt.
    2
  340.  @jamieodonnell160  Not in the least!
    2
  341.  @RudiMwongozi-gy5lp  I've read both the Bible & the Quran, as well as some of the better-accepted hadiths & can assure you that the teachings differ quite radically in many respects between Judaism/Christianity & Islam. It's true there are a handful of areas where they might agree - such as in the belief that there is one God, & some of the things which are considered sinful. But in many other areas the teachings do differ quite radically. And what is important is what the actual holy books/scriptures of each religion teaches. Because some of the so-called "followers" of these faiths don't even know themselves what their holy books teach - because they have never actually read them for themselves & may only be "going along with" something they've been told by another supposed follower of that religion. But the only way to truly know what any religion teaches - is to read their scriptures/holy books for oneself, rather than relying on what someone else might tell you about it. Which is why I generally recommend that everyone read books like the Bible & the Quran & hadiths for themselves.
    2
  342. Although the failure of the company all those years ago cannot be directly tied to Captain Tom Moore & the Foundation in his name - I think it still could possibly be a reflection of the competency or otherwise, of the people who were running/managing that company - & it's possible that that level of competency/incompetency may have carried over into the Foundation - because the same people were involved in the establishment of the Foundation, as were involved in that failed company all those years ago. I'm only suggesting that as a possibility though - as I do not know exactly "why" the company failed, all those years ago. But when dealing with companies, I always think it's a good idea to check who the directors are, & find out whether they were also the directors of previously failed companies - because that may give people a good idea of how competent they are when managing a company as a director.
    2
  343. Three Stans : Please wait for further episodes to talk about that. Rob Braxman made it clear at the start of the above video, that this video (only Part 1 of 2 parts) would only be discussing Tik Tok from the technology point of view - in terms of what information it is capable of gathering & what it may be able to do.
    2
  344. Thankfully, I've never used Google as a search engine - nor have I regularly used their Google Chrome web browser, except for more recently & only for Google-owned web sites like YouTube etc.
    2
  345.  @achitophel5852  The accuser does not necessarily have to be "believed" in order for the matter to go to court. If there is thought to be sufficient evidence to support the allegations, the matter will often go before a court of law, & it will then be up to the court to decide how plausible the allegations are, given the evidence provided. The court will then ultimately decide what it believes, in terms of the allegations.
    2
  346. He's not yet a spouse - as they are only engaged & not legally married. Usually if a foreign partner is granted entry - they may not be allowed to work for a certain period of time after arriving in the UK - hence the need for his partner/fiancee to be able to financially support him for a while. Sometimes the process is a little easier for married couples, because it demonstrates a certain level of legal commitment to the relationship & also an obligation for mutual financial support. But the fact that they may have a baby together makes no difference at all.
    2
  347. There's no municipal garbage collection service in the Arab refugee camp. Plus in one of these episodes, we witnessed a young Arab boy in the camp just throwing unwanted rubbish over a balcony - so they're also obviously not very litter-conscious people who are aware of the environmental consequences of creating such littered spaces around themselves.
    2
  348. Oh what a "loverly" bunch of idiots these pro-Hamas protesters are. Clearly they have no concern for the Israeli children who were butchered by Hamas on 7 October - they only care about the children in Gaza.
    2
  349. They looked like pretty normal-sized horses to me - at least compared with most of the horses that I've encountered & seen.
    2
  350. Rob Braxman has previously stated that he uses his boat as an office & sometimes films his videos on the boat.
    2
  351. I don't think it's a very shocking story at all - it's a very normal story with regard to migration to most developed countries, for foreign spouses. And it makes no difference at all whether they have a child together - the migration of the foreign spouse to their partner's home country is considered on its own merits, & the baby does not come into it for consideration. When someone gets married to a foreigner, who is not a citizen of their home country (or who does not already have a visa to legally reside in their spouse's home country) - standard immigration requirements will normally apply. The foreign husband/wife does not automatically get granted a residence permit/visa in their spouse's country, just because they have married a citizen of that country. Lengthy waiting & processing times may still apply, before they are allowed to enter their spouse's home country on a residence visa. It's been like that for many years, & anyone getting married to a foreigner who is a citizen of another country should first of all do their homework/research, to find out what the process is & how long it will take, before that foreign spouse will be allowed to join them in their home country on a permanent basis with a residence permit. If they're worried about being separated in the meantime (eg if the person has to return to their home country for work purposes), then they should investigate the possibility of both remaining in the foreigner's country, or another country, until the residence visa for the foreign spouse has been granted & both can travel back to the spouse's home country together to live permanently. So if one is not actually married at all & is only engaged to a foreigner (as this couple are) - the situation would be much more difficult again. Because if the foreigner were eventually granted entry to their partner's home country on the basis/condition of them getting married - who's to say that after spending a little bit of time in the UK, they may not get married after all, or break off their engagement for whatever reason? If that happens, then the non-UK citizen/resident may eventually need to be deported back to whatever country they came from - because the condition under which they were granted entry (ie them getting married) was not met. I'm wondering if this couple could possibly choose to settle in the (male) fiance's country (ie Germany) until the UK residence visa is granted for him. But knowing Germany, it probably also has very strict residence permit requirements, which may even be more strict than the UK's. Contacting their local UK MP will probably not be able to help - unless they can find that UK immigration authorities did something wrong or made a mistake when processing their application. If all the authorities did was comply with standard UK immigration laws - then there will be nothing a British MP can do to help them. They will just have to bide their time & wait until his UK residence permit is granted.
    2
  352. As long as they are not doing anything illegal, they can do that. It does not mean that other people can be physically violent towards them without penalty.
    2
  353. I was so sorry to learn that the Church of England had now refused to ordain Calvin Robinson as a priest in the church - after obviously initially accepting him as a candidate for the ministry & believing that he had a calling to the church, & also after all the study & training he had done as a seminarian. Yes, it is indeed funny & rather ironic, that the church may well be trying to "prove its own point" & belief that the church is inherently & institutionally "racist" by actually demonstrating that "racism" in its actions against Calvin. In other words, instead of trying do something to lessen that "racism" that they claim currently exists - they are actually becoming even more racist, just to prove their own point! Which then should cause everyone to wonder - who will be the next victim of the Church of England's racism, & how many more such victims will we see? For quite some time now, I've been very concerned about the church simply going along with the common beliefs & trends of our increasingly secular society. The church is allowing itself & its teachings to be dictated to by societal trends - even if those societal trends go against the teachings of the Holy Bible. There are so very few people within the present day church who are prepared to stand up for the Gospel & Bible-based teachings. And someone like Calvin Robinson who would have taken a stand for the Gospel, is rejected outright by the church & those within it, who have in fact, strayed very far from a Bible-based belief system. May God infinitely bless Calvin Robinson, & I do hope that he will eventually find his rightful place in God's church.
    2
  354. Unfortunately, "the religion of peace" (ie Islam) is the most violent of all the major world religions.
    2
  355. @Jim Will fix it And my comment was indeed intended for you - because you did not appear to understand the ramifications of what was mentioned by the original commenter, in terms of the effect it might have for their immigration application.
    2
  356. Try telling that to a Muslim & see how far you get!
    2
  357.  @paulvonblerk9365  Rejoicing does not mean that one will enjoy persecution, or that one should encourage it in any way. But the persecutors will certainly be cursed, & no doubt have their lives on this earth considerably shortened, as a result. "Vengeance is mine" - says the Lord! The persecutors will be punished, that's for sure.
    2
  358. If that's the case, let's hope he disposes of puny Pally Penny Wong in that re-shuffle.
    2
  359.  @anonymous-vb2hj  My comment certainly was not disagreeing with what you said. Just pointing out that in the Islamic religion, it is well known that many Muslim men will want a (1st) wife who has never been married before & without children - making it difficult for divorced Muslim women with children to re-marry within Islam. Sadly, that may cause some Muslim women to believe that their options for re-marriage within Islam may be limited & if they cannot successfully re-marry within a certain time period, they might lower their expectations & start to consider being a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wife - simply so they can get married & have some security for them & their children. In Islam - it is made very difficult for women to be the head of their own household - even after divorce - & they will often require a male "guardian" to accompany them to certain places - hence the desire of most divorced Muslim women to re-marry in Islam, otherwise life can become difficult for them. You may not be aware that unlike Muslim men (who are allowed to marry non-Muslim women), Muslim women are only allowed to marry Muslim men & are not supposed to marry non-Muslims. I'm not saying any of this is fair at all - it's just the way things are in Islam unfortunately & it's very sad indeed - because all women get a very raw deal - whereas even the "lowest" & worst of Muslim men are put in privileged positions in Islam, which they do not deserve. And the families in these polygamous marriages often end up living in poverty because the man often has no means to support all these wives & children. Many of them end up on welfare payments.
    2
  360. There's always the saying of "forgive & forget" whenever something bad happens. But I've always told people to "forgive but NEVER forget". Because the minute someone forgets something bad that happened, or that they did - or that someone else did to them - there's that very real risk of history repeating itself & exactly the same thing happening again at some point in the future. And just because we say we forgive people who've done bad things in the past - that does not mean that there are no consequences for those people who have done those bad things - & in many cases, the perpetrators of those bad things need to be brought to justice through the legal system. No, we should NEVER forget the holocaust & Nazism - & there are some Nazi war criminals who still need to be brought to justice for their crimes during that time. No, we should never forget about Apartheid - & although the instigators & the perpetrators of that terrible system (mostly members of the Broederbond organisation) were never punished for those crimes - I understand that was a decision taken internally by the country of South Africa, not to pursue those people for their crimes. Likewise we should never forget about the likes of the Pol Pot regime & what happened in "the killing fields" of Cambodia, nor how the Chinese Communist government murdered & injured so many of their own young people & students at Tiananmen square. In fact, communism in general has a lot to answer for, because it has usually only come to be in government through violent revolutions involving many deaths. Similar accusations could be made about fascist states in the past. Also, some pretty horrific mass murders & genocides have happened in some African countries, as well as east European countries But even America does not get let off the hook lightly here. While it tends to see itself as a free country & possibly the greatest democracy in the world (which is incorrect, because many European countries are actually far more democratic & free than America has ever been) - it has some real horrors in its recent past - like the segregation of black people in the south & the horrors of the McCarthy era - where many American citizens, rightly or wrongly, were accused of being communists or communist sympathisers & had their lives & careers ruined by their very own US Government & its law makers of that time. If the US government wanted to treat communist sympathisers almost as criminals & persecute them for that - then it certainly could not lay claim to being a very democratic country in any shape or form. And of course - almost everyone has heard of the Kent State University Massacre, where members of the US National Guard opened fire on university students who were protesting again the US involvement in wars in south-east Asia (Vietnam/Cambodia) - killing a number students & severely wounding many more. In fact, next year (2020) will be the 50th anniversary of the Kent State Massacre on 4 May, 1970. In Australia, it was not so long ago that there was a "white Australia policy" - where preference was given to "white" migrants of European background. When one considers that the indigenous people of Australia were certainly never "white" - it just sounds ridiculous. But the government was really in fear of the "yellow peril" from its nearby Asian neighbours. The government also sought to exclude anyone from entering the country (including those whose politics they did not like), by giving them a "language test" in any European language of the government's choosing. Where the person was known to be proficient in several European languages, the government would obviously make a point of choosing to test them in some other much less well-known language - one they could be certain that the person did not know, if they did not want the person to enter their country. When the person then failed that "language test" - they were then not allowed to enter the country. It was a tactic commonly used by the government of the time, to keep supposed "undesirables" from entering the country. So there are plenty of horrific things that have gone on in the world in the past, & we should NEVER forget any of these things, if we want to truly learn from the mistakes of the past, & become a much better world. Yet clearly, there are still some countries - like those much less developed countries of the world, & those still operating under certain restrictive types of governments such as communism (like China) - which have a much longer way to go than most countries in the west. And part of the reason for that is that like China - many of those countries still will not acknowledge their mistakes of the past & try to move forward beyond that. By trying to hide their mistakes & pretending they never happened, & obliterating a part of their history - they will never be able to properly move forward. I am sure there are many people in China who actually do still remember what REALLY happened at Tiananmen Square - like those students who were actually there at the time, & their families (including the families of those students who were killed or injured) who will never be able to forget what happened - even though their government now silences them & likes to pretend it did not happen - or at least, not the way those in the west know that it happened. Eventually though, I do believe that the truth of Tiananmen Square will come to be known about, by the people of China - even though that may still be quite some way off. At the moment, by hiding the truth of what happened - I believe that will only ever work to China's detriment - because the rest of world already knows what really happened there - even if China won't admit it.
    2
  361. What a mob of mindless morons!
    2
  362. So would I - you never know who else has kissed it & whose germs may be on there!
    2
  363. Thanks very much for all that information about password managers. I've been considering for a while now whether I should use a password manager. To date I've been relying on my memory , with what are for me, easy to remember passwords, usually 8 to 15 characters in length. Fortunately I don't have that many passwords to remember, & it hasn't been a problem for me to date.
    2
  364. It has been my practice (in my own country), whenever I have lost a mobile phone or had one stolen, to confirm to my carrier to place a block/stop on the IMEI's as well as the SIM card. I want the finder/thief not to be able to use the handset as a phone - & blocking/stopping the IMEI's as well will usually do this. It will render the handset non-functional as a phone, so that it will only really be good to dismantle & use for spare parts. I once lost an expensive phone handset which was never recovered - so when my carrier asked me if I wanted to stop/block the IMEI's, I naturally said yes. The block/stop on the IMEI's was effective, not only with the carrier, but also nation-wide with all carriers in the country, & also as I understood it at the time, internationally, through the CEIR as well.
    2
  365. This mother was indeed guilty & she alone was solely responsible for the death of her child, due to her own gross stupidity, lack of common sense, & gross parental negligence. What she did was a form of child abuse.
    2
  366. But even carrier pigeons could still be booby-trapped...
    2
  367.  @LonLon-zu6qo  The exploding pager incidents etc are not terrorist attacks because they are not against random innocent civilians. These attacks were specifically targeted against Hezbollah enemy combatants. Of course, in some cases there may be collateral damage, such as bystanders - but that happens during all wars - there will always be at least some civilians killed, being collateral damage.
    2
  368. The trouble is that most people do not understand the correct dictionary definition of the term "Islamaphobia" - which means an irrational/illogical or unwarranted fear of the religion of Islam. Simply being constructively critical of the religion of Islam & its idealogical teachings/beliefs as stated in the Quran & hadiths, is not Islamaphobia. It is simply being critical of Islam & is not demonstrating an irrational fear of Islam. And it's also very clear that it is the religion & its beliefs/teachings which are usually being criticised, rather than the followers of the religion itself. But there are certainly also instances where it is appropriate to be critical of the followers of Islam, when they commit acts of terrorism in the name of their religion - such as the brutally barbaric atrocities committed by the pro-Palestinian terrorists against unarmed & defenceless Israeli citizens on 7 October this year. But even being justifiably critical of Islamic terrorism is not Islamaphobia either. If anyone actually DID have a real "fear" of the religion of Islam (which I would suggest, very few people do), then it is probably a very legitimate & warranted fear brought about as a result of the random acts of Islamic terrororism that have occurred throughout the world. Thus genuine "Islamaphobes" (with a truly "irrational" fear of Islam) would be very few & far between, because it is more than likely that the person's fear of Islam would be perfectly warranted & justified. So in probably 99% of cases where people are accused of "Islamaphobia" - it's not genuine Islamaphobia at all - & that word is just being incorrectly used to refer to someone who is simply being critical of Islam - which is NOT Islamaphobia according to the dictionary definition of a "phobia". On the other hand - people calling for the death of Jews, or shouting "gas the Jews" etc - are certainly being "anti-Semitic". However one does not hear very often at all, calls for the actual deaths of Muslims - even in the current situation of conflict in the middle-East. We should also remember that just because someone may appear to be the under-dog in a given situation - does not necessarily mean they are "right". Likewise, just because many people may appear to support something - does not make it "right" either.
    2
  369. I think one CAN possibly make a case for criticising Muhammad for marrying a 6 year old & consummating the marriage when she was 9 years old - & say it was wrong - & not just by modern-day standards, but also possibly by the standards of that time. For example, in the Bible, there are no cases of any such young child marriages taking place - so "morality" must have either steeply declined since Biblical times, up until Muhammad came along - or people in Muhammad's part of the world (which was not so far from where Jesus had lived) always perhaps had moral standards which were inferior/different, to those of the much earlier Biblical times. Yes - people apparently did marry much younger (than in the present day) during Biblical times - but there are no instances in the Bible of children as young as 6 years old getting married.
    2
  370. Meghan cannot actually use either of those "princess" titles you mentioned in your abov comment - so neither of those titles actually exist. Her official title is now "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Prior to resigning from full-time royal duties in Britain, to move to the USA, her title was "Her Royal Highness, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex". However, since moving to the USA, she & Harry can no longer legally use their "His/Her Royal Highness" titles (which has been prohibited by the Queen), so their official titles are now only "Duke/Duchess of Sussex".
    2
  371.  @mattendspiel9341  The title of "Princess of Wales" is simply a courtesy title by which the wife of the Prince of Wales is normally known - she is not the Princess of Wales in her own right. The title of "Prince of Wales" is not "inherited" - it has to actually be bestowed by the Queen, & there is no compulsion to actually assign the title to someone - though traditionally it has been given to the 1st son of the reigning monarch. So there's no guarantee that the title will be given to Prince William, & if it's never bestowed on him, then Catherine will never be "Princess of Wales" either. Even Prince Charles himself did not inherit that title at birth. The title was not bestowed on him till 1958, when he was almost 10. He also much later, in 1969, when he was almost 21, had to go through a special "investiture" ceremony at Caernarvon Castle in Wales, where he was officially invested & crowned the "Prince of Wales", in a ceremony that was televised throughout most British Commonwealth countries at least. As a son of a reigning monarch, Charles was always "Prince Charles", but after becoming the "Prince of Wales", his official title then became "Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales". So neither William nor Catherine, will simply "inherit" those titles, even if Charles becomes king.
    2
  372. It has almost gotten to the point in the UK, where merely stating facts & telling the truth, can be illegal. In some western countries, people have been punished (lost their jobs) for posting quotes from the Bible on their Facebook pages, yet people posting similar types of quotes from the holy books of other religions, do not have any action taken against them. British people really do need to fight for their freedom of speech, or it will slowly, bit by bit, be removed from them.
    2
  373.  @TheIrishMegaphone  Many years ago (about 50 -60 years ago), there was a certain amount of public/legal recognition associated with the terms "engaged" & "fiance/fiancee". This was because there was usually a public announcement of the engagement in the newspaper - perhaps also with a photo of the engaged couple - & often a formal celebration. If either party subsequently broke off the engagement, it was possible to take legal action against that party for "breach of promise". Today there is almost no formal/legal recognition of these terms, because they are often used very loosely, without there having been any formal/official public announcement of the engagement in the newspaper etc. These days, an "engagement" can often be just a private understanding between the 2 people involved, that they intend to get married & sometimes those "engagements" can become very drawn out & sometimes no marriage eventuates at all. These days, the only acknowledged legal commitment happens, once the couple legally marry. But in the immigration system, sometimes even legal marriages can be taken advantage of/abused, to try to secure residency/citizenship of some countries. Which is why many western countries conduct stringent enquiries into the backgrounds of even marriage relationships, prior to granting foreign husband/wives spouse or residency visas/entry permits. Even already having a child does not count for very much at all, when considering whether a foreign husband/wife should be allowed into the country to join their spouse & child.
    2
  374.  @peterc.1618  Of course there are marriages of convenience - but my own comment was referring to legal marriages representing a legal commitment & the legal obligation for mutual financial support that comes with that legal commitment/marriage. And that commitment to financial support can be important when it comes to a foreign spouse wishing to migrate.
    2
  375. It's always great to see someone like Calvin Robinson speaking up & out against the "wokeness" in the present day Church of England/Anglican Church. As a practising Christian & member of the Church of England/Anglican Church, for some years now, I've felt that most of the clergy in the church have just been going along with general societal trends, instead of "going back to basics" & preaching the Gospel message & Biblical principles. Instead of following societal trends, the opposite should be happening & the church should be speaking out & encouraging society to follow Christian principles. Yes - at one stage in the past when church attendances started to decline, people said that the church needed to get with the times & start modernising - but despite making a lot of changes in the styles of church/worship services on offer & the style of church music - attendances have not really improved very much at all - so obviously modernising has not really worked to improve attendance. I'm part of a small local parish church congregation, which despite its small numbers, is nevertheless very active in the local community, & even more so during the important times in the church calendar of Christmas & Easter. Due to the small size of our parish, I've held a number of honorary roles within the parish - such as member of parish council, parish treasurer, parish delegate to our annual Diocesan Synod, & a member of the Diocesan Clergy Conditions of Service Committee.
    2
  376.  @enanny0616  The school should not allow any "outsiders" to be able to come & talk to the students of the school - unless the school knows what they are going to talk about & what they are going to do. It is the Principal who determines who can come to the school to talk to the students - therefore it is the Principal who is ultimately responsible.
    2
  377. I don't think Megan Markle has ever actually had the official title of "Princess". Just because Harry is a "Prince" does not automatically mean that his wife is a "Princess" - unless that title is specifically bestowed on her by the Queen. I believe her only official royal title has ever been the Duchess of Sussex - or previously Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Sussex - until Meghan & Harry decided to leave the UK, then the Queen said they could no longer use the titles of "Royal Highness". So now, Meghan is just the Duchess of Sussex. But she was never a Princess to start with - so can't be referred to as a "former Princess" either. And by the way, these so-called "woke" people really do need to "wake up" to themselves - they're walking around still half asleep!
    2
  378. Yes, the type of extremism we are presently witnessing could definitely be described as "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism".
    2
  379. As Brand is the accused in this case, he might still be able to get a free court-appointed lawyer/attorney if he wanted one, & did not want to spend his own money on defending himself.
    2
  380. Calvin was ordained in a non-mainstream section of the Anglican Church in the UK.
    2
  381. And he's probably going to sue someone again for doing that & ruining his reputation yet again - & make a bit more money out of it, by milking it again for all that he can.
    2
  382. I would definitely agree that society in general has often worked to downgrade men & masculinity over the last 10 - 20 years. But I also believe there are other ways for men to go about retrieving their masculinity - other than the way that Andrew Tate promotes it. Andrew Tate may well have turned his life round more recently. He claims to have converted to Islam, & if that conversion is real & genuine, it may result in some positive changes in Andrew Tate - even though Islam is still very much a male-controlled religion. But even though he may have turned his life around - that does not stop him from having to pay for anything he may have done in his past - including anything illegal or even criminal. At some stage the deeds of our past may come back to haunt us when we least want it to, & regardless of the good person we may have since become. That applies equally to anyone & everyone in our society - regardless of who they are. The bad things we may have done in the past simply cannot be overlooked & if there are victims of that behaviour - they need to receive justice. If someone had since turned their life around & become a good & honest person, surely they would have no problem admitting to their past mistakes & making restitution - even if that means going to court & possibly facing a gaol term for those past mistakes.
    2
  383. I wonder if the police would record it as a "hate incident" if someone had damaged a Holy Bible instead. I suspect not. Is the resulting treatment because the police think less of Muslims & therefore have much lower expectations of them in terms of behaviour - & naturally expect them to behave badly? Which may not be entirely unwarranted given the teachings & instructions to Muslims in some parts of the Quran & hadiths. Surely death threats against children should be taken much more seriously than the damaging of a book - after all, no-one's life is at stake with the damaging of a book. Why isn't a "hate incident" recorded for threats against children?
    2
  384. It is not a wig - Calvin naturally has Afro hair because he is a mixed race person. His father is a British Jamaican & his mother is English (caucasian). The Afro hair comes from his father's side, & the colour of his skin is a mix of his father & mother. Calvin does not wear a wig - it is his natural hair.
    2
  385.  @SolomonDeku  Yes of course - my statement about Ngozi possibly having complained if a member of the hosting party had not engaged in conversation with her - was purely hypothetical - though certainly a possibility, I believe. As I have stated in some of my previous comments & posts, if Ngozi had not wanted to answer any question put to her by Lady H - she should have quite simply & politely said to her "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer not to answer that question". That would have allowed Lady H to wish Ngozi well, & end their interaction & move on to interact with the next person in the queue. Lady H was an employee of the royal household, who was previously engaged as a lady in waiting to the late Queen - so I'm not sure that she would have previously had a lot of direct interaction with members of the public, in that role. I find that a lot of people who use the term "racism" these days, actually use the word incorrectly, as they do not understand the correct dictionary & legal definitions of the word. So a lot of things which many people refer to as "racism" are not actually "racism" by the correct meaning of the word.
    2
  386. Rob Braxman has mentioned in some previous videos, that he is filming on his boat.
    2
  387. I wonder why all his "victims" did not simply report him to the police - after all he had no right "patrolling the streets" harassing people as he did. If everyone he harassed had simply reported him to the police, they would have quickly told him that as he did not "own" the streets & public areas that he was patrolling - he could not legally do that & they would pulled him into line before hopefully it got serious enough for someone to press charges & he then ended up in gaol. But thank goodness he did end up in gaol, because he now knows that what he did was not right.
    2
  388. Meghan's reference in the documentary to "when the stakes are so high - wouldn't it be better to hear the story from us?" (or something to that effect) - made me wonder what actually are those "stakes" to which she is referring? They have already broken away from the British royal family to make a new life for themselves in California - so the way I see it, there is nothing further that could be "at stake" - or certainly nothing of any great consequence. When told by the royal family that any "harassment" Meghan may have been experiencing from the media was no different to that experienced by previous royal family fiancees such as Diana, Sarah Ferguson ("Fergie"), & Kate Middleton - we saw Harry making the point in one of the documentary trailers, that it was not the same - because Meghan was bi-racial & therefore the element of "race" needed to be taken into consideration. It was almost as though Harry was saying that Meghan deserved better treatment than those other royal woman, because she was bi-racial - which of itself, sounds like a racist comment coming from Harry himself. Harry is now only 6th or 7th in line to the throne after the marriage of his older brother William & the birth of William's children. At the time of his birth, Harry was 3rd in line to the throne behind his father & William (during the reign of the late Queen). So in the hierarchy of the monarchy, Harry is never likely to become king & will probably only get pushed further down the line to the throne. Therefore, as far as the monarchy is concerned, Harry & Meghan are relatively unimportant people in the grander scheme of things, & could never have expected to be the most important members of the royal family, or the most popular, necessarily. As working members of the royal family, they would have had their royal duties assigned to them by the Queen & the royal household, & would have been expected just to carry out those duties to the very best of their ability. In return, they would have been provided with a residence in which to live, & a reasonable allowance to cover their other living expenses. So I'm wondering what it was that Meghan may have found distasteful about this. Was she expecting something better & to always be the star of the royal family & to be able to pick & choose which royal duties she wanted to undertake? She was obviously wanting to speak her mind on some political/semi-political matters, which is not permitted as a working member of the royal family. It also seems clear that she did not/does not understand about royal family protocol & etiquette & made no effort to educate herself on these matters, even after she became engaged to Harry. Surely if she is really the intelligent, university-educated woman that we were all told she was, following her engagement, she should have been smart enough to research such things & educate herself on these matters. I've seen some statements made by Harry & Meghan that no-one in the royal family took Meghan aside to educate on her on these matters - she seemed to just sit back & expect that people would come to her & give her lessons. But if that is not happening - what is wrong with educating oneself about these things? Such things are all relatively easy to learn oneself, if one has a mind to - but clearly the thought that she should/could educate herself about these things did not even occur to her. I see very little similarity between Meghan & Diana. On the one hand, Diana was from an aristocratic family & only 19 years old when she became engaged to Charles - so she was barely out of high school, & relatively young & naive, with very limited experience of the real world & not university educated,. She had been working as an assistant at a London kindergarten, prior to her marriage to Charles On the other hand, Meghan was in her late 30's when she became engaged to Harry. She was from broken home, & she had been married & divorced herself. She was very much a woman of the world & an actress, whom one assumes (& quite contrary to Diana) would at least have had some experience at dealing with the media/press. Yet Meghan & Harry are both claiming to have been "victims" of the press, & make the comment of how similar that is to Diana. I think most people simply cannot see that similarity.
    2
  389. Dr Peterson does not seem to understand that the reference to "people of the Book" in Islam & Islamic scriptures, is not a reference to Muslims/Islam - but only to Jews & Christians. Muslims cannot start disregarding Jews & Christians as their enemies, because their books of scripture - the Quran & hadiths tell them that Jews & Christians are their enemies & they must be fought against. If Dr Peterson had actually read the Quran & hadiths for himself, he would know this. Instead, he appears to have relied upon what he has been told by other Muslims, rather than reading the Islamic scriptures for himself. Had he read those scriptures for himself, he would have gotten the "warts & all" revelation of the actual beliefs & teachings of Islam, instead of being given the sanitised, selective & disney version of Islam from other Muslims. I feel he should have read the scriptures for himself, before even consulting with other Muslims about their religion. Perhaps he may have read the Islamic scriptures for himself, but much of it just did not "sink in" - so that when he was consulting with other Muslims about Islam, he did not raise some the more dubious teachings that he came across in those Islamic teachings. It's true that the basic teachings & beliefs in the Islamic scriptures do not encourage peace, as we are so often told in the western world. Yet many Muslims living in the west are accustomed to western laws & will usually abide by them - often because some of them may not be fully aware of the teachings of their own religion, because they themselves have not made a full study of their Islamic scriptures - so have simply relied on what they have been told by their own preachers. The truth is, that a majority of Muslims living in the west are probably much better human beings than their prophet Muhammad himself ever was, because they are NOT fully following the teachings of their prophet Muhammad, as stated in the Quran & hadiths. Sadly, it is those who HAVE made a more complete study of their own Islamic scriptures, who understand more fully & much better what the real beliefs & teachings of their religion are. And those who choose to follow those teachings to the very letter, often commit violent acts & atrocities against those who do not follow the same faith - but particularly the Jews & Christians, as specifically mentioned in the Islamic scriptures as "people of the Book". Many westerners who convert to Islam, often do so on just a very basic & superficial/flimsy understanding of the religion & its teachings (just based on what they've been told by other Muslims) - without having read or understood all the Islamic scriptures prior to their conversion. Some of these people do end up de-converting once they come to understand more fully, all the teachings of Islam. In some cases, it takes converts a very long time to come to know all the teachings of Islam - because one of the claims of Islam is that it cannot be fully understood, unless you study it in its original language of Arabic - & reading a translated version of the Quran is just not enough. And of course, it can take a long time to become sufficiently proficient in another language, to be able to study the scriptures in that language. There are also severe Islamic penalties awaiting those who leave Islam - so it's understandable that many people are reluctant to leave Islam, & feel forced to remain in it, even though they may no longer really believe in it (& they may have to keep that to themselves). The fact that in most western countries, there are laws which prohibit many of the prescribed Islamic penalties & punishments from actually being carried out, does not necessarily stop some Muslims from trying to enforce them on their own - which is again where some of the Islamic violence can originate from. In terms of "prophetic tradition" - although Muhammad is usually referred to in Islam as a "prophet" - he did not actually make any "prophecies" (ie foretelling of future events) which came true. While it may be very easy to say that Jews, Christians, & Muslims should try to get along better - that does become very difficult for those who claim to have the literal word of Allah/god in the Quran, as dictated to Muhammad by Allah. They obviously want to follow those teachings of Allah, & anyone else who teaches something different is wrong &/or a blasphemer who must be punished. The differences in the teachings between Judaism, Christianity, & Islam, are often so very different that it is even hard to understand how they could possibly have come from one & the same god - & indeed many in those religions claim that each religion actually worships a different god & not the same god, as some people seem to think. There is nothing in Islamic scriptures at all, which require Muslims to be a "light in the world". The reference to religious followers being a light in/of the world, is only in the Christian scriptures (the Bible), which Muslims claim has been corrupted. Again, I would suggest to Dr Peterson, that if he wants to familiarise himself with the actual beliefs & teachings of Islam, he goes to the original Islamic sources & scriptures - which are the Quran & hadiths - & read those documents for himself. That is really the only way to find out the true beliefs & teachings of Islam, without getting a very sanitised view from Muslims themselves.
    2
  390. Yes - the demands on some of them, having to get up so very early for a "commute" to work, or to attend a prayer session - would be enough to make anyone tired, I guess. But then part of that could be offset by going to bed a lot earlier in the evenings - but then that would probably take away time that they want to spend with their families - especially if they have young growing children.
    2
  391. Maybe the accusers were not intending to pursue a criminal case against Brand at that time, using those allegations, & maybe they thought they did not have sufficient evidence for a court case. Or maybe they thought it might just become a case of "she said, he said" etc. There could be a number of reasons why the accusers allowed the media to air their allegations first. It could make the community aware & boost community interest & public opinion in the allegations - making the police more likely to take the allegations seriously & pursue them with a court case. Without such media support, the allegations may have been more easily dismissed - as has happened with similar types of allegations previously - like the all child grooming gangs in the UK. It's really up to the accusers themselves as to whether they wish to report the matter to the police - as it is their own evidence which is needed for any case to proceed. The media does not usually have any authority to ask the police to pursue such allegations based on their own request. However, if the police decide to pursue the allegations based on the information seen in that media documentary & at the request of the accusers - the media might be able to assist police by providing some of the information that they gathered, while they were making the documentary.
    2
  392. Earlier this year - around June I think - Calvin Robinson was ordained as a Deacon in the Free Church of England, & Calvin is wearing the standard clergy attire. As a Deacon in the church, he may be addressed as "Reverend". After spending about 12 months as a "Deacon" - which is like the "practical" part of training for the priesthood in the church, a Deacon is normally then ordained as a full priest, & in high church circles may also be addressed as "Father" (which he usually cannot be called whilst still just a Deacon). There is little difference in the standard clergy attire for Deacons & Priests, except when wearing actual church vestments during a church service.
    2
  393.  @TonyAquino2023  Yes - I do believe the UK went about decimalisation in the wrong manner. They should have followed the lead of countries like South Africa, Australia (196,) & New Zealand, who had tried & tested versions of decimalisation already in place & working reasonably well. I think the UK could still have retained the word "pound" for its currency, had it wished - & maybe just called it a "new pound" (as in "new pence"), while giving it a different value. That really would have been no different to the difference between pennies & new pence (which also had different values). As it was, the way the UK did their decimalisation, created price inflation, I believe, as well as some rip-offs.
    2
  394. You've just got to laugh at all these extraordinarily stupid & ignorant members of the LGBTIQ+ community, whom it seems will join in & support any cause whatsoever, without any knowledge at all of the true issues. They will even support issues that will kill them by throwing them from the nearest available roof top! Good luck to them I say - let them all go to Gaza to support Hamas, & see what happens to them! We'll all watch the movie of it as we eat our popcorn! The world would be a far better place without such stupid & ignorant people!
    2
  395.  @deborahandrews2956  No - only Charles is the head of the Church of England as well as being the monarch & an adulterer. Camilla has nothing to do with the Church of England - she is actually a Roman Catholic I believe, as well as an adulterer. She may be the Queen consort, but she will never be the monarch, & she will never be the head of the Church of England, thank goodness. One adulterer being head of the Church of England is one too many!
    2
  396. A great conversation indeed! But I've always thought that most people do acknowledge the biological differences between men & women & naturally in terms of procreation, their "complementarity". But that does not mean that woman cannot have "equal rights" - meaning the same rights as men have in society, whilst at the same time being biologically different. There is no reason why certain types of jobs in society - such as those that were once traditionally filled by men only - could not also be made available to women, on the same basis that they are made available to men. There is no reason why a woman could not be as good a medical doctor, scientist, mathematician, or politician, as a man, for example. Women are not "exactly equal" to men - if by "equal" one means "exactly the same as" - because obviously there are those bodily & biological differences - but that should not mean they cannot have equal rights & opportunities when it comes to the workplace etc. I do take David Starkey's point though, that where some professions have come to be dominated by women - like medical doctors - it can create a shortage crisis when women temporarily leave the profession to have children - a biological function which only women can perform. But that then makes me believe that that sort of thing has probably been happening for many years & going back several generations. After all, the nursing profession has traditionally been dominated by women for a very long time - so have not such nursing shortages been occurring when women leave nursing to get married & have children? I'm not even sure whether married women were allowed to remain in the nursing profession a couple of generations ago - so how did the medical/hospital system cope with those nursing shortages? Another thing I've observed since more professions/jobs have been opened up to both males & females, is that it often does not take very long for men to get promotion & reach the top of what once were traditionally female-dominated professions/jobs. I have observed this especially in the nursing profession, & amongst flight attendants. But it usually takes a much longer period of time for women to "break the glass ceiling" & reach the top in jobs/professions which have traditionally been male dominated. I've often wondered why this is & the only conclusion I've been able to come to is that women are often not as discriminatory or as "closed shop" as men, & they tend to be more "realistic" & look at how well people can actually do the job, rather than whether they are male or female. On the other hand, men can often be a bit of a closed shop "boys club" which is very hard to break through if you are not a man, even if a woman may be able to do the job better than some of the men, & have better skills, experience & qualifications. So in some instances men will still get preference over women in promotions within male-dominated work areas. When I think of how many female school teachers there have been over the last few generations - yet most of the school principals that were usually appointed continued to be men & it took a very long time for women to be appointed as school principals. Sometimes it's also the case that men working in certain professions/jobs tended to & expected to get automatically pushed up the promotional ladder based on their seniority in the job, rather than how good they were at their job, or how good they might be at the role into which they were promoted. Thus some workplaces ended up with men at the top who had unfortunately been promoted beyond the level of their competence. On the other hand, female workers who were much better at those roles than some of the men & had better qualifications, were simply not considered for such promotions at all - regardless of their seniority in their current roles. It was not that long now that women working alongside men in any given industry, & doing exactly the same job as the men, would be paid less than those men - simply because they were women & not men - even though they may well have been doing a better job than some of the men. These days though, people working in the same industry & doing the same job, would generally be paid the same amount, regardless of whether they are a man or a woman - the concept of "equal pay for equal work". But I think the concept of a gender pay gap can extend to more than just "equal pay for equal work" & is often used as a reference to the fact that many jobs/roles which have traditionally been female dominated, are also lower paid roles, when compared with many jobs/roles which have been male-dominated. For some reason, in these instances, the value of women's roles in the workforce have appeared to be undervalued, compared with men's roles - which could also be referred to as a gender pay gap. This hints at the fact that some paid jobs/roles seen as "women's work" will automatically mean they are paid lower than other roles done by men. Perhaps it's time that a special "job evaluation" team were brought in to (blindly) evaluate these jobs, based on the skills, experience, & qualifications required to do them, to see whether they really do warrant such a low rate of pay, merely because they are being done by women. In the past, it was often decried that women entering the workforce would be stealing the jobs of the men, who had wives & families to support - so the men should automatically get preferential treatment when it came to jobs & job promotions. Surely though, people should get jobs based on merit - skills, experience, & qualifications etc - rather than just whether they are a man or a woman. We must not forget that women (not just men!) also have families to support. Surely it would be much better not just for the workplace, but for society as a whole, if people got jobs based on their job skills rather than their gender - a case of "the best person for the job". I often wonder what kind of a different world we might be living in, had women not been prevented for so long from actively participating in the workforce on a larger scale, had they so desired. Would it be a nicer world, a kinder world - would we be much more technologically & scientifically advanced, because the skills that women had &/or could have developed through further education etc could have been fully utilised for the world's advancement? Who knows? In many workplaces a generation or two ago, women were forced to resign once they got married. I also note with a smile David Starkey's point about the "trans" movement forcing many in the feminist movement to finally start acknowledging that men & woman are actually different biological creatures - to the extent where they are now pointing out those differences that they would probably never have pointed out before, if they had not been forced to do so by the "trans women" invading the women's sporting arena. I must say that I dislike the current ready & frequent references to "toxic masculinity" - as though all men are somehow automatically "toxic", in the same manner that all white people are somehow automatically meant to be "racist". Yes, there are certainly some "toxic" men in our society - but I think it's probably a minority - but as usual, it's the "toxic" ones who we often hear about & who often get a lot of the media attention. However, I still happen to believe there are a lot of "normal (masculine) men" out there who do not deserve the title of "toxic" - including some of my own family members, friends & acquaintances. Growing up, I always saw my own parents marriage as a true 50/50 "partnership" - always making joint decisions, with a joint commitment towards joint goals. They built a strong & good life together, with neither one of them needing to be "the boss" or domineering over the other in any way. I never saw any "toxic" masculinity on display - just a "normal man" - or at least, what I always assumed must have been a "normal man".
    2
  397.  @markshrimpton3138  It's not really that hard to find a charity that has not "gone woke". All you need to do is to go to their web site & check out their policies & the language they use. Religious-based charities are obviously less likely to be woke - such as Jewish, Christian, & those belonging to some other religions that also do charitable work.
    2
  398. The only reason they are really separated is due to the previous random rocket attacks on Israel/Jerusalem by Palestinians, & also the bombing of passenger buses in Jerusalem. Since the erection of the wall & the checkpoints, incidents such as these have greatly reduced. The Israeli government had erected the wall & checkpoints as a safety precaution against such attacks, & it seems to have been effective.
    2
  399. Why would he need a passport, unless he is planning to travel overseas? And if he is planning to travel overseas, he must have at least some money to do that (& probably much more than 50 pounds). So why is it that he is not wanting to repay the cost of the passport, or perhaps claiming that he cannot afford to do so? Is he just being extraordinarily dishonest, or very stupid? Or does he feel that since he is your friend, you should not expect him to repay the money & just "gift" it to him? Or does he think that it is always up to his parents to repay all his debts?
    2
  400. Just because there were instances of characters in the Old Testament of the Bible who were involved in polygamy - does not mean that God himself allowed polygamy, or approved of it. In fact, all of the real evidence in the Bible indicates that God did NOT approve of those in the Bible who indulged in polygamy. Also, in many instances, their involvement in polygamy went against the express wishes & instructions given to them by God - eg in the case of Abraham & Sarah. And in those cases where polygamy did occur - it often ended badly for all the people involved - specially in the case of Abraham & Sarah. In most parts of the Bible where marriage is spoken about - it makes specific reference to monogamous marriages, & the fact that anything outside of monogamous marriage is simply adultery. The reason why Muslim men can get away with these "polygamous" marriages in the UK, where polygamy is actually illegal - is because the men are not actually "legally" married to all of their wives under British law - usually only the first wife (if any) is technically & legally married to these men under British law & marriage registered at the Registrar's office in the UK. The subsequent wives are not legally married to the men at all under British law - they are only "married" to the men in a "religious" marriage under Islam - which is not recognised under UK law & the marriage is not registered in the UK at the Registrar's office. So they cannot be legally prosecuted for polygamy in the UK - because under UK law, there is only one "legal" wife & the rest are actually just mistresses/girlfriends/concubines etc according to British law.
    2
  401.  @Stephanie-zd5im  The marriage was not really "arranged" - it was voluntary & consensual on both sides. Charles & Diana were not totally incompatible - because there were some interests that they shared - despite their age gap. They were not always miserable in the marriage - that only started to happen after Diana became aware that Charles was having an affair with Camilla. In the very early years of the marriage, by many accounts, they both appeared to be a reasonably happy married couple. Diana only started to develop relationships with other men, after she became aware of Charles' affair with Camilla. Divorces are not common in the royal family at all - especially for the heir to the throne. Despite eventually marrying Camilla - that will never change the fact that Charles & Camilla are both adulterers - an affair which ultimately caused the breakdown of both Charles' & Camilla's previous marriages. So we now have a pair of adulterers as king & queen & an adulterer as head of the Church of England.
    2
  402.  @okabutifoundit  I'm not going to answer the question, because it's a silly question & irrelevant to the original comment anyway. And I'm surprised that anyone who claims to have 3 degrees in Islamic studies, would say such a thing. It's certainly not likely to encourage a very favourable impression of Islam, or Muslims generally.
    2
  403.  @MzPrizz37  Muslim men can have only 4 "wives" to whom they are religiously married. Providing they do not go outside of those 4 "wives" - then it's not adultery. But if they do go outside of those 4 "wives" for an intimate relationship - then it's adultery & they can be stoned to death. The only exception to this is that Muslim men are allowd to have extra-marital relationships with any female slaves that they own, or those females that have been conquered & enslaved during tims of war - & it's not considered adultery.
    2
  404.  @QueenLionessMD  And if a woman complains that she has been raped/sexually assaulted by a man who is not her husband (whether she is married or not) - then due to that "confession", she is often treated as an adulterer. But because there may not be the required number of witnesses to that rape, the male will often get off free - whereas it's assumed the rapist may have been another unknown male - but the woman is still considered guilty of adultery, due to her "confession". In cases where a woman may become pregnant as a result of a relationship outside of marriage - it then becomes obvious that adultery has been committed, & the woman is again punished for adultery. But unless the responsible male can be identified by the required number of witnesses - the male will again often get off free. So it's often much easier for the man to escape punishment for adultery, than it is for the woman.
    2
  405. There's a lot of extremely interesting & useful privacy information in the above video. I've often thought that if I use a new non-Google (Google-free) mobile phone without ever putting a SIM card in it, & just use it on free publicly accessible wifi internet connections with a VPN, together with security-conscious communication apps that do not require a real identity, then it would be very difficult for me to be identified by using that mobile phone. The phone, of course, would still have its IMEI & serial number, but these are generally not recorded at the point of sale - especially if you purchase the phone at something like a supermarket or variety store, & not a store belonging to one of the mobile phone carriers. To make the purchase transaction even more identity-free, you could easily purchase the phone using cash &/or have a 3rd party/friend purchase the phone on your behalf, in case there are security cameras in the store. Or if you purchase the phone on-line, you could also use a mail forwarding service - though the seller may still have/want your name & other contact details. Of course, only being able to use the phone in conjunction with free public wifi internet access (which usually won't require any personal details - although some may) may prove restrictive at times, especially if you're in an area that does not have any free public wifi internet access available. I regularly use free public wifi internet access when I'm out & about in the city (CBD), or on public transport etc. & in some restaurants/cafes etc - & it usually works very well. But occasionally I'm in areas with no such coverage - in which case it would be helpful to have a mobile/cell data internet connection available, if it's necessary to use a mobile phone in those situations.
    2
  406. As Rob Braxman mentioned at the start of the above video, this is only part 1 of 2 & is only intended to address the technological aspects of Tik Tok & what information it is able to gather & what it might be able to do. Please wait for further episodes to address other more political issues such as the Restrict Act.
    2
  407. Sounds like yet another case of "bloke gone bonkers"...
    2
  408. If Hamas tries to hide itself inside civilian facilities such as hospitals, schools, mosques etc - then those facilities automatically become legitimate targets for the IDF, & it is not considered a war crime to target such facilities when they are used to hide Hamas.
    2
  409. There's no doubt that some people believe that being tracked at all times is a good thing. It might, for example, help you to be found if you get lost or go missing. But there are also people who do not wish to be tracked at all times.
    2
  410.  @kennethrogers3687  I guess for privacy reasons of the family concerned. They were not suspected of having committed any offence, & filming around the house & back yard may have allowed the family & their house to be identified, which they may not have wanted. If they had been identified, there may have been members of the public flocking to their house the next day - not to mention media reporters.
    2
  411.  @linsqopiring6816  Of course, people do realise that no-one can contact/call/SMS them while their mobile phone is in the Faraday bag. But at the same time, you still have the phone with you in case you need to make a call/send an SMS. And to do that of course, you simply take the phone out of the Faraday bag. And once you take it out of the Faraday bag, you will start to get mobile phone service again.
    2
  412. No - it's a branch of the Anglican church which separated from the established/mainstream Church of England back in 1844 & are a more traditional/orthodox branch of the Anglican Church. In more recent years, the Free Church of England has also joined the GAFCON movement, which is an international group of traditional/orthodox Anglican churches, which are usually not members of the Anglican Communion. However, the ordinations/holy orders of the Free Church of England are still recognised as valid by the established Church of England. So Calvin's ordination will still be recognised as valid in the (established) Church of England, which actually would not ordain him.
    2
  413.  @Bluejohn  I do understand there are other parties involved in the Olympics - like the IOC - I just do not know whether they would have been given a full preview of the opening ceremony before the actual event - so do not know whether the IOC would have been fully aware of what was going to happen during the performance itself. So I still believe the French government is the main entity at fault here. However, I have stated in other posts that both the French government & the IOC should be making a public apology for having caused offence to the largest religion in the world. And instead of the IOC announcing during the closing ceremony (as they usually do) that these games have been "the best games ever", they should instead be publicly announcing that these games have been "the worst games ever" - which they now are. And for fear of causing any further offence with any similar antics in the closing ceremony - I think that any planned performances for the closing ceremony should be totally abandoned.
    2
  414. Yes - his devotion is rather "over the top".
    2
  415. I wonder what good "Satanism" has ever done in the community. Have they built schools to educate people, or provided any social/welfare services, as most Christian organisations do (ie the Salvation Army, Vinnies, Anglicare, Bluecare/UnitingCare etc). Has Satanism ever received government funding, I wonder. I guess all the stupid "woke" people in that ad - asking that people put "no religion" on their Census forms - so that the government does not provide any funding to religious organisations - obviously want organisations such as the Sallies, Vinnies, Anglicare etc just to "disappear" from Australia, & does not want them to continue to provide their services to the community. That has really put me off all of those people we saw in that ad! I'd certainly be telling people to completely ignore what all those "stupid" people are saying & complete your Census forms honestly about your religious status. If you have any kind of religious affiliation at all - put it on your Census form - even if you may not actually go to church, but still consider yourself a Christian - put it on the form according to the religious affiliation in your family background/history. It might also be worth reminding people that they are required by law to complete their Census form fully, & honestly & there are some built-on "checks" within the questions on the form - which are designed to "detect" when someone may be giving "false or misleading" information, or if they submit an incomplete form. There are fines which may be imposed on those who either do not complete a form, submit an incomplete form, or provide false/misleading information on the form. Everyone who will actually be in Australia on Census night (10 August) is required to either complete a form themselves, or be included on a form someone else has completed for their household etc. Even people who are in very remote locations or "free camping" within Australia on Census night, need to complete a form. Even people who are just tourists in, or visitors to Australia on Census night, need to complete a Census form. Even people who are in off-shore Australian territories like Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Cocos & Keeling Islands etc need to complete a Census form. The only people who do not need to complete a Census form on Census night are those who are actually not in Australia (& not in one of its off-shore territories) on Census night - if they are overseas & out of the country. Completing the Census form is compulsory & the fines for a person not completing a Census form are actually $222 PER DAY that the Census form remains incomplete, up to a maximum of $2,220 - & that's even more than the fine people get for not voting in an election!
    2
  416. I actually think that Meghan had lost the respect of many people even prior to that "curtsy" event - but if they had not lost total respect for her by then - I think that curtsy was definitely the straw that broke the camel's back. And I don't think Meghan will ever be able to recover from that, & her reputation will remain forever damaged - no matter what high-profile PR company or agency she employs to try to improve her image now. I don't think the British public will ever forgive her for that - it was so very disrespectful of the late Queen & the British royal family in general. Harry clearly also looked very embarrassed by what Meghan did.
    2
  417. I'm looking forward to receiving my new Brax2 phone - probably by the end of April sometime, since it will probably be part of batch 4, which is yet to ship. Then I will finally be able to say "sayonara Suzie" & "good riddance" to the Google Assistant on my existing phone - which has been nothing but a real pain over the last 12 months or so at least. At times I have felt like throttling & killing my Google Assistant every time it begs me to turn it on or asks me to ask it to do something. My Google Assistant obviously does not understand that I am more than capable of doing things for myself & do not require its assistance at all - so it's obviously been feeling very unwanted & unloved. But when I get my new Brax2 phone, I will finally be able to kill my Google Assistant once & for all!
    2
  418. I would think that in the Arab refugee camp on the other side of the fence - much of the rubbish lying around is due to the fact that although those in the refugee camp who work, do pay taxes, the area in which they live is not provided with any government rubbish collection service. And in one of these episodes I saw a yound Arab boy in the refugee camp just dispose of some unwanted rubbish by throwing it over the balcony, onto the ground below - also showing a clear disregard for his own environmnt & trying to keep it clean & tidy at least, since he's the one who has to live there. Having said that though, when you saw those government rubbish collectors going around Jerusalem & the amount of rubbish that was just left on the ground, around some of those big skip bins - it gives the impression that Israelis on the whole are not very environmentally conscious.
    2
  419. Asylsum seekers who are criminals or potential criminals in their countries of origin probably realise that they will be severely penalised for committing such crimes in their home countries - so they want to escape to countries where they can commit those crimes & get away with them or if they are caught - either still get away with it, or suffer a much lesser punishment. So that is why they are seeking asylum - because they do not want to be punished for committing crimes in their home countries. They commit crimes then leave their home countries before they are caught, then claim asylum in countries like the UK, claiming they would be persecuted for their crimes, if they were to return to their home countries.
    2
  420.  @timtimini7641  I think what Rob Braxman is saying, is that the technology being used to support these biometrics, does not permit the provider to see or gain access to those biometrics, because the the biometric information/data in most cases, is held on the device itself, & not available to the provider. This means there is no privacy risk for the user, because the provider cannot access the user's biometric data. It's not just a matter of the provider "promising" they cannot see that biometric data. In reality, the technology does not permit the provider to see it, or access it.
    2
  421. It's not just what they know about you - it's also their ability to track you. And since information on the internet is permanent - many years later, that same information may come back to haunt you, when you least want it to.
    2
  422. We've all heard well-known politicians & celebrities proudly proclaim that "Islam is a religion of peace" - probably without even having read a single verse of the Quran or hadiths for themselves - but merely relying on what they have been told by perhaps Muslim friends, or Islamic clerics - who naturally have a vested interest in portraying their religion in a good light, to the western world, & promoting it as a religion of peace. But anyone who has ever read any of the Quran & hadiths for themselves will know that that is simply not the case. Islam, based on an actual reading of the Quran & some of the hadiths - is not such a religion of peace at all. Of course - that's not to say that there are not peaceful Muslims - but the irony is that the "peaceful" Muslims are the ones who are actually NOT following the teachings of their religion & the Quran & hadiths to the letter. Those who ARE following the literal teachings of Islam as laid down in the Quran & hadiths are the fundamentalist Muslims & those who are often referred to as "radical" Muslims. And they are the ones who are likely to be terrorists - because in this day & age, that is really the only way to practise what is laid down in the Quran & hadiths. And it is stated that the teachings of Islam in the Quran & hadiths are applicable to all times & in all places, & must be taken literally. And radical/fundamentalist Muslims are the ones who are doing just that.
    2
  423. Many of the customs/practices/traditions which you are experiencing & to which you are referring, are not actually "Muslim" culture as such - rather, they are the customs/practices/traditions of those countries & people, in that part of the world, which you are visiting - & those similar practices probably existed long before Islam even came to those countries. And because many of the countries are in a similar part of the world, their customs & practices will be similar, in many regards.
    2
  424. That boy said he was 15, & that he had stopped attending school at age 12 - so he's basically been roaming the streets for the last 3 years. But by all accounts, the school system in the Arab refugee camp is not very good, & the authorities don't seem to care if the Arab children do not attend school. And it seems like the childrens' parents do not care if they attend school either. Their parents are obviously not trying to home school them either. Presumably their mothers do not work - so you'd think their mothers would at least try to home-school their children, if they know they are not going to school.
    2
  425. Holding a sign saying "queers for Palestine" is the equivalent of holding a sign saying "please kill us - we are lambs to the slaughter"! Gotta love that LGBTIQ+ community - "oh what a lov-e-ly bunch of idiots - see them all a-standing in row!" - just like lambs to the slaughter!
    2
  426. I worked in the NAB for many years - longer than Andrew Thorburn even - & I worked there for much of the time that Andrew Thorburn was working here. I readily confess that I did not really like Andrew Thorburn. From his actions & what he said during our joint time at NAB - I never even got the faintest inkling that he was a Christian. In my view, he certainly did not behave as one would have expected a senior executive in a financial institution to behave - & certainly not one who claimed to be a Christian. During my time at the NAB, he also appeared on many episodes of "NAB TV" - during which he often came across as "a bit of a clown" - & not taking things as seriously as he probably should have, as a senior executive. He was also seen as being part of a "dynamic duo" with another senior NAB executive, whose name escapes me for the moment, but who subsequently left the NAB before Thorburn's departure. So I certainly do not hold any candles at all for Thorburn. Nevertheless, I do very strongly in principle, condemn his dismissal from the Essendon football on the basis of his affiliation with a Christian church, & therefore the club's assumption that he must hold certain religious beliefs of which the club itself disapproves. This is all before he has spent even a single whole day in his new job as an executive of the Essendon club, or had a chance to perform any actions or say anything which may have affected the club. Clearly the Essendon club does not like Christians & does not wish to employ them - despite there being laws in this country stating that an employer may not discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion or religious affiliation. So the Essendon club has clearly broken the law on this matter. Will they get away with it? Most likely yes - unless Thorburn pursues a legal case against the club for unfair dismissal on the basis of his religion. Or unless sufficient people vilify & castigate the club for such shameful & unlawful treatment of an employee & the club is convinced to apologise & re-instate Thorburn. But I doubt if that will happen. If people do not stand up for the laws & rights we already have in this country, such laws will eventually be eroded through natural precedent & because they have never been enforced. It's just sad to think that people & organisations such as Essendon will not comply with the law, unless they are forced to do so through legal action - even when some precedents may have already been set. But even if legal action is pursued, it may be that eventually an out of court settlement will be reached if Essendon agrees to pay a large, yet undisclosed sum of money to Thorburn. So we will still not get the satisfaction of knowing what the legal decision was in that case.
    2
  427. That may be so - but in order to be forgiven, one has to ask for forgiveness & demonstrate genuine repentance, by not just keeping on doing the same bad things/sins over & over again. When Jesus encountered a woman who had been caught in adultery, he did not tell her just to continue behaving in the same manner - he told her to go & "sin no more". Charles & Camilla continued to have an adulterous affair while they were both still married to other people. After they were divorced from their former spouses, they continued living together & there is no sign that they were ever truly repentant of their adulterous behaviour, or that they ever admitted they had done the wrong thing & asked for forgiveness.
    2
  428. If you mean the young Russian Orthodox guy who seems to be a bit obsessed with some of the religious sites - I would say he is probably originally from one of the "Asian" states (like Mongolia or Chechnya) which were previously a part of the former Soviet Union - which would explain why his religion is said to be Russian Orthodox.
    2
  429.  @finewine6659  They stated his religion to be "Russian Orthodox" - but did not actually state which country he was from. Due to his very Asian-looking features - my guess would be that he is actually originally from one of the "Asian" countries that once formed part of the Soviet Union - like Mongolia or Chechnya - as that may also account for his religion being Russian Orthodox.
    2
  430. Great Thunberg is an absolute drongo dog of a girl...
    2
  431. He was ordained in a non-mainstream branch of the Anglican Church in the UK.
    2
  432. This is so sad - he is such an icon of world football - the greatest!
    2
  433. Maybe someone should suggest people wear an armband saying "say no to Christianophobia". There seems to be a great deal of anti-Christian sentiment in the world these days - even though there are no records confirming that any practising Christian has physically attacked & caused physical harm to anyone, & claimed to have done it in the name of their religion of Christianity. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who've committed acts of violence & terrorism, & claim to have done it in the name of their religion of Islam. Yet everyone is expected to believe that Islam is a religion of peace (or so we are told). So, I would say that if people are genuinely Islamaphobic - then at least there is probably a good reason for it.
    2
  434. It is indeed - Charles should have been forced to abdicate the throne in order to marry Camilla - just as his great-uncle Edward had been forced to abdicate the throne to marry Wallis Simpson & just like his aunt Princess Margaret had not been allowed to marry the divorced Group Captain Townsend, without losing her place in line to the throne & all her royal privileges.
    2
  435.  @desertdog8006  No we would not have King Andrew if Charles abdicated - we would have King William & Queen Catherine.
    2
  436. At the end of the day, I suppose a person could really do anything they want with a parking ticket or PCN that was issued to them - including ignoring it or throwing it in the bin - but then they also have to be prepared to wear the consequences of that behaviour - which may end up costing them dearly, if they end up with a court judgement against them - which goes on their credit record/file, which means they will more than likely have great difficulty borrowing money or getting any sort of credit in the future. Personally, I don't think people should expect to park their cars free of charge, on someone else's land. I'd get pretty upset if someone parked their car on my front lawn or in one of my driveways. So it's reasonable to expect to have to pay the going parking rate when paying to park one's car on someone else's property.
    2
  437. Oh the stupidity of some schools & teachers! Many children at the age of 11 may not yet feel a particularly strong attraction to either gender (male or female), because they have simply not yet fully developed. So telling them they are "queer" at that age, is certainly not going to help in their future development at all & is probably doing the children more harm than good. And should these kinds of issues even be being discussed at schools with children of that age? It should be up to the parents to educate their own children on such mattes surely - not the school, whose teachers in reality, probably have no real understanding of these issues in any case. Can the children & their parents later sue the school for having caused damage to their child's development, for having taught such things? I hope so! And why should the vast majority of the country's population be forced to "change their language" to accommodate a small minority of perhaps transgender people/children, who have not even yet complained that they have been offended by the present standard language being used? It's just way too ridiculous for words - not to mention such "programmes" also costing the taxpayer a lot of money, to implement these programmes that no-one at all seems to want.
    2
  438.  @aotearoawhanau7211  Anyone who knows even the slightest bit of history, also knows that even the so-called "Palestinians" do not want a so-called "2 state solution". They have already refused it on several occasions when it has been offered to them in the past. The only thing they want & will accept, is being handed the entire state of Israel on a platter, to do with as they choose. They don't want just a "part" of Israel - which is what they already have, in effect, in Gaza - they want ALL of Israel - & that is all they will ever accept - so no "2 state solution" for the Gazans. The more you give them, the more they will keep demanding. They believe the Jewish people gave no right to living in the middle east.
    2
  439.  @rclrd1  Even if there is a moral obligation to do the right thing - even though it may be illegal - in such cases, the doctors themselves may face the risk of lawsuits & possibly having their licences taken away, if they do not obey the rulings of a court case - & obviously, no doctor would want that to happen. These sorts of things/legal actions have already happened to some doctors who have refused to treat such patients. And parents themselves also face legal action & other penalties if they do not follow the directions & rulings of the court. Some parents may have their parental rights removed in such cases & be prevented from seeing their child, as they are deemed to be causing them harm, by not allowing them to have such treatment. And what parent in their right mind would want that to happen? So ultimately, if the court rules a child can have such an operation, then the court & the judges should be held legally & morally liable for that decision & be subject to legal action themselves. The "enabling" entity (in that case, the court, judges & legal system) should rightfully have to bear the penalty for their legal decisions.
    2
  440.  @braddouglas7839  Of course, the same sort of thing does not necessarily happen if someone wants to get a healthy arm or leg removed because they claim they are handicapped, or that the limb does not "belong" to them. And of course people function better & are more mobile with both arms & legs. In such instances, one would expect a lot of counselling to happen re exactly why they want their limb removed, to see if those issues cannot be overcome. But the same sort of thing generally does not happen when it comes to gender-related surgery/treatment. Suggesting counselling in such cases is often deemed to be "gender conversion therapy" & often therefore also illegal & not allowed. Everyone is expected to be supportive of anyone's request for any kind of gender-related surgery, & if a court of law allows it against the wishes of the childs' parents - then everyone is expected to comply with such a court order - including the parents, doctors etc. And there can be severe ramifications for anyone (including doctors) who do not wish to comply with such a court order.
    2
  441. I would have thought that rather than confronting the teacher in that circumstance - the student's mother/parent could have gone straight to the school's Principal & lodged a complaint. Surely if the device has only been confiscated to prevent it being used during class (& there's no suspicion of illegal material on the phone) - then there's really no valid reason for the teacher to retain the phone for an entire week. If the teacher had been using it as their own phone - surely the student's parents could have pressed charges against the teacher for that. If the school/teacher has confiscated a student's phone - surely there should be an obligation on the school/teacher to issue a "receipt" for the phone, specifying the time & date that the phone was confiscated (& perhaps an indication of when it will be returned to the owner), in case it was later misused by someone - including the teacher? This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I would not trust a teacher/school to do the correct thing with a confiscated phone - including disposing of it/destroying it - despite the law allowing it. Sadly, there are some teachers who are just "not the full quid" & cannot be trusted to make rational/sound decisions about such things.
    2
  442. The "court of public opinion" will always exist - as individuals are always entitled to form their own private opinions on matters such as these. Fortunately though, "public opinion" is not the judge & jury.
    2
  443.  @jayashreeacharia6782  Change in Islam will never happen - because on order to bring about such change, you would have to go against or contradict the existing Islamic teachings, which come directly from the holy scriptures of Islam, which are the Quran & hadiths. As Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of God, as dictated to the prophet Muhammad, no other mere mortal would dare to change the word of God - therefore the Quran & its teachings can never be changed, in the eyes of Islam.
    2
  444. In many employee/employer situations, where the employee has been charged with an offence which is unrelated to their work, & the employee is not being kept in custody until the hearing - the employee will sometimes be either suspended from their job with pay, or allowed to continue to work, until the outcome of the court case is known - & this is not unusual. But in Brand's case, he is more or less self-employed so there is no employee/employer relationship to speak of. Chances are - he may well have other sources of income outside of YouTube which he can still rely on - but de-monetising his YouTube channel at such a time will obviously still be a huge blow to him financially. It may not seem fair that YouTube have done this to Brand, before there has even been a court hearing - though in a previous video on this channel, it was also indicated that YouTube may have done that, because they had access to some significant "information" about the allegations. Thankfully, Rumble has not followed suit.
    2
  445. No matter how many people now extoll the supposed virtues of the now King Charles III & Queen Camilla, there's no getting away from the truth of the matter that the UK now has just a pair of adulterers as its king & queen. And one of the worst things about it is that the UK now also has an adulterer as the official head of the Church of England.. That's an absolutely atrocious scenario. In the Church of England marriage ceremony - the bride & groom make vows/promises before God & all the witnesses present, that they will be faithful & loyal to one another until death - & Prince Charles, in the first instance, broke those promises he made to God & Diana. If he was not capable of keeping such promises, he should never have gotten married in the first place - let alone allowed to become head of the Church of England. No matter how many of his forbears may have supposedly had "mistresses" while they were married to their wives - that does not make it right. As far as we know, Queen Elizabeth II set an excellent example in her own marriage - but Charles chose not to follow her example, & only chose bad examples to follow - that existed before Queen Elizabeth II. It's such a shame that the monarchy could not have just passed over Charles & gone straight to his son Prince William. You'd think in these modern times, & in order to be respected by the people over which he would eventually reign - the then Prince Charles would have been very particular to maintain a good reputation in the eyes of his future subjects - especially if the future role of the British monarchy was going to be brought into question. Members of the royal family having adulterous affairs left right & centre would not have looked good. If Camilla had been any kind of decent woman herself, she also would not have indulged in such an adulterous relationship herself, while both she & Charles were still married to other people. Their behaviour only makes both of them look very bad indeed & totally undeserving of the roles of king & queen of England & the UK. No-one could possibly have any respect for them whatsoever, after everything they have done. Unfortunately though, it now seems that many people have completely forgotten about what went before. That Charles & Camilla were ever allowed to marry, & that their civil marriage ceremony was later blessed in a ceremony conducted by the Church of England, is a total disgrace. And that all happened apparently without either of them ever admitting/confessing that their previous adulterous affair (which caused the break-down of both of their previous marriages) was wrong, & seeking to be forgiven for that. It's almost as though the church, by blessing their marriage, was also accepting of their adulterous affair, as though neither of them had done anything wrong. The monarchy & the Church of England have really lowered their standards in this scenario. Whenever I see Charles & Camilla together, whether in photos, video footage etc, or in real life, I just think what an awful couple of people they are to have done everything they did - & people like that should not be king & queen of England. In reality, for many people, Diana will always remain the true Queen of England - especially in people's hearts.
    2
  446. Yes - the above video clip indicated that the so-called "gay" Muslim was heavily criticised & challenged by young Muslims in his audience, who claimed that it was not possible to be both "gay" & a Muslim - because Islamic teachings in the Quran/hadiths are strictly against homosexuality & Islam has severe punishments for those found to be practising homosexuals. So they were the ones who probably made the death threats - either they or their parent, probably.
    2
  447. Some other countries had TV & radio licensing many years ago - back in the 1950's & 1960's - but it has long since been done away with in those countries. Back then though, I believe that people did live in fear of being found out that they had a TV/radio in their home, without any licence. However, I don't know how many people were ever caught out & convicted of having no licence for their TV/radio. In the UK, I do believe the best thing to do, if one receives such regular notices from the TV licensing authority, about not having paid for a TV licence - is not to ignore such notices, but to respond to them & explain why one is no longer paying for the TV licence. It's not an onerous task to respond to them & explain why, & more than likely they will then stop harassing the person. To me, it's just "common sense" & I don't know why more people do not do this - rather than not responding to the correspondence & letting the matter drag on & continuing to get letters every month because they have not paid the licensing fee - nor have they offered an explanation as to why they are not paying the fee.
    2
  448. It's not too difficult to ascertain from each charity's records, how much of their income/donations goes towards administration costs such as the payment of salaries etc. Some charities are much better at keeping their administrative costs low, than other charities. The best I've seen thus far, is usually around 4% - but many are around 10% & some even high than that. I suggest people take a look at these figures & use them as a good basis, to ensure your hard-earned donation money goes to a good charity where more of it will go to the cause you were intending to support. And if you decide to not donate money to charities, or to provide support in some other way (eg by volunteering with a charity) - don't be too concerned that if a charity goes under, people will lose their jobs. Many people doing the grass-roots work for charities are volunteers in any case & they will simply go & volunteer their services with another organisation. As for all the high flyers being paid a lot of money as CEO's, directors, & other high paid workers - one does not need to worry about them, as they will already have plenty of money on which to survive & don't need anyone to be concerned about them.
    2
  449.  @ЕленаМатвеева-щ4п  I'm not familiar with the American system - but in countries like the UK & Australia - all government taxes, medical tax & pension fund contributions are deducted from one's salary, before the employee receives their salary paid to them. Even so, when people talk about their salary levels in those countries - they usually refer to the "before tax" amount of salary. Also in the UK & Australia, all stores are obliged to display the final price of the item (inclusive of any taxes) as the shelf price - & that is the amount paid at the check-out. So there are no surprises at the check-out.
    2
  450.  @ellidano  Sure - but the above video was about a supermarket & food & food prices etc - hence we're also commenting on those things in the comments here. The only message I was trying to convey was that it's not really fair to compare food prices in Russia with food prices in other countries, if the wage/salary levels are not also the same. After all, food is one of the most basic necessities of life, if not THE most basic. And it's possible to live without some of the other things you have mentioned - but if a person does not have enough food, they will starve to death. Naturally, the prices of many other things will also vary between countries & have a bearing on the overall cost of living - but one of the most basic is food. And that is what the above video is about - which is why we are discussing it also in the comments here.
    2
  451. Even with it "switched off", it can still hear things - just like an iPhone will continue to track you - even when you switch it off. Because when switched off, the iPhone behaves like an Airtag - which is a tracking device.
    2
  452.  @tonysheerness2427  The "tracking" as such, is not quite so much of a concern with something like an Alexa speaker. What would be more of a concern with that type of device, is that it may well be listening to everything everyone is saying, even when turned off. Tracking is much more of an issue with something like a mobile phone (where it's very hard to get away from tracking), because people obviously take their mobile phones with them almost everywhere they go. There is tracking to a more limited extent on things like computers (home computers, laptops etc) - through the IP addresses of computers. But the IP addresses of computers can often be disguised through using a Virtual Private Network (VPN).
    2
  453.  @tonysheerness2427  Absolutely Google does - & Apple is even worse. Even when an iPhone is switched off, it still acts like an Airtag & is tracking you 24/7. At least when a Google Android phone is switched off, it's not tracking you, & you can in part avoid Google tracking on a computer by using a VPN.
    2
  454. E-scooters are probably more of a problem in my city - & their riders are rarely compliant with the law. Often there are 2 people riding one scooter (illegal - there's only meant to be one person riding each scooter!), often either 1 or both of the riders are not wearing helmets (illegal!), often they are riding on the road (illegal - except for in an emergency situation), & often they are exceeding the speed limit for the area in which they are riding (illegal!). Whilst the rider/hirer is automatically insured when riding the e-scooter, it will not pay out if the rider is not compliant with the law - which is most of the time & would be easy to prove with all the security cameras around the city. So I suspect that those insurance policies have rarely had to pay out. The trouble is, the scooter riding is not adequately policed/monitored. But given that so many of them are breaking the law - if they were being properly policed, & issuing the appropriate fines for all the various offences (usually the fine is about 50 pounds for each offence, I think) - it would generate a huge amount of income for the city, in addition to making the CBD a safer place. So I cannot understand why the city does not employ at least a couple of enforcement officers to go around the CBD fining all the non-compliant e-scooter riders for these offences - as they would more than recoup the cost of their wages in a very short space of time & the city would benefit from all that extra income generated.
    2
  455. I don't think any apology at all was warranted. Enquiring about a person's ethnic origins is not racist - but by Ngozi immediately taking her claims of racism to all the media etc, public damage was done to the reputation of Lady Hussey & she lost her job as a result of Ngozi's racism claims. So, thank goodness many people in the media also castigated Ngozi for her false claims of racism, & also, thank goodness that her charity is now being investigated. I for one, certainly will never be making any donation to her charity, & neither will many others, I am sure. And Charles has now proven what a weak king he is - & Mistress Camilla is certainly no better. All 3 of them (including Ngozi) really do need to spend a bit of time looking up the correct meaning of the word "racism" in the Oxford English Dictionary. If they do that, they will find that racism is certainly NOT asking someone about their ethnic origins, out of curiosity.
    2
  456. I think Meghan is one of those kinds of people (& I cannot think of the exact word for it) who wants to keep herself & Harry all to themselves & isolate themselves & cut themselves off completely from anyone else, so they live in their own little bubble. Meghan has already succeeded in cutting herself off from her own family - her father & siblings (except for her mother perhaps), & now she wants Harry to cut himself off from his own family, so that she can have him all to herself & control him & his life. In a way, it's a kind of spousal abuse. Unfortunately, I don't think their marriage relationship will last very long. I think Meghan is obviously the dominant one in their relationship & once she has finished using Harry for her own ends & has gotten what she herself wants from the relationship, she will dump Harry. She will probably divorce him & get as much money as she can from him. Then what will Harry do - he can't very well go back to the UK after the British public by now hate him, & he has severed all ties with his own blood family in the UK. But at the same time, I cannot work up any pity for him in that situation either - because by then he will have made his own bed, & he has to also learn to lie in it now. I really think that Meghan, from day one, had no intention whatsoever of remaining in the UK long-term, after she married Harry. I think she understood that they would be able to make a lot of money by commercialising/cashing in on their status as members of the royal family, & getting paid a lot of money for that. They could, in effect, become very wealthy celebrities in the US or Canada. Contrast that with being provided a place to live (that you don't actually own) & being paid a more modest allowance for being a working member of the royal family in the UK. Meghan wanted the big money & the Hollywood-style celebrity status that only the US or Canada could have offered.
    2
  457. And hopefully you won't ever need blood/blood products yourself. If you ever do have a need for that, it may be difficult if you have a rare blood type.
    2
  458. The subjects themselves do not appear to be lodging any objections - they probably think it's good publicity. Really, anyone at all could be taking their photo from afar using a long distance lense, & the people would never know it.
    2
  459. Such leave obviously should not just be extended to indigenous bank staff - but to anyone & everyone who supported the "yes" vote at the referendum - after all - they are ALL suffering so much disappointment! Honestly - next thing you know, the Australian banks will be wasting everyone's money providing their staff with "paid cultural leave" every time their chosen political party does not win an election. Everyone will be expected to feel sorry for them & their "heartfelt trauma" - for which they will require plenty of "paid leave" to recover, after every election. Clearly - it seems that many people are just not happy with the democratic way in which our country's government operates.
    2
  460. Liberty: I think many people ARE getting mad at what is happening - & they're not simply being "docile and compliant". The problem is, as was indicated in the above video - that the views of these people are being banned/blocked/cancelled/silenced by the mainstream media - so most people are not getting to hear about these views.
    2
  461. With all the changes & clamp-downs said to have been happening in China in more recent times likely to be having an effect on the lives of foreigners presently resident in China - I'm wondering whether the presenter will at some stage end up leaving China & moving elsewhere. But the question then becomes - where would he move to? Given that he moved from South Africa to China & seems to like living in China, but does not appear to be enamoured of South Africa as a place to live any more - I am wondering whether he may have any other options, other than to return to South Africa, since he is probably a South African citizen. Unless one has particular specialised skills which may be in demand in those countries - moving permanently to another English-speaking country as a resident or citizen, may be difficult. Countries like the USA or Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc as I understand it are now quite strict with their immigration requirements - even though it may be relatively easy to get a tourist visa to stay in those countries for a short period of time. Of course, if either of his parents were actually born in the UK, & they are also British citizens, he may be able to claim British citizenship & a British passport & go to the UK to live - though usually that entitlement does not extend to the grandchildren of British-born people. However, the grandchildren of British-born people may be able to get a special visa in their passport of their existing country of nationality, which would enable them to stay in the UK without any time restriction placed on them by the UK immigration authorities, & which would also allow them to work whilst in the UK. On a normal tourist visa to the UK, the amount of time one can spend there is generally restricted, & employment/working there is also generally prohibited.
    2
  462.  @frant.8768  Yes - quite surprisingly I saw very little news coverage in my own country about the fact that it was the 30th anniversary of the TSM. Maybe a lot of western countries are too concerned about upsetting China to give it much coverage in the media - or maybe people just have not remembered it - which is a little sad I feel. Most English speaking western countries do have very tight immigration controls these days, but as you indicated, the presenter of the above video could try other countries where the immigration controls are not so strict - even if it may not be an English-speaking country.
    2
  463.  @ReeseL4D  I think that if everyone (people/countries) adopted that attitude of "my country is not bad, because other countries are worse" - no people or countries would strive to improve themselves - & as a result, they would remain as 3rd world countries. But instead of looking for other countries where things are worse & comparing themselves to those countries - why not look for other countries that are doing things much better? Why not look to those much better countries & say "we want to be like THAT country". Aim high - not low - that is the only way that countries like China will improve, I believe. Also, I agree that communist countries are some of the worst when it comes to corruption in government etc. They claim that everyone is supposed to be equal under communism & there are no "elite" people. But in reality, the people at the top levels of the communist party are the "elite" - & they live like kings, compared with most of their country's citizens, who are usually quite poor.
    2
  464. The thought police have been alive & well in the UK for many years now - it's just that their actions have not always attracted a lot of publicity - especially against lesser-known people who may not be as much in the public eye. A number of years ago, police paid a home visit to a person because they had made a comment/post on a social media site, which included a quote of something another commenter had previously said. Apparently, someone found that quote offensive, & reported the person who had quoted it in their post (not the person who had originally posted it) to the police - as they obviously did not like it for some reason. This resulted in the police visiting the person in their home, & questioning them about their post. Amongst the things which the police said to the person was " we're just here to make sure your "thinking" is correct". This demonstrates that the UK police believe part of their role is to monitor/police people's thoughts, in addition to anything they may say/write in social media. I just hope that it's eventually made clear to the police that they should not be trying to police people's thoughts, or arresting them for "wrong thinking". How can they sufficiently prove, in a court of law, that someone's "thinking" was not correct, if they have not also stated it out loud, or put it into writing? Or were these police officers just a couple of "rogue" police - a case of "police gone bad"? I can't recall what ultimately came of that situation, but fortunately the person did manage to capture most of that police encounter in an audio recording.
    2
  465. Trust those ning-nong stupid British police to do something like that! There was even an incident a couple of years ago that was quite well publicised at the time - when those stupid British police even paid a visit to the home of a man who had re-posted a comment on social media, that someone had taken offence to. Someone had reported to the police the guy who had re-posted the comment (NOT the original poster of the comment) & the police then visited the guy at his home, advising him that they were there, to make sure his "thinking" was correct! Yes - it seems the "thought police" are very much alive & well in the UK, & in the British police force. What a joke those British police are! You wonder where on earth the British authorities manage to dig up such a bunch of idiots! Oh what a lov-e-ly bunch of idiots - see them all a-standing in a row! Those police themselves should be arrested for their "hate crimes" against the British public - they need to be sacked & sued - I wouldn't waste a bullet on them.
    2
  466. As always - all very good & useful information to know.
    2
  467. That's such a shame that he's not so well recognised in his own country...I do hope he will recover...praying for a miracle for Pele...
    2
  468. If Meghan Markle feels "victimised" because her half-sister is pursuing a lawsuit against her - then what about those people & organisations that Meghan herself has "victimised" by taking legal action against them, over relatively minor matters - & then proceeding to not tell the truth about those matters in court? Do those people/organisations that Meghan herself has "victimised" simply not count, because unlike Meghan, they are not married to a member of the British royal family?
    2
  469. It looks like a very nice holiday resort!
    2
  470. I have a BraX2 de-Googled phone - for which here have already been a number of over the air updates of the Operating System (BraxOS). In terms of updating the apps on the phone - there are a number of sources/sites from which one can download & install apps on the phone & those same sources/sites also provide updates for the apps on a regular basis.
    2
  471.  @ehtashamhakeem4057  I guess when someone is trying to kill you - it's probably hard not to have negative feelings towards them. If that is what you call "bigotry" - then it's an incorrect use of the word. Bigotry is having a prejudice or discrimination against someone for no apparent or justifiable reason. But if someone is trying to kill you - then I would say that is a justifiable reason not to like them.
    2
  472. Absolutely right - they do not go together, as homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. Islam prescribes very severe punishments for Muslims found to be practising homosexuals.
    2
  473. I do think our leaders who find it difficult actually wishing people "Merry Christmas" in their supposed "Christmas messages", need to be called out & "named & shamed" as being the hypocrites that they truly are. It seems they are prepared to tolerate every other religion except Christianity - when it is probably the more forgiving & loving out of all the world's religions. So these people who are afraid to utter the word "Christmas" really do need to be called out. Or perhaps people need to start making up new swear words & using the words "Muhammad" & "Allah" as swear words instead of using Christian words as swear words.
    2
  474. I wonder what would have happened if that TV program had made fun of & publicly mocked the religion of Islam & Mohammed? After all - Islam certainly has some very strange beliefs & doctrines - & anyone only has to read the Quran & hadiths to know that. In fact, I would say there is far more potential for mocking the beliefs & doctrines of Islam, that there is for Christianity. Mohammed & Islam came along 300 - 400 years after Christianity, yet it tells a somewhat different story about Jesus, for some reason. As for Mohammed - anyone who reads the Quran & hadiths would know that he did some rather bad things.
    2
  475. Fatima Payman is a total drongo dog of a being, who needs to look up the true meaning of the word "racism" in any decent dictionary. Unfortunately, she is way too stupid to do that. She should have to abide by the same rules as all other politicians, when it comes to dual citizenship issues, & that is not racism.
    2
  476.  @jwsuicides8095  The answer which most adherents of Islam will give you, to account for the fact that Muhammad married a 6 year old girl - is that that was just the way things were back in those days. A Muslim will say that back in those days it was perfectly normal for a much older man to marry such a young girl. So they see nothing wrong with that at all. And they still believe that Muhammad has set a perfect example for all Muslims to follow.
    2
  477. Oh what a "loverly" bunch of idiots those councils are! See them all a-standing in a row!
    2
  478. Maybe the best thing the royal family can possibly do in these circumstances is to completely ignore Harry & Meghan, as though they did not even exist - as though they are "nobodies" - completely unimportant people in the grander scheme of things - thus pointing out the royal family have far better things to spend their time on, than on completely unfounded allegations & without any hard evidence at all. But even if the royal family do not respond - you can bet the British public WILL respond on their behalf & make their own views known about the situation with Harry & Meghan.
    2
  479.  @Bubblebang5  Yes of course, one size does not necessarily fit everyone. And that's why it's important for each person to first seek personalised medical advice from their doctor. In my area, some doctors were still available for "tele-health" consults when they could not be seen in person, during the height of the pandemic restrictions.
    2
  480. It's also being hypocritical, if they then expect Australians to patronise their stores.
    2
  481. @michaelscarport There's nothing hypocritical about it. People are entitled to buy from stores which are selling the products they want - it's as simple as that. And if that means changing their minds more than once, after they find out more than one store is no longer selling the products they want - that's not being hypocritical - it's just an example of a buyer's market. And not all Australia Day merchandise is rubbish. Many people keep that type of merchandise they buy, & use those same items every year - in addition to purchasing some new items.
    2
  482. Then don't send your child to school at all. Just keep them at home & home school them. That will solve this issue for you.
    2
  483. If a person of colour needs to leave the BBC to have an opinion, but Gary Lineker does not - does that mean the BBC is racist & discriminatory? Of course it does!
    2
  484. These days, most people are more or less forced to have some kind of a bank account for their pay/salary to be deposited into, or their government benefits to be paid in to. So it would make life very difficult for people indeed if they were prevented from having a bank account - which is yet another reason why we should not go down the road of a truly "cashless" society - because some people who are refused the opportunity to have a bank account, will definitely need to operate on a "cash only" basis. Perhaps another way around this recent tendency for banks to close people's accounts on the basis of their political or religious beliefs, is for the government to legislate that in order to continue to hold a banking licence, banks are not allowed to discriminate against customers or potential customers on the basis of their political/religious beliefs. If a bank does not permit a customer or potential customer to operate a bank account with them, they will need to provide the reasons for that in writing, so that legal action can then be taken against that bank, if appropriate. Another possible solution might be that the government may then be forced to establish its own, government owned & operated bank, to accommodate all those people who have been refused accounts by all the other banks within the banking system. But it does surprise me that one of the reasons Coutts gave for closing Farage's account was his stated political views & associations, which it claimed could damage the bank's public reputation, because those views apparently went against the bank's "diversity" policy, & when people fund out that Coutts allowed Farage to have a bank account with them, it would not be a good look for the bank. The obvious point to be made here is - how is the public even going to find out that Farage has a bank account with Coutts? Isn't the bank obliged to keep all their customer's information private & confidential? So surely the only way the public could possibly find out that Farage has a bank account with Coutts, is if Farage makes it publicly known himself, that he has a bank account with Coutts. The mind just boggles at the actions taken by Coutts in this whole fiasco & their dishonesty in the process as well. It is probably one very good reason why anyone & everyone who presently has an account with Coutts, should immediately rush in & close all their accounts (& take their business elsewhere), before those little buggers at Coutts close the accounts for you!
    2
  485. These 2 people are totally filthy, disgusting & sickening people.
    2
  486. Unfortunately in Australia, there is no death penalty, & generally speaking, prison sentences for murder are much less than they would be in the USA. There is also no such thing as a prison sentence without the possibility of parole & a so-called "life sentence" for murder is considered to be 25 - 30 years at most. And if there are multiple charges & multiple sentences, the sentences are usually served concurrently rather than consecutively - so you don't tend to get, say, the 150 year prison terms that the USA has, where prison sentences are often served consecutively. So, as far as Australia is concerned, a minimum of 18 years & maximum of 26 years in prison is not a bad penalty for murder. But I still wish the penalty was more than that.
    2
  487.  @hugoe606  Indeed he is! He is a legend because every country which has followed his doctrines has failed miserably, & has the masses living in abject poverty - while an elite few prosper.
    2
  488. @@lkjlkj-gx1gx Yes - that's because the idealogy of Islam is obviously based on the teachings in the Quran & hadiths - & that can never be changed, because it is claimed that the Quran is the literal word of god as dictated to & written down by Muhammad. And what mere mortal would dare to change the literal word of god?
    2
  489. Harlesden.
    2
  490. 1, 2, 3, 4, boot Hamas right out the door... 5, 6, 7, 8, Islam is just full of hate ... You should see all the books & TV shows produced by Hamas for the children of Gaza, to indoctrinate them to believe from birth that Israel & Jews are their enemies! Sounds like someone brought some of that material back with them from a recent trip to the middle east, & are now using it to indoctrinate Australian children.
    2
  491. Even if a special exception is made so that Harry is now allowed to wear military uniform at the grandchildren's vigil at the Queen's coffin - it will certainly not change his attitude towards his family, nor stop him from being publicly critical of them or exposing them in his supposedly "tell all" book. So from the royal family's point of view, nothing at all will be gained from Harry by making that special exception for him - because he will in no way show his gratefulness for it. And as the majority of the other grandchildren at that vigil will not be in military uniform either (except for William) - there really seems to be very little point in going to all that trouble of making a special exception for him so he wear his uniform at that event.
    2
  492. Who wants to watch those Olympic games anyway, after that digusting opening ceremony.
    2
  493. Even if that's the case - one cannot overlook the fact that the whole reason for the celebration & the public holiday in particular, is the religious celebration of the birth of Christ. For those who are not Christian, it would be pointless & perhaps hypocritical having a public holiday for something in which they do not believe. So often, people & society are saying that Christians are hypocritical & Christianity should be done away with. But what about about those non-Christians who seem happy to have the days off at Christmas & Easter, without believing in the very reason for those holidays? Aren't they hypocritical too? So why not just cancel all the public holidays associated with Christianity like Christmas & Easter? People who still wanted to celebrate those occasions in their own way (even if they are not Christian) could still do it (just without the public holidays). People who are genuine practising Christians, could apply to their employer to have those days off as paid religious/holy days of obligation, if they provide a supporting letter from their church priest/minister. If people claim to be Christian, but are not a member of a church &/or attend church regularly - then their religion is probably not important enough to them, to avail of the holiday in any case.
    2
  494. The problem is, refusing to deal with them is not likely to stop/avoid any prosecution - which may still proceed, whether you talk to them or not.
    2
  495.  @markpaul1154  Yes of course they need to know who the person is, in order to prosecute them - but in many cases, that information is not too difficult to ascertain from other sources - like property ownership & rental records, electoral rolls & so on. So simply not talking to the person who knocks at your door may not end up being much help. And when the legislation requires that the inspectors should be provided with reasonable assistance - it makes the person look like they're being obstructive & not helpful.
    2
  496.  @markpaul1154  I'm not interpreting the legislation at all - in fact, I've barely read the legislation myself. All I've done is watch the above video, & re-iterate in my comment, what was said in the above video - the content of which is offered on this channel as legal guidance. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. But if you do not wish to believe or agree with what was stated in the above video - that is your prerogative & is entirely up to you. And since your disagreement is really with what was stated in the above video - you should therefore post a comment directly to the content creator - to let them know that you do not agree with what was stated in their video. Your disagreement is really with them - not with me - since I was only stating what was said in the above video. I hope you can understand that.
    2
  497.  @alphanov2009  Yes - as mentioned in my earlier comments, I am actually aware that the reasonable assistance is only a requirement with a warrant & that even with a warrant they cannot enter when there's no-one at home.
    2
  498. He's actually just been ordained a "Deacon" in the church - the first step towards later being ordained a priest. So not quite a fully-fledged priest as yet. He will probably be ordained a priest in about 12 months time.
    2
  499. Maybe we should also be making our disgust known to the sponsors of these Paris Olympics, & letting them know we will also be boycotting their products & services, in addition to boycotting the games.
    2
  500.  @raoulmoat6762  I'm not sure how you managed to ascertain all that simply from my very brief comment above - where I made absolutely no reference to iphones, & in fact, I have never even owned an iphone. The majority of regular viewers of this YouTube channel are probably are not iphone users either - due to massive privacy concerns with iphones, which are related to their ability to track the owner 24/7 - even when the iphones are turned off. The reality is, this YouTube channel is largely concerned with privacy issues, as they relate to computer & mobile phone usage in general - & for that reason, it's definitely not a fan of iphones at all.
    2
  501.  @raoulmoat6762  You or anyone else would have absolutely no idea whether I own an iphone or not. I will say again for those who are hard of hearing - I do not, & have never, owned an iphone. You are only making yourself look silly with such comments.
    2
  502.  @raoulmoat6762  Based on my original & very brief 3 sentence comment on the above video - you would have absolutely no idea what kind of person I am. I don't know how many times you need to be told - but there is no iphone in my hand.
    2
  503.  @raoulmoat6762  Cheers! If only we had an iPhone between the very real lot of us, that we could actually use! Since none of us have an iPhone - I guess we'll just have to continue singing that song we made up about you - & when it makes a lot of money for us on the pop charts - we'll obviously have you to thank for that. Since you've referred to me at least twice as a "disgusting person" & at least once as a "numbskull" in your posts, we've also managed to use some very original & imaginative words for you in our song as well - which I'm sure you will appreciate. Cheers again!
    2
  504. Does that mean that no-one should allow themselves to be interviewed about anything at all, while on holiday overseas? That sounds a bit over the top. It means celebrities on holiday overseas cannot give interviews - yet many obviously do - & without getting arrested & charged...
    2
  505.  @JasperDaniels-w5f  I think it's simply a well-known fact that the vast majority of people who had the vaccination, suffered no ill effects whatsoever. Of course, that's not to say that no-one suffered any ill effects. There are some well-known risks associated with ALL vaccinations - not just the Covid vaccination. And that's why it's important for everyone to seek medical advice from their own doctor first - to assess their personal suitability for any vaccination that may become available - based on their own personal health situation & any known medical conditions they may have.
    2
  506. It's actually revealed in one of these episodes that this family is Palestinian Christian - though the mother said that she considered herself Palestinian first & Christian second. I was actually surprised when the mother mentioned her family was Christian - because in one of the classroom scenes with her pupils, she seems to be teaching them about the prophet Mohammed - but she may have only been doing that because it was a Palestinian/Muslim school.
    2
  507. The rubbish collector & his family/children were Jews - & while it was not made clear where he himself was born - judging by the length of time he later indicated he had been doing that job - the majority of his 7 children would have been born in Israel. There are also a lot of children born in Israel to ultra-orthodox Jewish families, who are very privacy-conscious & media-shy - so obviously would not have agreed to be filmed for this documentary.
    2
  508.  @domari9459  I guess the point I was trying to make was that the mechanism already exists to enforce no censorship, because the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc have declared themselves to be "platforms" rather than "publishers" (where they would have to accept legal liability fo whatever comments appeared on their sites). But no-one is enforcing that lack of censorship. So something else obviously needs to be done. They obviously declared themselves "platforms" in the first place, because they did not want to accept legal liability for things which people might post on their sites, & did not want to be sued for those things. But if they want to censor content as well - they should just accept that legal liability & then they would be able to censor content to their heart's content, & have a legitimate excuse, on the grounds of legal liability. But big tech obviously wants to "have it both ways" - which is not right. As to your solution of having some more powerful competitors - it may be a very long time before that happens.
    2
  509. Each to his own - everyone has their own unique set of skills, talents, experience & other things which make them happy & feel as though they are doing something which will help others & help the world etc. Many people who leave a religion because they no longer believe in it, or believe its teachings are bad or false - also have a desire to warn others against falling into the same trap of believing in that religion. That's just natural & to be expected. And if followers of Islam are presently allowed to promote their religion in the public space, why should others not also be allowed to preach against Islam in the public space? Could not those same people who are actively & publicly promoting their religion also be doing other/better things like papier mache & origami etc?
    2
  510. I always thought that some media outlets were "making a little too much of" the content of Dame Caroline Dinenage's letter to the likes of Rumble & Tik Tok - more or less implying that the letter was trying to exert pressure on the social media sites to de-monetise Brand's channels with them. I did not think that was what the wording of the letter specifically stated - so took it all with a grain of salt. I just saw the requests as asking the platforms what their intentions were regarding Brand's channels with them. I do not know whether YouTube had also received a similar letter from the Parliamentary Committee - but to the best of my knowledge YouTube de-monetised Brand's channel before those letters started going out. In any case - of all the social media sites out there - YouTube was probably one of the largest & one of the most likely to take some sort of action on its own against Brand, as they are fairly good at censoring channels if they do not approve of content, or do not like what someone has done. As to Brand's claims that the aim of the TNI was to shut down channels "like his" - if you watch a couple of his subsequent videos, it becomes slightly clearer (at least to me), that it seems to be a general reference to what he has elsewhere referred to as "independent news services", that are not a part of the TNI - but would obviously include Brand's channels & others like it. While it might be the TNI's aim to get rid of "misinformation" - I would much rather be able to access all information & determine for myself what I want to believe - as sometimes so-called "misinformation", has later been proven to be true. Just taking a quick look at Brand's YouTube & Rumble channels - it appears that in the short time since the allegations were made public - he is now more popular than ever. His subscriber numbers on both channels have significantly increased, as have the number of views of his videos. The 3 or 4 videos he has released since the allegations came out & which have been posted on both Rumble & YouTube, have had record numbers of views - significantly more views than the videos he put out prior to the allegations. I'm not a huge fan of the on-line safety bill - as while its stated intentions may on the surface appear to be good - I can see that it does have the potential to enable things like pre-encryption ("client-side") scanning using device-based technology. Once the technology is there & activated, it will not be possible to "restrict" its use to illegal material only - as it will clearly be able to scan for any kind of material at all, & it will obviously have to scan all the material on the phone in order to detect any illegal material. In the process of doing that, it could identify other material which is not illegal - but may for example, give an indication of a person's political/religious views with which many people may disagree & which could potentially be used against a person. So I believe that to be privacy invasive. Fortunately & personally, I have a way of getting around that by not using a standard Google Android phone or iPhone - as both of these types of phones will usually require the user to "log in" to Google or Apple to identify themselves, in order to use the phone. I use a customised non-Google Android phone, which does not require me to identify myself by firstly logging in anywhere, in order to use the phone. So my phone has no "identity" or cannot be identified as belonging to me. So if my phone were able to be scanned - without knowing to whom the phone belonged, that information would not be of much use to anyone. In any case, I do not store photos or other important material on the phone & try to use app-based messaging services rather than SIM-based phone calls & text messages & mobile data, which is more trace-able using the IMEI's etc. But I do recognise that most mobile phone users will be able to be readily identified, because they will be logged in to either Google or Apple on their phones - so any scanned material on their phone will be able to be matched to them - & unfortunately they will be the ones who could potentially become victims of such privacy invasive technology. @janburn007
    2
  511. I feel so sorry for India as a developing country, having developed this really bad international reputation as being the sole source of these tech support style scams. But at the same time, it probably does generate a huge income for the country, to the point where the government may well be reluctant to take strong action to stop it. Yet, having given such a bad name to Indian businesses, & creating the impression that most Indians are just scam artists, foreign businesses will be extremely reluctant to invest in India - & that cannot be good for the Indian government. Yet there will also come a time, I am sure, when these types of scams will have run their course, & everyone will know about them & not be so vulnerable. So it will become increasingly difficult for these types of scams to make much money. In the meantime, I believe what all good governments should be doing (the Indian government included), is take out regular & frequent paid advertisements alerting the public to the very latest telephone & on-line scams - as well as posting about them on their web sites. They should also run education campaigns on TV about phone & on-line scams in general & what they look like. The best way to prevent these scam-bugs is by people not falling for them in the first place. In fact, I'm rather surprised, after all the publicity these types of scams have already received over the years, that people are still falling for such scams. It's time these scam-bugs were really put out of operation for good - & despite the difficulties posed by cross-border & international issues in on-line scams - you'd think the various international police forces would have some way of co-operating to solve these types of fraud crimes. But in the absence of that, we can at least be thankful that they will at some point, die a natural death. And then where will India be left when that happens? They'll be left with no incoming money from the scam-bugs, & due their international reputation as scamming country, no decent foreign business will want to invest in India.
    2
  512. There's also no statute of limitations on murder & some people have been charged with murder, found guilty & gaoled when they are already quite elderly people - after having managed to evade the law for most of their lifetime & despite now being a changed person. But the law requires that they still pay the penalty for that crime of their youth - no matter how long ago it was & no matter how difficult it may be to prosecute such a case, many years later.
    2
  513.  @PhantomFilmAustralia  I have 3 small "pronoun badges" which I purchased as a bit of a joke/gimmick, just before Christmas. I often wear them - one for each set of pronouns - & I wear them all at once on purpose so as to confuse people & send a very clear message that I don't care what people call me - they can call me anything they like, & unlike some people, I won't be offended!
    2
  514. Thanks for this excellent documentary on the very sad & sorry state of classroom education in the UK. I had no idea it was in quite such a bad way & was going down the gurgler so very fast. I guess the key message here is that unless you want your children to be taught all this complete & utter nonsense - the only real way out of it is to home school your own children, & teach them the values that you want them to have. It's so very sad that the British educational system has come to this, & continues to go downhill so fast.
    2
  515. I've always been fascinated by the way some gay people find the need to openly declare themselves as "gay". Most "straight" people don't go around openly declaring themselves as "straight" - & in fact I do wonder why anyone at all should feel the need to so openly declare their sexuality. I'm also aware that in many Asian countries, it is quite a common thing for good friends of the same gender to wander around holding hands. This was drawn to my attention many years ago when I was in university. A young man from India who was in my group of friends told us that one of the cultural differences he quickly learnt, was not to hold hands (in our country) with his male friends. He explained that back in India it is very common for good friends (of the same gender) to walk around holding hands - but he soon learnt that if people do that in our country, they are recognised as a gay person - & since he wasn't gay, he very quickly learnt not to do that in our country.
    2
  516.  @twisteddancer7773  These Nazi-like women have no excuse for physical violence if no-one is physically attacking them. The British police have become just a bunch of impotent wusses.
    2
  517. Has the Cambridge dictionary also re-defined the word "man" to mean anyone at all who identifies as a man, even though they may have been born a woman - or some similar definition, to more or less match their re-definition of the word "woman"? Surely they cannot re-define the word "woman" without also similarly re-defining the word "man". After all - being a man is just so easy, that any woman can be a man if she wants to! I think that anyone at all, who objects to all this hokery pokery wokery nonsense, should do what the actor Peter Finch did in that movie many years ago (I think the movie was called "Network") - he stuck his head out a window & yelled out "I'm mad as hell & I'm not going to take it any more!" Just imagine if everyone did that on a pre-arranged date & time! And I think there are many many people who are sufficiently "mad as hell" about this sort of nonsense, to do something like that.
    2
  518. Yes - Oprah indeed is an absolutely dreadful interviewer - especially where Markle was involved.
    2
  519.  @teddyj6528  He & his previous wife divorced several years ago. He has since re-married to Mrs Friendly ex-Muslim.
    2
  520. @teddyj6528  Yes - that's right - he had 5 sons with his previous wife.
    2
  521.  @tanengliang2749  The other thing I forgot to mention is that the person who asked the questions/made the comments - Lady Hussey - is not actually a "senior member" of the royal family at all. When the press put that headline in some of their articles about this matter - I think they were just using it as "click bait" more or less, to get more people to read it. Lady Hussey is just a member of the royal "household" - an employee who works for the royal family, & who actually worked for the Queen for many years as a loyal employee. She has the title of "Lady" - because she was either born into an aristocratic family, or the Queen may have bestowed that title on her for her many years of loyal service to the Queen. So Lady Hussey is not actually a member of the royal family at all - let alone a "senior royal" - she is simply an employee working for the royal family, in the royal household.
    2
  522. And this stupid mother had the cheek to sue the zoo, even though her child's death was solely her own fault. These days it's very common for people not to want to accept responsibility for their own negligent actions. They always have to find someone else to blame & sue them for a lot of money, so as to be able to profit from their own stupidity. Yes, it seems that these days, "being stupid" can become a very profitable business, under the right circumstances. And this mother was obviously way too stupid & way too illiterate to be able to see the zoo's warning signs, & to be able to read them.
    2
  523. The religion of Islam teaches/preaches against dogs - so maybe they are trying to make some areas more Islam/Muslim-friendly, by making them dog-free areas. It's just a pity they don't do the same for things which are offensive to Christians, by declaring certain areas "free" of those things. After all, Christianity is still the largest single religion in the UK, so many more people are being offended by such things, than those few who may be offended by dogs.
    2
  524. It is "Gab" - a private social media platform which WAS allowing free speech on-line.
    2
  525. In my country, when a "credit check" is done on a potential borrower by a financial institution (ie someone who has applied for a loan/credit card) - the credit checking company used does not give the potential borrower/loan applicant an actual "credit score". The "credit check" information just provides a list of places where the loan applicant has applied for credit over the last 5 - 7 years, & also financial legal information - such as whether the applicant is a bankrupt person, or whether they've had legal proceedings against them for the payment of debts etc. It's usually perceived as a positive sign, if the applicant has not applied to any other places for loans/credit in the last 5 - 7 years - so people have no need to actually borrow money to develop a credit "score", & there's no pressure on people to do so. Also, if a financial institution decides to approve a person's application for a credit card or loan (including home loan), everyone gets the standard interest rate for the particular type of loan/credit product they have applied for. The interest rate applicable to the borrower is not dependent on the applicant's credit check result or any sort of "credit score" (which does not exist in my country). Even though there is no pressure on people to borrow money just to develop a "credit score", the "buy now, pay later" mentality of recent generations & their desire to want everything "now", rather than waiting & saving up to purchase smaller items outright, has encouraged the use of various forms of "credit" - mostly to the benefit of the financial institutions.
    2
  526. But they may not be here yet on a permanent residence visa - it may just be a temporary visa.
    2
  527. Oh what a "loverly" bunch of drongo dogs those guys are. So it's just as well then that I tore down that Palestinian paper flag that some idiot had inserted in a crevice of one of the timetable display boards at a local Canberra bus stop. And I tossed that flag in the nearby bin. And just as well I stuck some Israeli flag stickers over the nonsensical pro-Hamas posters on a light pole near another Canberra bus stop - & I have plenty more of those stickers too! If pro-Hamas supporters can tear down posters of Israeli citizens who were kidnapped by Hamas (& no doubt they are doing that because they don't want it advertised & are embarrassed that Hamas did that) - then they obviously will have no objection to me covering up their posters with Israeli flag stickers & anti-Hamas stickers which say "stop Hamas NOW!".
    2
  528. Nevertheless - Calvin's ordination (as a deacon) in the Free Church of England is still recognised as valid by the established Church of England, even though the Free Church of England is not a member of the official Anglican Communion. When he is eventually ordained as a fully-fledged priest, that ordination into holy orders will also be recognised as valid by the established Church of England. And judging by the number of favourable comments here about Calvin's ordination, I would say that many GB viewers are not sick of listening to his story - in fact, if interviewers keep asking him about it - why should he not continue to tell his story?
    2
  529. The only reason why I ended up with a Google account at all, was when I purchased my first real smartphone about 7 years ago, & had to use Google as part of the set-up for the phone. Before that, I had never really used Google on my computer at all - not even for so much as an internet search - also no Google Chrome & no Gmail account etc. Google still does not have my full/proper name & has minimal personal details about me, & I rarely use it on my computer, except with YouTube. And for some time now, I've been aware of strategies such as browser isolation, which I regularly use - to ensure the information Google has on me remains minimal.
    2
  530. That NFL star's/player's speech was given at a Catholic/Christian university in any case - so naturally, you would expect the content of his speech/address to express conservative & family values in line with the teachings of the church. Otherwise the church probably would not have invited him to give a speech at that university.
    2
  531. Personally, I don't think domestic violence abusers are capable of rehabilitation & there is nothing that can "fix" them, so that they will behave like any normal person. I believe they are all mentally retarded in some way - because their brains are somehow deficient to the point that they simply do not work in the same way as that of any normal, sane, rational & logical human being, who possesses a reasonable amount of common sense. They are also very often 2-faced - having a split personality, where they are often "Mr Perfect Partner" to the outside world (work colleagues, sporting clubs, church groups etc), but on the home front to their partners & children, they become the devil incarnate. This is why sometimes, when these (outside world) groups hear about the man's domestic violence, they can hardly believe it - often standing up for him & taking his side & saying what a nice guy he was & how he "wouldn't hurt a fly". This is one of the reasons why it's so important for the victims to document each & every single incident of abuse by keeping a written record of it in something like a diary. And it's also very important not to keep these things to oneself. At the very least, if they don't want to report it to the police, they should tell several of their close friends what is happening, rather than trying to keep it hidden. Sometimes people are too embarrassed to make others aware of what is happening to them, because for whatever reason, they may want to still present a "happy family" image. But it's always best to let a few good friends know what is really happening - because if something serious does later happen - there is someone else who can tell the story about what the abuser was really like on the home front, & the fact that the abuse had been happening for a very long time (even though not many people may have known about it). Abusers naturally want to always blame someone or something else, for all their abuse & the bad things they do - it is never their own fault. They often want to completely control the victims - when the fact that they will often fly "off the handle" into angry rages over the most trivial of things, tells us that they are not even capable of controlling themselves. How can they honestly expect to control someone else, when they cannot even control themselves? To any sane, normal person, that is just totally irrational. But that is just the way these abusers are - totally irrational & illogical. I would fully support the "naming & shaming" of all domestic violence abusers. I have no problem at all with their photos & names being splashed across all & any forms of media - be it TV, radio, newspapers, the internet etc. I think the more we can publicise who these evil people are - the less people are likely to fall for their "Mr Nice Guy" image & stories - & it will also help to forewarn other women about getting romantically involved with these men. Because once one woman manages to rid herself of this kind of man, the abuser will most certainly then be looking for another partner he can abuse, & he won't be happy until he can convince another woman to be his victim. But by publicising the abuser's name with a photo - hopefully less women will fall for these abusers - no matter how "charming" they may appear.
    2
  532. If a person cheats on someone - then at some point they have to expect that the other person may cheat on them in return. And I wonder how the cheater would feel if that were to happen - would they say fine - I have to expect that, because after all, I cheated on them first. But if infidelity is a sign of unhappiness in the existing relationship - then they should be honest & up front about it by simply breaking up with or divorcing the person, because you cannot expect the victim to want to still be with someone who is simply not capable of being faithful & it sets an extremely bad example for the children of such a relationship. And children should be told about it - because one should never hide such behaviour from children, just so you can make them out to be a better person than they really are. But some people are way too cowardly to break up because of how they believe they may lose out, if the relationship breaks up. For example, they may lose out financially if their partner or spouse was very well off - or they may fear they may never get to see their children (for whom they've set a very bad example as a parent). And sometimes they can also become very resentful later on, if their former partner comes into some money etc. But none of these things should prevent a relationship from breaking up, if one of the parties is unfaithful. Ending the relationship is probably the best thing to do because infidelity is unacceptable & if they've done it once, they will more than likely do it over & over again.
    2
  533. Unfortunately most schools in Australia are not equipped with video surveillance cameras which can capture this sort of behaviour, so the only way it is going to be captured is if people/students film it themselves. It is probably a good thing that some students choose to do this themselves, or there would really be no "hard evidence" that people can then use to lay charges against those involved in these incidents. If the boy who was body-slammed into the ground had been physically & seriously injured, that is what is known as a common assault & he or his family could have pressed charges against the person who injured him, regardless of what alleged "provocation" may have occurred beforehand. Legally, one can only claim "self-defence" using "reasonable force" which is of a nature similar to that used by the perpetrator/injuring party.  For example, if someone provokes you by calling you names, you could "reasonably" respond to that by calling them names in return.  But if you were to respond by physically attacking & injuring them, then that is seen as going beyond "reasonable force" &  therefore illegal/criminal & open to prosecution. In the legal system, children of this age are normally deemed old enough to understand this "self-defence" concept, unless they suffer from some kind of mental impairment that can be certified by a doctor. It really doesn't matter where it happens - an assault is an assault - whether it happens in the schoolyard or on the street. Unfortunately, I think it will take a few of these sorts of criminal prosecutions of schoolyard events, before the message starts to sink into people that this kind of behaviour constitutes a prosecutable offence in the eyes of the law & society generally.
    1
  534. Because I feel like the LGBTI community has sort of stolen the word "gay" & given it a different meaning to what it used to have (meaning happy & carefree), I never use the word "gay" to refer to homosexual people.  I still refer to homosexual people as homosexual, & use the word "gay" to still mean "happy & carefree", as do most of my friends.  I'm not sure where Simon's stated connection of the English word "gay" to the French word "guy" (pronounced as "ghee" in French), if I heard him correctly, comes from.  The French word "guy", can either be a man's proper name (just as in English), or it can also mean "guy" in English.  Perhaps Simon was referring to a much older form of the French language, or perhaps he just did not pronounce the French word properly, & really meant the French word "gaie" (pronounced "gay" in French), which more or less translates as "happy" in English.
    1
  535. I never purchase any food & drink at the cinema anyway (because it's way too expensive) - I always take my own drinks & food with me (after buying them at the nearby supermarket).
    1
  536. I wonder if this means that any one parent (out of a mother & father), who chooses to exclusively speak to their child in their native (but foreign) language, will encounter the same problem, with the child wanting to "discard" that second (foreign)  language at a relatively young age, because the only person speaking the language is them & that parent.  In such a case, I wonder how it is that any child can grow up being bi-lingual.  Is it because both of their parents spoke to them in that foreign language when they were growing up?  Or is it because they were able to interact with many other people who also spoke that foreign language - such as extended family members, or members of a community group based around that ethnicity/culture/language etc.  It seems that despite what that Klingon experiment revealed, many children do still manage to grow up being bi-lingual.
    1
  537. The Bible says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (the Golden Rule).  The husband should start treating the wife in the same manner as she treats him & stand up to her. Maybe it would not hurt to show her that she has plenty of competition out there...
    1
  538. yelspa: ...In some areas, Australia is actually more advanced than the USA. For example, Australia fully adopted the metric system back in the 60's and 70's whereas the USA still uses the imperial system for weights and measures. Australia also introduced compulsory seat belts in cars several years before America had such laws etc. There's a lot of areas like these where the USA is behind Australia and the rest of the world.
    1
  539. Because most of them live in flats/units/apartments, with no large outdoor areas for young children to play in - I think they like to have some large-ish open indoor spaces where their young children can play.
    1
  540. OzzieKFC: Next thing you know, the Americans will be telling the New Zealanders they can't call their rugby team "The All-Blacks". Well, even though they are a much smaller country than Australia, at least the Kiwis know how to stand up to the Yanks better than Australia - and good on them.
    1
  541. ​At his coronation, the vow that Charles actually made was to be the "Defender of The Faith" - & he needs to honour that vow. He may like to think of himself as the defender of the faiths - but he never made any such vow at his coronation.
    1
  542. Obviously the restaurant would have no way of knowing whether people are vaccinated or not, without requesting them to show some proof of vaccination, together with some ID if necessary, to ensure the proof of vaccination belonged to them. They probably would not just be willing to take people's word for it that they had been vaccinated. If they only wanted vaccinated people/diners in their restaurant, then that would be the only way to ensure it - by asking for proof. Without asking for such proof, they may get a lot of unvaccinated people/diners in the restaurant, whom they believe will place others there at risk of contracting COVID (other unvaccinated diners). Not everyone experiences only mild COVID symptoms & some people do die from COVID (& not just elderly people, or those with other pre-existing health conditions). So one can never know for sure ahead of time, how seriously any particular person might be affected if they contract COVID. Some restaurants may be afraid that diners can take legal action against them, if it can be proven they contracted COVID at their restaurant, from other diners. If the restaurant is insisting that all diners be vaccinated, one can also probably assume that they would require all their staff to be vaccinated, to largely eliminate the risk of diners claiming that they contracted COVID from one of the restaurant's staff. It might also largely eliminate the risk that staff could claim they contracted COVID from having to serve unvaccinated diners. While I firmly believe that everyone should have the freedom of choice to be vaccinated or not - the USA can be a very litigious country/society - so I can understand some businesses wanting to exercise caution for fear of legal action. And even though COVID itself may well never fully disappear, I believe that the restrictions in the community associated with the virus (mask wearing, social distancing, vaccination, movement restrictions etc) will eventually be eased by the local/state/national governments.
    1
  543. TonyCheekyful: In my original comment, I was just trying to point out some Australian "rock" artists who were also very well known internationally, rather than just in Australia (for the benefit of our American friends). John Paul Young was very popular in Australia for many years, and had a lot of Australian hits, but as far as I know, most of his songs weren't that well-known overseas, except for maybe one, which was the theme song for "Strictly Ballroom". Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    1
  544. Douglas1102: I also don't believe that KFC removed the ad because they were sensitive to people who found it offensive or thought it was racist. The reason they removed it was purely for their own financial reasons - so they didn't lose business. If they were truly sensitive to peoples' feelings they would have removed it even if only a handful of people said they were offended. It was just a commercial decision.
    1
  545. Thanks very much for that very important message. For a long time now, I've also refused to utter that Americanism of "Happy holidays" at Christmas time - & I always think of Christmas as a "holy-day". Why should Christians be pressured into hiding their beliefs/teachings just because some people think that others may be offended by those words? I also don't see too many other people amending their own language around me, to avoid offending me, as a practising Christian. In some ways, it's almost laughable, that in predominantly western Christian countries, the only people being discriminated against or being pressured to hide their true beliefs so as not to offend others - are practising Christians. On the other hand, people of other religions are not pressured at at all, & many people go out of their way to be accommodating to them. Would that it were so for Christians as well. I can certainly have respect for people of other faiths, as individuals - in the same way that I might have respect for any good decent & good person. But that does not mean to say that I would necessarily have respect for the religion that they follow, because for me, Christianity is the true faith. And God bless Calvin Robinson for speaking up & out for the Christian faith.
    1
  546. Those people holding "queers for Palestine" signs would be thrown off a rooftop the minute they arrived in Palestine. That just shows how truly stupid those "queers for Palestine" people really are. And that Cornell university professor who felt energised by the Hamas attack on Israel - if his own daughters had been attacked & assaulted & raped by the members of Hamas - would he still be so exhilarated & energised?
    1
  547. Places consecrated for Christian worship - like churches & cathedrals, have no business hosting official Islamic events/celebrations, or indeed those of any other religion. It is sacrilegious. Muhammad was a terrible man in so many ways. Sacred Christian buildings should not be profaned by using them for such a purpose. Diversity is a one-way street for Muslims - I'm sure they would never invite Christians to celebrate important Christian festivals in their mosques. I wish the Archbishop of Canterbury would prevent churches being used for this purpose. He needs to stop being so weak-kneed & stand up for the Christian faith, as head of the Church.
    1
  548. American racial stereotypes are just that - American. Most of the world has no knowledge of them, nor would it want them, nor does it care about them. The only people being racist here are yourselves, because you insist on perpetuating these stereotypes, by telling everyone!
    1
  549.  @Wrinklyanimegod  There's really no such thing as an innate or inherent morality - where people will automatically just "know", what the good & correct thing is to do. If people find out that god is not real - no, they won't suddenly start raping, murdering, thieving etc - because whether one believes in a god or not - the current laws in most western democracies state that it is illegal to do these things, & people will be punished for doing these things. However, the very reason those laws exist in the first place. is because those laws of most western democracies were originally based on Christianity & the Bible (the Ten Commandments & other teachings of the BIble). And although for many years now there has been a separation of church & state in the west, we've also now had over 2000 years of Christian indoctrination in the west - where it's been continually driven home to us that all these things are wrong - so it's very hard now for most people in the west to comprehend that any of these things could ever have been considered "not wrong". But if Christianity & the Bible had never existed - I venture to add that our western society may look very different to what it does today - with no Biblical teachings & Ten Commandments etc to guide its moral values down through the ages & tell them what is "right" & "wrong". I once had a university student tell me that all religion is evil, & that "everyone automatically knows that things like rape & murder are just wrong" - so we don't need religion. I pointed out to him why I disagreed with his statement & said that, had it not been for the last 2000 years or so of Christian indoctrination, we may be living in a completely different society, with a completely different set of moral values to those we have now. It may well have been a case of just "survival of the fittest" (ie the law of the jungle), had it not been for those 2000 years of Christian indoctrination of our society. Some people would say that's an indication that religion & Christianity is not entirely evil after all - if it still has what is now perceived to be a "positive" impact on our society after 2000 years or so - because many of those concepts concerning morality etc, have not changed in the last 2000 years.
    1
  550.  @eragon1378  When civilian people - even children - are killed as a result of collateral damage during times of war - it is not "genocide". No-one shouted "genocide!" or was accused of genocide when the UK & the allies bombed the life out of Dresden in WW II. In all wars to date there have been many civilian deaths & casualties - all collateral damage of war time activities. And where the opposition forces are breaching the Geneva Convention by basing many of their war activities in civilian installations such as schools, hospitals & religious centres (ie mosques, synagogues, churches etc) - then it is NOT a "war crime" to fire on such buildings. And the IDF are even going "above & beyond" the requirements by forewarning the Palestinians that such buildings are being targeted, & giving them a chance to evacuate. Unfortunately though, because of Hamas' desire to use civilian Palestinians as human shields during such times of war - they are stopping Palestinians from leaving those areas & they are therefore often responsible for the deaths of their own civilians - having used them as human shields. So the responsibility for many Palestinian civilian deaths & injuries lies with Hamas & not Israel.
    1
  551.  @alisonjmiller5339  There can be no such things as a "gay Muslim", as the religion of Islam forbids homosexuality & prescribes very severe punishments for any Muslim found to be homosexual. That is why many of them try to hide the fact that they are homosexual.
    1
  552. The mothers could always go with them if they wanted to - back to their home country - but many prefer to remain in Israel working for their employer. It's a choice they need to make, & one which they would have been aware of at the outset, as part of the terms & conditions of their Israeli employment visa.
    1
  553. Actually "Sussex" is not their surname - it only forms a part of their title. Harry's actual surname is "Mountbatten-Windsor".
    1
  554. TonyCheekyful: That's good to hear - they probably took out Australian citizenship.
    1
  555. ... In fact, had the guy NOT offerred the chicken to the West Indian supporters, after having offerred it to all the other supporters, no doubt some Americans would have said that was racist too! Either way, it seems that one can't win with these fickle Americans. Whether the guy offers the West Indians chicken, or he doesn't offer them chicken, they would probably see the ad as racist...
    1
  556. According to the technical and legal definitions of racism, the ad is not racist. Also, from a legal point of view, it simply would not be acceptable to claim the ad was racist because it breached an American racial stereotype about black African Americans eating chicken, when the people in the ad are not actually black African Americans...
    1
  557. This woman clearly should be barred from having any more children, & if by chance she does have any more children, they should immediately be removed from her care, as just by remaining in her care, they would be placed "at risk". This woman has proven that she just does not have the required level of care & common sense, to be a mother to any child.
    1
  558. Jemini29944: You claim that Australians should have known all about this "American racial stereotype" concerning black African Americans and chicken. Yet I feel quite certain that you would be unable to name at least two "Australian racial stereotypes" involving the Australian Aboriginal people. This indicates that you believe Americans are somehow superior to the rest of the world, and that American stereotypes are more important than those existing elsewhere...
    1
  559. That's your opinion - though obviously neither the Australian nor American authorities believe it is racist, or someone would be taking disciplinary action against them or suing KFC.
    1
  560. I believe it's still possible to purchase a SIM card for cash & with no ID required at that point of purchase. But then, before you can actually start to use the card to make phone calls etc, it has to subsequently be "activated" with the service provider. At that point, the user will then be required to produce acceptable forms of ID, before the service provider will "activate" the SIM card & allow it to be used to make phone calls etc. So there really is no way around having to provide some type of acceptable ID when using a SIM card.
    1
  561. They did say it was an "official" phone - so maybe it is one they need to have for their work, & provided to them by their employer - in which case it probably won't be easy to get rid of either the phone handset, or the SIM card it contains - which may be the property of the employer.
    1
  562. Jemini29944: Yes, there are probably black people who are fans of the Australian team, but to choose a black person as being representative of the "typical" fan of the Australian cricket team would simply be unrealistic - just as it would be unrealistic to choose a Chinese person as the "typical" Australian fan. The scene was just trying to be a bit realistic in the representation of the fans involved.
    1
  563. And that is also what a professor from the University of Sydney stated on television, when interviewed about this American furore. The professor said that Americans had demonstrated how "insular" they were, by assuming the rest of the world knew of their racial stereotypes. He also said that by seeking to apply American stereotypes to the rest of the world, America had demonstrated its feeling of superiority to the rest of the world...
    1
  564. If anyone is "thick", it is Keir Starmer himself - he is "thick & sick"...
    1
  565.  @bobrussell3602  Based on what you said above - the lady did not claim to actually be a "professor" - she just claimed to be a "professional" cleaner. Your reference to a "professorship" means a role in which someone will hold the title of "Professor" - but the lady never claimed to be a professor - just a "professional". There is a huge difference between a "professor" & someone claiming to be a "professional". In most English-speaking countries a "professor" is a university academic who is the head of a department at a university. In the USA, the term is usually downgraded somewhat to mean anyone who holds the position of a lecturer/teacher at a university - & they don't need to be the actual head of their university department (although it's possible they might also hold that role). Usually, they are no longer entitled to use the title "Professor" if they are no longer working in that role. On the other hand a "professional" is a person who works in a particular role which would generally be regarded as one of the "professions", & which would normally these days require a university degree/qualification - eg a doctor, dentist, lawyer, engineer etc. I say "these days" - because in times past, some of these "professions" did not always require a university qualification. Unfortunately, these days, the word "professional" is often downgraded & used to refer anyone who receives payment for working in their particular role - whether that role requires a university qualification or not. Hence the lady in your above example referred to herself as a "professional cleaner". As it turns out, even though she may be working as a cleaner, for which a university qualification may not be required, that would not stop her from having a university qualification in some other area. She might be working as a cleaner merely to supplement her other income - or because it's the only job she could get at the time, despite having a university qualification - or a cleaner's hours of work may suit her better. People in other roles often refer to themselves as a "professional driver" (could be a taxi driver - who might be an overseas university student studying for a postgraduate degree qualification at a local university - there are plenty of them in my area), or a "professional garbage collector", "professional salesman" etc. Unfortunately the true meaning of words often gets downgraded/changed over time, to mean something other than its original meaning. This can often happen simply because people who may not understand the correct meaning of words, will consistently misuse them until many people no longer understand its correct/original meaning at all. It's somewhat sad, but does happen all too frequently these days. Someone recently accused me of "racism" against the British royal family - but I said I was not "racist" against them & pointed out I was actually of the same "race" as the British royal family. They said that unless I was actually a member of the British royal family (which I never claimed to be) - I could not possibly be of the same "race" as them. Obviously in their mind, being of the same "race" meant belonging to the same "family" - which was certainly not the dictionary definition of the word "race", according to my Oxford English Dictionary. I had to then try to explain to them the true dictionary definition of the word "race" - not an easy task when dealing with some people. I also had to explain to them that there were actually many millions of people in the UK who were of the same "race" as the British royal family!
    1
  566.  @bobrussell3602  If it was not already obvious - I also agree that it is quite inappropriate to downgrade the meaning of words like "professional". Sadly, our language is being changed by those who are least able to understand its true meaning. All the best!
    1
  567. alamre: Perhaps someone could find a video clip of that US KFC ad and post it on Youtube so we can all say how racist it is, then lodge official complaints with the American authorities about the racist portrayal of the poor black man in the ad.
    1
  568. Prince Andrew's situation went to an out of court settlement & is now finalised. We do not yet know what will be the final outcome of the police investigation into the allegations against Brand. It is an ongoing matter. But who knows - it may not be beyond the realms of possibility, that Brand's case might also end up in an out of court settlement - especially if there are doubts about there being sufficient evidence now to satisfy a court that the allegations took place.
    1
  569. There will always be civilian deaths on both sides in any war. No war yet has managed to avoid them. This is unfortunate, but a fact of life & war. And there have been fewer civilian deaths in Gaza than in many other wars throughout the world - so Gaza is not doing too badly really. Yes, Gaza civilians may have died during the rescue of those 4 Israeli hostages. But they only have Hamas to blame for that. Hamas chose to hold/imprison those hostages in a residential area, amongst civilians. That automatically makes that area a legitimate war time target, in order to rescue the hostages kidnapped on 7 October. Had Hamas chosen to release those hostages/kidnap victims of it's own accord, that area may not have been targeted & those Gaza civilian casualties may not have occured. So the deaths of those Gazans are the direct responsibility of Hamas.
    1
  570. Jemini29944: But I think it's still possible that different people with the target market might interpret any given ad in different ways, no matter how hard the advertiser might try. There's only so much that can be conveyed in a short time span.
    1
  571. Breaking news about 12 - 13 hours ago, which is yet to be covered/reported by a major news channel - is that Tommy Robinson has now been released from arrest by the police in Canada. He is now free to move about Canada as he wishes (for any remaining speaking engagements etc there), before returning to the UK. It seems that after all, there was no real substance behind the arrest, because there was insufficient evidence to lay any charges against him, so he was released. Which makes me wonder why all the news companies that covered his arrest, are now not also covering his release. It seems there is definitely something fishy happening with the news companies, with regards to this news item...
    1
  572. It's a non-mainstream branch of the Anglican Church in the UK.
    1
  573.  @malcomflibbleghast8140  I believe it's the Free Church of England at Christ Church Harlesden in London.
    1
  574. And hopefully you or any member of your family will never need a blood transfusion or blood products. But some religious denominations like Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusions or blood products - which often results in their death.
    1
  575.  @terrydaktyllus1320  The problem is, a mobile phone is much more easy & convenient to carry around, than a Linux laptop - so some people may still prefer the mobile phone.
    1
  576. Even though the real issue is about money, not racism, people should still take a stand against KFC Australia for not being prepared to stand up for Australian values in their Australian market. The Australian market is probably just a drop in the ocean for KFC, so they're probably not terribly concerned about what happens there. But if Aussies work on it hard enough, they might be able to force KFC to withdraw from Australia. There are plenty of good Australian alternatives to KFC!
    1
  577. LOL - it will probably give you extra immunity if you were to receive a blood transfusion or blood products containing "jabbed" blood!
    1
  578. I'm not sure that if I were a law-maker, I would have given teachers the authority to dispose of/destroy such items as electronic devices/mobile phones. After all, if it turns out they do contain illegal material, providing evidence of illegal/criminal activity - then surely that would need to be preserved so it could be used as evidence in any court/legal proceedings. This evidence might be destroyed along with the device, if the teacher chose to dispose of/destroy the device. We all know that some teachers are not exactly the brightest sparks in the fire & as they have no legal training, I'm not sure I would trust all teachers to make the right decision to dispose of/destroy an electronic device/mobile phone. It's also possible that a teacher might decide to do dispose of/destroy a mobile phone, where they believe it might contain incriminating evidence against them personally (eg the phone's camera may have captured evidence of the teacher committing an offence) - in which case, the teacher may have thought it was in their own best interests to dispose of/destroy the phone. I also wonder how teachers would/could actually get access to the information on a student's mobile phone, if the phone handset was locked. Could the teacher force the student to unlock the phone & if the student refused to unlock it, what would happen to them, or what could the school do in those circumstances?
    1
  579. Jemini29944:...With the American TV shows, and some American advertising that Australia has been exposed to over the years, surely Australian society would be more like American society, if such advertising had been truly successful.
    1
  580.  @annewalden3795  It actually DOES make a difference in the eyes of the church - particularly the Church of England, of which Charles was destined to be the leader one day, when he became king. A divorced person can generally not re-marry in the church, while their former spouse is still alive. By the time Charles married Camilla, Diana was no longer alive - so he was permitted to re-marry. But he could not re-marry in the church, because the woman he was marrying was formerly his mistress, & even though she was divorced, her former husband was still very much alive. That was why they could only get married in a civil ceremony ( not in the church), but later had a "blessing" of their marriage in a Church of England ceremony.
    1
  581. thedreamdealer: As I said once before in this forum, if Americans say it's racist (based on what they have said about the Australian KFC ad) to give food or chicken to black people, then to avoid American claims of racism, no-one should help send food or chicken to the black people of Haiti. In addition to that, we should probably all cease donating money to feed people in any third world country predominantly populated by black people. That's the message America is sending to the world!
    1
  582. Perhaps Meghan thought she would have more influence within the royal family, when she married Prince Harry. If she did, that was certainly very foolish of her, & shows that she knows nothing at all about royal protocol & did not even try to inform herself about royal protocol when she married Harry. How much influence could she possibly have, when she was not born into the royal family (she only married into the family), & the person she married is only 6th or 7th in line to the throne? All the important happenings centre around those who are in the direct line of ascent for the throne - & the chances of Harry ever being even close to the throne are now very slim indeed. Since Harry & Meghan are so far down that line, their royal duties would simply have been assigned to them by the Queen & palace officials, & they would not have had much say in that. Clearly Meghan did not like that, & it was probably one of the main reasons she decided to return to the USA & take Harry with her. She may have imagined she could just make up her own list of duties, charities, & functions to attend - but that is just not the way it works when your husband is only 6th or 7th in line to the throne. If she thought she was going to get in there & reform the way things work in the royal family, she was also very much mistaken - as someone as far down the line as she was, would simply not be able to do that, even with the support of Prince Harry.
    1
  583. I find it strange how these Rajneesh followers were also often called "the orange people", because they mostly dressed in orange coloured garments - & Dr Grande in his video about them is wearing an orange-coloured shirt.
    1
  584. ...How about "The Yellow-bellied 'Tanks"?
    1
  585. It would probably be even more difficult for her to immigrate to Germany - they are very strict.
    1
  586. The ad is not racist. The issue is just about money, not racism. The ad is not "racist" when viewed in the correct context. If it were truly racist, people would be suing KFC. Legally it is not racist, though obviously people now realise that Americans will take the ad out of context and misinterpret it as portraying one of their American racial stereotypes. Portraying stereotypes is not the same as racism, and it is certainly not illegal - but some people might find it offensive...
    1
  587. @GG (George Gapinska) The punishment for homosexuality is also often death, under Islam.
    1
  588.  @petersmith5915  Because Islam is also an "evangelical" religion that is hoping to win as many converts as possible, & given Britain has been a traditionally Christian country, it is "new territory for Islam so there is plenty of potential for converts. They ultimately hope to win everyone over to Islam & then have them obedient by Islamic standards, even though that may not be the case right now. Muslims call their form of evangelism "dawah" & sometimes in the larger cities you will see them out on the streets talking with people & handing out leaflets promoting their beliefs & they will also usually have a small stand/stall/table with some of their literature - like basic copies of the Quran etc. I live in a city of about 350,000 people & I've seen them out in our city centre on a few occasions now. On one occasion I recall, they gave me one of their leaflets which was about women's rights in Islam & the leaflet claimed that Islam was the first religion to give women equal rights. Of course, some of the content in their leaflets is not entirely correct, according to what is in the Quran & hadiths. But their aim is to convert people, not necessarily to get them to read the Quran & hadiths for themselves - as that may be dangerous. If people "misunderstand" what they read in the Quran & hadiths, they may not wish to convert to Islam. So it's important that those dawah street preachers ensure potential converts get the "correct" message that the street preachers want to give them - & not just let people read the Quran & hadiths for themselves.
    1
  589. Perhaps it was not so much Rob Braxman's explanation of biometrics in the above video, which caused some people to be highly negatively critical & even somewhat angry with his approach to biometrics - rather, in some cases, it might have been the fact that some people are just not capable of understanding the explanation he gave. In such cases, I'm not sure that there is anything at all that can be done, to make such people truly understand. And if they are not capable of understanding how it all works - then at some point they will just need to be able to "trust" someone to give them correct information. And Rob Braxman is probably one of the best people to be such a trusted person/resource.
    1
  590.  @РыжийКот-ц5с9б Yes - that's the case in many countries these days. Some years go, I would order groceries on-line from the supermarket for my father, & have them delivered to his house. But just for myself, sometimes it's more convenient to purchase a handful of items from the supermarket on my way home from work. Also, if I'm only purchasing a handful of items, it's usually not worth the additional cost of having them home-delivered.
    1
  591. lockedinsidemybody1: Well, apparently it might be the best possible thing - in order to avoid offending any black people. However, if that is the case, then goodness only knows how any company selling fried chicken can safely go about marketing their products to black people. How would they ever expect to market it in a country with a predominantly black population - since Americans claim it is offensive to all black people - not just black Americans?
    1
  592.  @lydiamalone1859  Just because cases of paedophilia in Christian institutions may get more publicity than such cases in secular or other religious institutions, does not mean that it is necessarily more prevalent in Christian institutions. The fact that statistics show that the numbers of people claiming to be practising Christians is dwindling (less than 50% in the UK), would suggest that paedophilia is actually less common within Christian institutions than in secular institutions. But it may get more publicity, due to the fact that the Bible states that Christians should care for children & not abuse them. I'm not sure that I would agree with your statement that "many" Christian institutions "are corrupt, cultish & not transparent". I'm sure there are certainly some that may fit that definition, but I do not believe that it would be a majority. If the world were to suddenly do away with all the hospitals, schools, & charitable institutions founded & run by Christian organisations, I'm sure the world would be much worse for that.
    1
  593. propositionjohnston:I agree - the American "guilt" about racism and stereotyping should not have to apply to the whole world, as Americans seems to think it should!
    1
  594. It does not matter what the "international community", the UN, or any other country wants. Gaza & Hamas does not want a 2 state solution, & has rejected this on several occasions in the past. Israel may not want it either. So regardless of any decision by the UN, Israel & Hamas will just continue to "do their own thing" in the middle east. I don't know how Penny Wong thinks any 2 state solution is going to work, to suddenly make Hamas & Israel live peacefully side by side, when the opening paragraphs of the Hamas charter document clearly state that the chief aim of Hamas is the destruction of Israel & the Jewish people. Good luck with that one Penny Wong! That will require some very serious discussions between you & Hamas. Can you make them want to live peacefully next to Israel? I do not think you are capable of that.
    1
  595. Perhaps Australia should start doing a lot more ethnic and racial-based comedy on TV (more so than it already does), to test out the theories of some Americans that TYT are only kicking up a fuss because KFC are an American company. And maybe Australia should also do it to annoy the Americans because as long as it doesn't involve an American company, they might complain a lot, but they really can't do anything about it.
    1
  596. It's all very well for schools to have anti-bullying & so-called zero-tolerance "policies" in place - but most of the time those policies are not worth the paper they are written on because most schools simply do not know how to deal with bullying & refuse to take any action until the bullying gets physical & someone ends up being injured & in hospital - then quite often it is the "victim" who ends up being blamed for everything & punished - even though they were the actual victim of the bullying. And when bullying does get physical, sometimes the victim does have to physically defend themselves - even though they were the ones who were attacked initially. And sometimes even in the real world people need to be able to defend themselves from physical bullying attacks. For any school child who is the victim of school bullying, I would recommend to the child & their parents not to waste their time taking it through the school's process, which (assuming thy do anything at all!) will not only be very drawn out, but end up doing nothing & not stopping the bullying. I would simply take the matter straight to the police & if possible press assault charges against the bully. They can then later let the school know what they are doing, if they so desire. This is really the only way to get everyone to take things seriously. The school having a nice-looking anti-bullying policy on paper does absolutely nothing at all. I also think that schools not only need to make clear their policies on bullying (which they seem to be good at), but truly encourage the reporting (by victims) of ALL bullying which is school-related & let victims know that they will receive a very sympathetic hearing & a confidential hearing, if that is what they desire, & that their claims will be investigated. And re-assure them that if they really are the victims, they will not be blamed for the bullying themselves & that they will not be punished. At the moment, the way a lot of bullying investigations turn out, it ends up being the victims who are punished, because the school is only interested once the bullying turns into a physical confrontation & someone is hurt/injured.
    1
  597. I'm posting this message here, because I don't use Twitter or Instagram & there does not appear to be any other direct address to which a message can be sent. On 25 September, 2023, I subscribed to monthly support of the channel through Stripe/Link. At the time of signing up on the subscription page, it did indicate that "you can always cancel your subscription". Some time later, I decided to support the channel via another method. However, on 10 October, when I tried (on-line) to cancel that original monthly support subscription from 25 September, through Stripe/Link - there did not appear to be any easy on-line way of cancelling it. When trying to work out how to unsubscribe (on-line) from that monthly support, it also appears that I inadvertently subscribed for a 2nd lot of monthly support instead. From what I can see, & after reading the Terms of Service, there does not appear to be any way to simply unsubscribe on-line, from the monthly support commitment through Stripe/Link. It therefore appeared that the only way to cancel/stop future monthly payments from being processed through Stripe/Link, was to cancel/remove the payment method (credit card) altogether from Link - which I have now done. However, the Stripe/Link Terms of Service indicated that even though the payment method may be cancelled, it does not necessarily cancel any monthly subscription payment obligation with the provider/merchant - & in order to cancel that subscription arrangement, the provider/merchant still needs to be advised separately. Please therefore take this message as notification that I am cancelling the future monthly subscription/support payments through Stripe/Link, which were set up on 25 September & 10 October, & will be setting up a channel membership instead, on 25 November. It appears that a channel membership will be easier to deal with & change/cancel on-line, should the need arise.
    1
  598.  @BlackBeltBarrister  Thank you very much for promptly investigating & confirming that both of the monthly subscription amounts have now been cancelled from your end.
    1
  599.  @stevewiles7132  Yes - almost everything is made in China these days!
    1
  600.  @thekeysman6760  In my country, a "legal entity" can be either an individual person/human being, or a registered company/corporation. But a "person" can only ever be an individual human being. A registered company/corporation, although it is a recognised "legal entity", can never be a "person", though its registered directors/office bearers will obviously be individual human beings/persons.
    1
  601. Yes - in Australia it is compulsory for all Australian citizens to vote - & also compulsory to register on the Australian Electoral Roll, upon turning 18 years of age (if one is an Australian citizen), or upon being granted Australian citizenship, if one has gone to Australia & subsequently been granted Australian citizenship & gone through the Australian citizenship ceremony & received one's citizenship certificate. Even though a person may have been advised by the Department of Immigration/Home Affairs that they have been "approved" for Australian citizenship - they do not actually "become" an Australian citizen until they have actually gone through an Australian citizenship ceremony, taken the oath of allegiance, & been presented with their citizenship certificate. And there can be a short delay between the "approval" & the actual citizenship ceremony. People who are only permanent residents of Australia are not entitled to vote, as they are not yet Australian citizens. Once a person registers on the Australian electoral roll, whenever there is any type of election - whether, federal/national, state, local council, or a referendum - all Australian citizens on the electoral roll are required to vote, & as they do so, a line is ruled through their name on the electoral roll at the polling booth - after checking that the person has not already voted at any other polling both that day. Ruling a line through the name on the electoral roll indicates that that person has voted. After the election or referendum - those names that have not been crossed out are those who have not voted & the Australian Electoral Commission then sends out letters to all those people advising them they will need to pay a fine for not having voted (since voting is compulsory) - unless one has a valid & acceptable reason for not voting. At all elections, arrangements are made for pre-poll voting & postal voting - so one would need to have a very good reason for not voting - such as having been unconscious in hospital, or otherwise incapable of casting a vote etc. There are even polling stations taken to hospitals for those who are hospitalised, but still able to cast a vote. I remember for one referendum many years ago - my younger brother was actually unconscious in hospital in intensive care, so while my father & I were visiting him in the hospital - we also went to the polling booth at the hospital to inform them that my brother would not be able to vote in the referendum - as he was in intensive care. We wanted to do that, to ensure that my brother was not later sent a letter by the Electoral Commission, telling him he would need to pay a fine for not voting, or advise them why he had not voted. The electoral officials at the hospital polling booth were fine with that.
    1
  602. Yes indeed - a highly disgusting country is France. I always say I'm awake, not woke, & the 2 are miles apart. The woke are just mindless zombies walking in their sleep.
    1
  603. Douglas1102: I'm not so sure that Americans would be so quick to remove an American ad on American TV that inadvertently offended Australians - especially if it was a highly successful ad (ie making a lot of money for the company) and the local population loved the ad. When it comes to advertising, it seems only money talks. If an American ad which was offensive to Aussies, made a lot of money for the company, I don't think they would withdraw it. But Aussies wouldn't buy the product.
    1
  604. Privat companies ARE already obliged to comply with government restrictions on who they provide services every day. Private businesses are forced to comply with things like the anti-discrimination legislation which protects certain categories of people from being denied their services. And some private businesses have already been successfully prosecuted for not complying with that legislation. Why should similar rules not be applied to private on-line organisations who might refuse to provide their services to some people?
    1
  605. Lori is obviously using that speech to indicate that she believes she's not really responsible for the murder of those people & that they are much happier in heaven & hold nothing against her for murdering them. Some of the unusual things Lori mentioned in her speech, are part of the standard theology/beliefs of the Mormon/LDS church. That church believes that righteous men who, following their earthly death, are qualified to enter the Celestial Kingdom (the highest level of heaven in LDS theology) will become the God of their very own planet, where they will reside with their wives & families. The church also believes that before coming to earth & being born into good Mormon families, all babies/children had a pre-mortal existence as "spirit children" of their heavenly father & mother in heaven.
    1
  606. With previous random rocket attacks from Palestinians & Jerusalem passenger bus bombings, the Israeli government felt it ncessay, for the safety of Israel/Jerusalem & its inhabitants, to build the wall & the checkpoints. Since then, such attacks on Israel/Jerusalem have reduced.
    1
  607. "Make those Hamas terrorists flee - chase them all into the sea!" Wong's approach is definitely the wrong approach. She should be calling for Hamas to release their Israeli hostages - not calling for a ceasefire by the IDF. But I guess, calling for release of the hostages just sounds like "too much common sense" - & of course most of our politicians have way too little of that - so they're not capable of coming up with that very simple & basic solution. You don't ask the victim to stop defending themselves so their attacker can continue to attack them! The aggressor in this conflict is & was Hamas from the outset - who started the conflict by brutally murdering around 1400 Israeli civilians in the most vicious & sadistic way anyone could possibly imagine, & kidnapping around 240 people & taking them as hostages back to Gaza. If Hamas were to surrender the Israeli hostages, the conflict would end much more quickly. But Hamas won't do that because they want their own people to suffer & then blame it all on Israel. The Hamas terrorists are very primitive people who behave like cave men & something out of the Stone Age. I dare not even call them animals let alone human beings - they are far worse than animals - they are simply "beings" - who parade their slaughtered civilian victims through the streets of Gaza to crowds of people singing & dancing & celebrating at the sight of the butchered Israeli civilians. They then expect the rest of the world to somehow feel sorry for them when the people of Israel retaliate by wanting to defend themselves & destroy Hamas in the process. Unless Hamas are completely destroyed - there'll definitely be more terrorist incidents like 9/11 - not only in the USA, but in other countries around the world. And sadly, many very stupid people in the west do fall for that Hamas nonsense, by participating in pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli rallies/protests/demonstrations - when they don't really have a clue about the real Israel-Palestine situation. They just mindlessly follow others, shouting slogans & chants they don't understand the meaning of. They've turned themselves into a "bunch of bonkers bullies" who want terrorism to prosper & be rewarded. No matter what mindless slogans these silly people chant - they will never be in the right. Just because a majority of people think or believe something - does not make it right. They've become the new Hitlers of the 21st century - intent on the genocide & destruction of the Jews - who are a very small minority group in world-wide terms. On the other hand, the Islamic community is the 2nd largest religion in the world, only slightly behind Christianity. Hamas handing back the hostages would certainly be much easier to do than achieving a cease fire - after all - a cease fire is only truly a cease fire if BOTH warring parties cease firing at the same time. But Hamas will not want to do that either - so why should Israel be the only one to cease fire & risk losing more lives on their own side? These Palestinian terrorists seem to conveniently forget that much of the land of Israel was actually purchased from Palestinians - so it no longer belongs to the Palestinians - who cannot legitimately claim that it is still their land, which is being "occupied" by Israel. Israel has every right to defend itself & use as much force as necessary, to totally destroy Hamas. When Islamic terrorists bombed the twin towers & couple of other buildings in the USA in the events of the 9/11 attacks - did the USA only attack the middle-East "proportionately"? Of course not - they went on the attack & almost totally destroyed 2 entire middle-Eastern countries. No-one told the USA to cease fire or accused them of "genocide" or said their attacks were "disproportionate. Why is it okay for a huge country like the USA to retaliate with such force, but not okay for a very small country like Israel to defend itself & destroy Hamas, when their civilians are deliberately targeted by terrorists? Surely this can only be called gross stupidity, hypocrisy, or anti-Semitism. There are way too many double standards when it comes to the treatment of Israel, compared with the USA, & Palestine. Israel just needs to ignore all the idiots in the rest of the world who are calling for a nonsensical cease fire - & just get on with the job of destroying Hamas & retrieving their hostages. The rest of the world will be much better off for that. Any Gaza civilians killed in the crossfire are the fault of Hamas - who are using their own civilians as human shields (very common in middle-Eastern countries) & not allowing them to evacuate areas, after Israel has forewarned them that those areas will be targeted. The terrorists themselves are contravening the Geneva Convention by basing their operations out of civilian areas such as schools, hospitals, & mosques etc. The government in Gaza has been receiving billions of US dollars worth of foreign aid over a good many years now - money which was meant to be used to build up Gaza & provide its people with facilities & infrastructure to enable them to be independent. But for all that money, Gaza has relatively little to show for it. Most of that money has just fallen into a black hole & instead has been used to arm Hamas with weaponry for their terrorism, & to build a vast network of tunnels underneath Gaza. Then they want to blame the Jewish nation of Israel for the state of their territory/land. The truth is - they could have made their territory so much better with all that money - if only they had not spent it on terrorist activities. They have no-one to blame but themselves for the state of their land. "Make those Hamas terrorists flee - chase them all into the sea!"
    1
  608. It may well prove to be a difficult case to substantiate with sufficient evidence to satisfy a court - given that most of the incidents seem to have happened many years ago & people's recollections of the events may well have faded somewhat since that time. It will also depend on whether the complainants themselves wish to pursue the matter in a court of law, if there is enough evidence. Presently, it seems the police are only at their "investigation" stage & no charges have yet been laid on Brand. Ultimately, it will be determined whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a court case to proceed & if there is not, the case/s might not proceed. It might also come down to, in the end, a case of "he said, she said".
    1
  609.  @bigbinji6145  Brand has not actually been "silenced" - at least, not yet! He still has his YouTube channel on which he can continue to post videos if he wishes - even though it is now de-monetised - & he has already posted 3 videos since the allegations came out. It's just that his YouTube channel is no long monetised - so he will receive no advertising income from it. Presumably there will still be advertisements on his YouTube channel videos - it's just that YouTube will keep all that advertising income to themselves & not pass on any of it to him. YouTube will probably also keep all the income generated from his channel "memberships" - although to stop YouTube from keeping that money, the channel members can simply cancel their channel memberships & go over to "Locals" & financially support him there, instead. YouTube will probably also keep all the money donated or accrued from his YouTube Superchats on his Livestreams (if he does any). To be honest, I really think Brand will have the last laugh at YouTube over this, because as a result of these allegations - Brand is now more popular on YouTube than ever before! Since the allegations, his YouTube subscriber numbers have increased & the last 3 videos - which were all released after the allegations were made, have now had record numbers of views - far more than the videos released prior to the allegations. Brand also still has his Rumble channel, where he can still regularly post videos, & he also has his Locals channel/site - neither of these has been shut down at all & their subscriber & video view numbers have also increased since the allegations - so Brand has not really been "silenced" at all, to my way of thinking. He is now more popular than ever & I think he is having the last laugh - especially at YouTube.
    1
  610. Jemini29944: The stereotype that was spoken of on TYT is more specifically an "American racial stereotype". It is certainly unheard of by most people in the western world outside of America.
    1
  611. GusPhillips:It might be possible the West Indians who are boisterously celebrating around him may be doing it on purpose, in a friendly way, to "rub in" the fact that the West Indians are winning, and not his team. They would clearly recognise him as an opposition supporter, in his green and yellow/gold shirt.
    1
  612. I don't understand how this sort of behaviour & dressing up as furry animals, for any normal child, is somehow creating "safer" schools for children - & would not want any child of mine to participate in this sort of thing.
    1
  613. maxine2win:Has the name of the above show been changed from TYT to TWT? I was not aware that it had been - but if it has, I feel sure I know what TWT stands for - "The W___king Turks". Congratulations - another good alternate name for them! Unfortunately though, it doesn't have the same initials.
    1
  614. The health authorities are very keen to go to the media & tell everyone how well prepared our country is for the Coronavirus - but it seems not to be very well prepared at all - judging from the way that reporter was treated when he went to the hospital, presumably to be tested for the virus. Perhaps it was just that particular hospital which was not very well-prepared for anything at all to do with the Coronavirus - although one would be entitled to expect that such a big, major inner-city Sydney hospital such as St Vincent's, should have been much better prepared than it was. It just goes to show that one needs to take one's own strong precautions, & not rely on the propaganda put out by the health authorities - which is not always truthful, obviously.
    1
  615. It seems that YouTube does not always need a good reason for de-monetising a content creator's YouTube channel. I've known a couple of YouTube channels that have been de-monetised or even had videos totally cancelled/blocked which drew attention to news items about atrocities being committed in some overseas countries, which rarely get coverage in the mainstream western media.
    1
  616. Don't women have any rights NOT to be intimately searched by a biolgical male police officer, if they would prefer a biological female officer to carry out such a search? It seems that the rights of all women are being swept under the carpet, to cater for the feelings of a handful of biological men who identify as women, & want to be women. But all biological women have feelings too, & no-one seems to be taking into account THEIR feelings. And the number of biolgical women is FAR greater than the number of biological men who identify as women. So why should the feelings, needs & wants of that handful of men identifying as women, be far more important than, & take precedence over the feelings of all the biological women? Always it seems that in this world, the feelings of biological men are more important than those of women - & that's a real slap in the face for women's rights, making it seem like we've gone back in time by over 100 years or so.
    1
  617. Australia did used to have a one crown coin - but it had been taken out of circulation many years prior to decimalisation in 1966. New Zealand actually still had a half crown coin at the time they converted to decimal currency in 1967. I went on a holiday to New Zealand over Christmas/New Year in 1964/1965 & recall being very impressed by their half crown coin, which did not exist in Australia at that time. The 10 shilling note was the smallest denomination currency note that Australia had at the time they converted to decimal currency. It became the $1 note following decimalisation.
    1
  618.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  Plenty of other countries have survived just fine without huge multi-national companies like Google & I'm sure Australia will as well. But if a number of other countries banded together & boycotted the likes of Google it would be even better. China seems to have done okay without Google. And by objecting to Australia's stance, the US is only protecting one of its own US-based companies.
    1
  619.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  I did mention in my main response that, while citing China as just one example of a country which managed without Google - it was not necessarily the best example, because China is not a democracy & therefore the people are controlled by the government there. And of course they are a much larger country population-wise, compared with Australia. They have, however, managed to survive without Google - & if China can do it - so can Australia, I believe. I also acknowledge there is not a huge manufacturing sector in Australia & the cost of doing business there in manufacturing, may be higher than in some other countries of the world - especially developing countries - because their wage rates etc are obviously much higher than those of China & other developing countries. But the same situation would apply to most western countries where the standard of living is higher than in the developing world. A lot of manufacturing industry from western democratic countries has been out-sourced to developing countries in recent years, simply because their wage rates are cheaper. And rest assured, there are plenty of western countries where the standard of living is higher than Australia & the cost of doing business in manufacturing, is also higher than in Australia. I'm also happy to acknowledge that much of Australia's income is presently generated from the export of its natural resources - many of which won't last forever, as those resources will eventually be depleted. That's not to say that before that time comes, other industries may develop in Australia to off-set that income source. No-one is accusing Google of "breaking" any "moral code". At this point the Australian government is just "proposing" to introduce a "media code" which would require the likes of Google & Facebook to pay for their use of links to Australian news media sites on their search pages. Obviously Google has expressed their objections to having to pay for those links & has stated that if the Australian government DOES proceed down that path of introducing fees for using those links, then Google has indicated they will withdraw their search engine from use within Australia. Both the Australian government & Google are of course within their rights to do what they want to do, whatever the outcome might be. No-one is forcing Google to operate in the Australian market - but if they choose to do so - then it's reasonable to expect them to comply with all Australian laws & regulations - both now & in the future. If they don't wish to do that, then of course, they are free to withdraw their product/search engine from the Australian market at any time. And if they do that - there are plenty of other (even better quality) search engines out there in the market, which can take their place. Since Google has now forewarned Australians they might withdraw from that market - then Australians should start preparing for that now, by changing over to alternate search engines, & even web browsers (for those using Google Chrome etc). I don't know that I would necessarily agree with you that "Google sets high standards & continues to maintain them that's why nobody can compete". Google somehow managed to gain a reputation as a search engine, & its usage/popularity increased accordingly. As it has now become one of the most popular search engines, Google continues to rely on that "popularity" - even though the "quality" of its search engine has clearly since declined - now in many cases producing biased & skewed search results in favour of its own related businesses & others who advertise with Google. Most users are already well aware of this decline in the quality of Google search results, & for that reason, some have started changing over to other much better quality search engines already. With big multinational companies like Google, there are also always concerns around privacy matters as well, & who they might want to share their users information with, once they accumulate a significant number of users, to the point that that information could be useful to other businesses & organisations. Relatively speaking, Google has not really been such a popular search engine in Australia for that long - & there are plenty of people in Australia who can easily remember back to "life before Google", when the business world still managed to survive. Rest assured, with or without the presence of the Google search engine in Australia - Australia will survive & thrive - at least probably as well as any other western democratic country in the world. And if Australians want to access Australian news sites - they mostly know where to access them on the internet, even without the assistance of Google. There are plenty of other ways of doing business around the world without everything having to go through Google necessarily. I think most Australians are a pretty inventive lot & they'll find ways of doing without Google. And I really don't think there's much chance of Australia's economy becoming like that of North Korea. Your comments are very much "pro-Google" & I suspect you may actually work for Google, or have some kind of strong association with them - so naturally one would expect you to do everything in your power to sway things in favour of Google. In this particular case though - you have not succeeded in convincing me.
    1
  620.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171 I acknowledge bits & pieces of what you have mentioned as being true - but the overall assessment of Australia's economic situation will vary amongst experts & economists, & I don't believe Australia is necessarily in a vastly worse situation to other western democratic countries at present. Pre-COVID-19 the unemployment rate was better than that of many countries but obviously not as good as some. The ability of skilled/qualified people to get jobs, will obviously depend on what types of qualifications they have & whether those skills are needed in the workforce at the time. And that is something that will fluctuate from time to time. Obviously when people embark upon a course of study, they should consider first, whether there will be a demand for those skills in the workforce, by the time they have completed their studies. Studying for a qualification which does not provide a person with skills which are, or will be in demand in the workforce, is probably not much use to anyone, & may only result in the person having difficulty finding suitable employment. Also, Australia's immigration policy allows for people from overseas, who have suitable skills/qualifications (skills/qualifications which can be recognised by the Australian government) to go to Australia & work in areas where there is a demand for those skills, which cannot be filled by Australians, due to a shortfall in suitably skilled Australians. I've known a number of people in the last few years, who've gone to Australia & successfully gotten jobs in their areas of expertise. So I don't know that the job market in Australia is quite as bad as you think it is. No matter what the economic situation may be like, I definitely believe there is a need for government regulation in certain areas of on-line activity, the internet etc. And I don't think that simply giving the Google search engine the ability to do as it wishes is likely to turn any country's economy around. Any economic problems obviously lie far deeper than that. Likewise, if Google decide to withdraw their search engine from Australia - I don't believe it will have any lasting impact on the country's economy. And Google is not even a high quality search engine to start with. Google is only as good as the number of users it has & if most people were to stop using Google - it would not be of much use to anyone.
    1
  621.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  While the "media code" may be something that is being introduced/implemented by the Australian government, it is not actually a "tax" which is ultimately ending up in the government's pocket - it is in effect a payment to the Australian new media outlets (for using those news items), whose journalists actually produce those original news items. Most of the Australian news media outlets presently believe they get a raw deal from the tech giants like Google & Facebook, for using their news items on their search engine sites - but the tech giants obviously hold all the bargaining power & even if the news media sites don't believe they are being fairly treated by the likes of Google - Google can just say "take it or leave it" (even if the news sites aren't being adequately compensated for the actual costs of producing that news). With the traditional news media, the cost of purchasing an actual (hard-copy) newspaper, did not always cover the full costs of producing that newspaper, so the costs of production were often off-set by the sale of advertising space in those newspapers. When the news started moving into the digital format, a lot of that "advertising" which was once predominantly the domain of the printed newspapers, was taken over by the various on-line web sites - including the likes of Google & Facebook, which in turn displayed or provided links to news items from various news media. But the loss of that advertising revenue for the traditional news media outlets meant that they then had to make serious cut backs on the number of journalists employed & could no longer do some of the more in-depth journalistic endeavours they had previously been able to. I therefore don't think it's unreasonable to expect the likes of Google & Facebook to pay the news media outlets (whose news items they use) a fair price for the use of those news items - something more akin to what it actually costs to produce those items - since those costs are no longer always able to be off-set with advertising income. Yes, it may be that some web sites might allow their users to link to those news items, at no cost to the user (what you refer to as "free") - nevertheless, someone, at some stage along the line in the process, had to actually pay a journalist to produce those news items - & journalists don't usually work for nothing. As they say "there's no such thing as a free lunch" - & there's really no such thing as a "free" news item - because there's always a cost to produce them. And even though the end user may not necessarily be paying that cost themselves - someone is still paying someone to produce that news item, & needs to be adequately compensated for it. Because of the huge tech giant power that the likes of Google & Facebook wield, often the "little guy" (in this case the Australian news media outlets) gets a raw deal when negotiating with them for payment for their news items & presently the news outlets are claiming they are in fact getting that raw deal. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has determined that the tech giants indeed hold all the "bargaining power" in this scenario & can simply tell the news media outlets to "take it or leave it". So the Australian government has stepped in with a plan to get the news media outlets a better deal for their new items. If the tech giants & the news media outlets cannot reach a deal which gives the news media outlets fair & adequate compensation, then the government's "media code" will determine a minimum payment for the news media outlet. I see nothing wrong with having such a system to ensure adequate compensation for the Australian news media allowing the news items they produce to be displayed on-line through various web sites. As Google & Facebook we are told, now hold roughly 80% of the on-line advertising market, it seems reasonable that they should be able to fairly compensate their news providers. But if Google & Facebook don't want to do that, & want to leave the Australian market entirely, rather than pay those costs - then I'm happy for them to do that. It won't have much affect on me, since I don't use the Google search engine & already use an alternate social media site in addition to Facebook. The only reason some advertisers go with tech giants like Google is because of Google's higher user numbers - not because Google is necessarily a "better" product or a "better" search engine. But if a whole heap of users around the world suddenly stopped using the Google search engine (in favour of a much better quality search engine producing better search results) - then Google would no longer have that advantage in "numbers" with advertisers & those advertisers might start to go elsewhere. And that is what I would recommend all present Google users do - not just in Australia - but right around the world. Google is not too big to fail, or to down-size, & if & when either of those things happen, the "slack" that they create will simply be taken up by others in the industry. Just because they are providing jobs or paying taxes, is no reason for them not to down-size or even fail - especially if they are not doing the right thing by their end users. No business person should be encouraged to remain in business if they are doing the wrong thing by their customers, just for the sake of keeping some people in jobs or paying some taxes.
    1
  622.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  I'm not quite sure that I understand what you're getting at - but most news media outlets (at least in Australia) don't provide their news items for "free" on the internet - not even on their own web sites. The news items are usually behind some kind of paywall & all that one can read is maybe the headline & the first couple of lines of the news item - & if you want to read more, you have to pay for it. Likewise, if a person purchases a hard-copy of the newspaper & reads the article - one has to pay for the cost of the newspaper. So most news items are not ordinarily "free" & of course they are not "free" to produce either, because a journalist has to be employed & paid to write those articles. Most major Australian news media outlets now have an internet presence via their own web sites, & have had such an on-line presence for quite some now - so I don't think the accusation that they have not "evolved" or are otherwise behind the times is really accurate. However, many of them do still also offer a hard-copy newspaper version of their publications, in addition to the on-line news items, as not everyone uses the internet necessarily. If Google wants to provide those news items to its users for "free" - I therefore think it's not unreasonable to expect them to pay the reasonable cost of that, based on the cost of employing someone to write the article, & the amount of circulation it's likely to get. Such news media outlets may not want Google to place its own advertisements on the same page as their news items - since those news items are actually owned by the news media outlet that produced them, & not Google. Consequently, any payment made by Google to the news media outlet for those news items, I would not see as "extortion" by the Australian government - just a legitimate payment for a legitimate news item. And just because Google does not make such payments to news providers in any other country, does not necessarily make it right. Because Australia is a smaller country with a smaller population & therefore a smaller circulation of Australian news than other news media outlets overseas - it will obviously have some higher costs & overheads that may not be able to be off-set by larger circulations, as would be the case in much larger countries overseas. So I think it's a reasonable request to ask Google to pay for the cost of any Australian news items they might use.
    1
  623.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  But, on certain web sites where some news items may be shown for "free" to its users - how do you know whether that particular web site may not be paying the news media provider, to provide that news item to that particular web site? And just because that news item may be "free" to users on that particular web site - why should Google also expect to provide it to its own users "free" of cost to the user - but also free of cost to Google, or at least at a minimal cost, which does not reflect the true cost of producing the news item?
    1
  624.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  Even if the creators of the internet may not agree in principle with the Australian government's decision to want Google to pay for showing or displaying links to Australian news items - I'm sure there must also be lots of other things presently happening on the internet, with which those creators do not agree. Like all the censorship that has been going on for a very long time now. Someone running a web site does not like a certain opinion that a user expresses or a video they post - so that gets banned & the person's account cancelled etc & even internet service providers & hosts refusing to host certain web sites at all, because they do not like their views or content, or merely because they provide "competition" for one of their other customers, that the host does not like. So I think the precedent has been well & truly set for that sort of thing, & what the Australian government is doing is certainly not breaking any new ground, by doing something that the creators did not originally intend for the internet. Even Google itself is guilty of bias in their search results & the results are often displayed in such a way as to skew them in favour of their own businesses & others which advertise on Google - which means that it's not really the best search engine out there - even though it may be the most widely-used search engine. Using these same tactics, Google could very easily "bury" or hide links to Australian news items, to make them difficult for people to find - though thankfully most Australians will know where to go to find most Australian news items, without the help of Google at all. I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to expect Google to pay a fair price for showing Australian news items, or displaying links to them, & as far as I'm concerned, they are welcome to withdraw their services from Australia, if they so wish, if they do not want to comply with what the Australian government is proposing. And I don't think it will have a dramatic impact on Australia - which has previously survived without the Google search engine - & will just do so again.
    1
  625.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  I agree that "over-regulation" is not good - but sometimes a certain amount of regulation is necessary to even up the "balance of power" between 2 entities - particularly where 1 of those entities holds a near monopoly in the marketplace, or where that marketplace may be dominated by just a handful of very large players. I would disagree that that "balance" is fine just now, as you claim. In the marketplace within which Google operates - there are just a small number of very big players, who hold all the power, & often with a "take it or leave it" attitude towards their customers. And this is clearly what the Australian government & news media sites believe is happening with the likes of Google - so they want to introduce some rules to even up that "balance of power". I don't see any problem with that, & most of the views I have seen expressed on this matter - even those coming from one of the larger Google markets such as India - appear to be supportive of what the Australian government & news media sites are trying to achieve. The opposing views that I have seen are very few & far between - mostly coming from Google, Google-owned businesses & supporters, & the US government. I acknowledge that Google does often indicate in their search results, whether sites appearing in those search results are merely other businesses which advertise with Google. But there are often Google-owned & affiliated web sites (like YouTube) which get top billing in Google search results - even when one has specifically typed into the Google search engine, that one is searching for such videos on a "competing" platform. For some "unknown" reason, the Google search engine is still set up, in those instances - to give first preference in its search results, to web sites that it owns (without indicating that the appearances of those sites in the search results are merely "ads"), rather than producing search results for the platform the searcher had specifically requested, in their Google search. The regular occurrence of this sort of thing, indicates just how biased & skewed in favour of Google, their search engine results really are - & means they have become just a 2nd or 3rd rate search engine at best. I honestly don't know why so many people continue to use the Google search engine - when there are way better search engines out there they could be using, that don't just give users a heap of ads & a list of Google's own/affiliated web sites. I have even tested this out myself with a group of friends, & when we all searched around the same time on Google, using exactly the same words - we all got exactly the same results which were skewed in favour of Google's own web sites - like YouTube, without saying they were "ads". Yet, when we searched on another reputable search engine using exactly the same words - we got much better, unbiassed results include a whole heap of sites on the exact platform for which we had been searching (& those were at the top of the search results list, as one would normally expect them to be). As far as the eventual outcome of the Australian government's present discussions with Google are concerned - I would agree that the rest of the world is probably watching with interest to see what that outcome will be. I hope the Australian government is successful in achieving what they want from Google, in a way which adequately compensates Australian news media outlets for the news items which they produce. It also seems that many other people around the world are supportive of this claim on Google, which really only seeks to even up the imbalance of power which exists between the big players like Google, & the much smaller players who need to have dealings with them.
    1
  626.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  I certainly don't believe most people think this is all a witch hunt - except perhaps for those working for these large tech companies themselves, & maybe in IT. As mentioned in one of my earlier responses - I indicated that most companies now HAVE "evolved" to do business on the internet - including Australian news media outlets. It is not because they have not "evolved" which is causing problems. Even on the internet, any content still needs to actually "be created" by somebody - who inevitably needs/wants to be paid for producing that content. It is merely the ways of being paid/compensated for that content in a fair & equitable manner which is in dispute at present between the Australian government & Google. There are few things which are truly "free". Even if it might appear to be "free" to the end user - all that means is that someone else, somewhere along the way has had to pay for it. Most people would acknowledge that such tech companies like Google have produced some great tools that people can use to make their lives easier & can hasten our former methods of communication. But we certainly don't want it to reach a point where these large tech companies can dominate & be over-bearing in our lives, to the point where the average person or smaller business has very little bargaining power at all, when coming up against these huge companies. Unfortunately many people & businesses working outside of these companies are starting to feel that that is what is happening & these huge companies & their search engines could make the internet presence of their users disappear altogether, if they don't do whatever the big tech companies want them to do. And because such huge companies are privately owned - people are more or less told that there's nothing that can be done about that - they operate under their own rules - take it or leave it. But having good government regulation of these companies could force them to operate in a much fairer manner for everyone. I think that if the big companies are going to continue to operate in such a domineering manner, & with so little government regulation or control, then maybe all governments will need to set up their own such tech companies to which all their own citizens & businesses will have fair & equitable access, & from which their own citizens cannot be excluded, unless it goes through a legal process with a legal outcome that is determined by an independent judge & jury. These government tech companies would then become the competitors of the big tech companies, & would allow people to have input when the big private companies won't. I think that would certainly be a much better system than the present one where the big privately-owned & operated tech companies 'rule the waves" according to their own rules, & can choose to exclude or eliminate people & businesses as they see fit. The big private companies seem to presently wield a lot more power than even the governments under which they operate - which is precisely why they need more government regulation, & if that is not possible, then as previously mentioned - maybe governments should set up their own tech companies, to give everyone a fair go.
    1
  627.  @sanjithkeshavmurthy4171  You've got to be kidding! If you think that people trust these US big tech companies more than they trust their own countries' governments - I think you're seriously mistaken. I agree that people don't ordinarily have a lot of trust in their own politicians & governments - but if it comes down to a choice between the US big tech companies & their own governments - I would say that people will choose their own governments over US big tech companies any day - & there's really no contest on that score. One only has to look at what happened in the recent US election & how the US social media & big tech companies hugely censored any posts & comments that were not pro-Biden - to the point where they ended up completely obliterating the US President from the face of the internet & he was lucky if he could even send someone an email message. And when that happened, absolutely no-one in the US government could do anything about it - to get the President's access re-instated. When that happened, these big tech & social media companies lost a HUGE amount of credibility. Their actions proved they are just a law unto themselves. They wielded a level of power which was out of all proportion to that which any tech company or social media site ought to have - which demonstrated precisely why there needs to be government regulation in that area. And if the US government is not willing to regulate the US big tech companies - then it will be up to the individual countries where those big tech companies operate, to introduce their own regulations for them. Even a country like Uganda banned all social media & big tech sites from their internet access, in the lead up to their election - for fear that the censorship on those web sites will interfere with the outcome of their own electoral process - after witnessing what was happening during the US election & the banning of the US President. The leaders of many other countries also spoke out against it. So maybe if the big tech companies are going to be undertaking such huge amounts of censorship, including censorship of a President & a government - it's about time they themselves were censored by those governments, including through government regulation. But of course, the minute governments start censoring big tech & social media companies in return, those same companies start crying foul & saying how unfair it all is. If censorship is fine by big tech - then it should be okay for anyone else at all - such as governments, to censor big tech itself, in return. I only wish a lot more governments would step in & start censoring big tech companies - because goodness knows - they certainly do deserve it. And if the big tech companies can so easily obliterate the US President from the face of the internet - we have to ask ourselves which other world leader will be next on their hit list? No - I'm afraid no-one is ever going to be able to trust the US big tech & social media companies ever again, after that debacle! So, trusting one's own government is beginning to look like a pretty safe bet after that fiasco. All that the US big tech companies have proven to the rest of the world is that given half a chance, they will censor & interfere with commentary, so as to try to affect public opinion - even to the extent of affecting the outcome of a country's election. They seem to think they are "the policemen of the world" - when no-one asked them to do that, & certainly no-one wants them to do that - that should only be up to the governments of individual countries. It's not that people are envious of the financial success of such big companies, as you have claimed - rather it's the fact that once they reach a certain level of financial success, they seem to think that success entitles them to rule not just the US, but the rest of the world as well. Compared with just "trusting" the big tech companies to "do the right thing" - which they have now proven they will not do, if given half a chance - trusting one's own government seems a relatively safe thing to do. Which is why I've suggested that either governments should regulate these big tech companies, or start up their own big tech companies for their own citizens, in opposition to these big tech companies. Believe me, the private big tech companies certainly do not have a monopoly on "educated & highly skilled people" as you seem to think. There are plenty of such people working in government as well, who could easily work with government to set up its own big tech companies to compete with Google & the like. No-one is saying that Google "owes" anyone a living just for the sake of it. But if they use a content creator's product & somehow make money off it, they should also be prepared to pay that content creator a fair price for their work. As I've stated previously - it's not a matter of news media companies not "evolving" - in fact, they HAVE all moved with the times & have all been using the internet now for quite some years - & all they want is a fair price for their content which Google makes use of. I don't believe that having a somewhat government-regulated internet is likely to cause Australia to fall drastically behind the rest of the world. In some areas, Australia simply has higher standards than the rest of the world - meaning that some things are just a little slower to be taken on there, because there are slightly more precautions taken before something might be "approved" for use there. That is not necessarily a bad thing, & certainly on some occasions has meant that Australia has avoided the pitfalls that other countries might have experienced. I agree there needs to be a "balance" between big companies that sell their services to others, & their consumers - but sometimes that balance can only come about with regulation & laws - because the big companies ordinarily hold most of the power in any buyer/seller relationship - particularly if there are a very limited range of companies from which to purchase certain products. In the grand scheme of things - the buying & selling of tech-related products & information on the internet is relatively new, & new ways of doing things are being discovered all the time. And governments need to decide how those sorts of things will operate/work within their own country's markets, & whether any form of regulation is appropriate. Obviously in the case of Australia's news media outlets, the Australian government believes that some form of intervention is warranted - to ensure that those news media outlets receive a fair payment for the on-line news content they are already producing, & of which Google makes use. If Google's desire not to make such payments causes them to withdraw their search engine from use in Australia - then so be it - people will just change over to using much better search engines than Google - so it won't be a huge loss for the Australian people. Unfortunately for the big tech companies - sometimes the only kind of language they can ever understand is one that hits them financially - involving users boycotting them & no longer supporting them at all. Sometimes it's necessary for users to dig the old knife into them (the tech companies) as hard & as far as it will possibly go, & the give it a good old twist, every which way but loose & any which way they can. That's why I always encourage everyone to move away from Google, & use other platforms & search engines etc. There are far better products out there other than Google & its gaggle of goony galahs! Even their so-called "trust & safety team" at YouTube is manned by a mob of mindless morons who seem to think that posting news item videos about the persecution of minority groups in some countries might "cause offence" to some people - so they delete the video 5 minutes after it's been posted & temporarily ban the person who posted it, for a period of time. That sort of behaviour is utterly ridiculous & needs to be punished by as many people as possible withdrawing their support from that YouTube platform as well. They need to be hit where it hurts - their bottom line. In terms of manufacturing industry - Australia will obviously never be able to match the extremely low human labour costs of the manufacturing industries in 3rd world & developing countries - because it is a developed, western country, with quite good wage rates, comparable to those of most other western developed countries. So the gradual off-shoring of manufacturing industries is not just a problem happening in Australia - it's happening in many other western developed countries as well. If Australia wanted to compete with those 3rd world countries in manufacturing, it would obviously have to lower its wage rates significantly & become a 3rd world country itself in the process - & I don't think many Australians would be in favour of that - so its probably not likely to happen.
    1
  628. Link6002:Exactly - I'm sure the guy in the ad would LOVE a beer - people attending these cricket matches DO drink a lot of beer, because it is hot out there in the summer sun watching the cricket. So much so that at one stage it was getting to be a problem, with people bringing big eskies of beer to the cricket and a lot of people getting drunk. So in recent years they have cut back on what people are allowed to take into the cricket ground.
    1
  629.  @jackpott2226  A cold beer/drink would probably be the preferred drink at most cricket matches, which are played in summer, when the weather is very hot. But if the matches were to be played in winter, in the cold weather - then I think the preferred drink may well change to rum!
    1
  630. Probably unlikely - since the police mentioned in the above interview that the stabbing was already taking place in the car, before the car crashed, & up until then the car had been observed being driven erratically by the driver.
    1
  631. altagraciajunon:...However, if one is interpreting the ad in terms of the American racial stereotype about black Americans and chicken, and pretends the people in the ad are black African Americans, then one might possibly say that it depicts a certain racial stereotype of black African American people. However, portraying a certain stereotype of people is not quite the same as racism, and is not illegal.
    1
  632. Where I'm from, the 2G mobile phone network no longer exists - it was done away with a few years ago. This meant that anyone who had a mobile phone handset at that time, which could not handle a 3G connection, had to purchase a new phone handset. In rare instances, they might have also needed to get a new SIM card from their phone service provider. I remember at the time, having to upgrade my own phone handset - which was slightly old, & still not a "smartphone". I had held off upgrading to a smartphone for as long as I could. But then when I was forced to purchase a new handset, I thought I may as well upgrade to a smartphone with at least full 4G capability - so that it would hopefully last me for quite some time. So I ended up purchasing a dual-SIM phone (my previous 2G handset had also been dual-SIM) with two 4G SIM card slots - which was not that easy to find - because at that time, most dual-SIM smartphones only had either a 4G & 3G SIM card slot combination, or a 3G & 2G SIM slot combination. But with two 4G SIM slots - I was hoping my phone would last a lot longer. Nevertheless, there were still a few of what we call "feature phone" models (ie non-smartphones) available on the market at that time - though they were technically not "flip-phones" because they did not flip or fold in half. It is still possible to buy a limited range of these very cheap "feature phones" - which admittedly only have a numeric keypad on them & no easy access to the internet. This means that some people may find them a bit of a hassle for texting - if they're into a lot of texting - but I was never really into that much - so it doesn't bother me - I'd much rather "talk" to someone on the phone. I still have one of these 3G "feature phones" at home as well (it was one that someone gave me - but I did not use it much at that time, because it was not a dual-SIM phone). So I could start using that if I wanted to, to give me added privacy/security.
    1
  633.  @ГаляПоле  That's interesting to know.
    1
  634.  @ГаляПоле  Thanks for the tip!
    1
  635.  @I_r_i_  Large 5 - 6 litre "tubs" of ice-cream are very common in the ice-cream & freezer sections of supermarkets in the UK/USA/Australia. Families who have a few children will often buy ice-cream in these large "tubs". Also, in the USA I've heard they sell fresh milk sometimes in 1 gallon (just over 4.5 litres) plastic containers, while the most I've ever come across in my own country is a 3 litre plastic container of fresh milk in a supermarket. Is fresh milk available in such large-sized containers in Russia?
    1
  636.  @I_r_i_  Thanks - I find it interesting to notice the differences in the ways people do their grocery shopping, in different countries. Even though people in countries like UK/USA do grocery shopping less frequently & buy things in bulk - they usually still do cook a fresh evening meal each day, using existing supplies they have stored at home. Large freezers are a very common item in people's kitchens.
    1
  637.  @alexdenisov7912  Thanks for the comment. From yours & other comments I have received - it would appear that large 5- 6 litre tubs of ice-cream are at the very least, quite rare in Russia.
    1
  638.  @Nui_Nu  That's great that some supermarkets offer coffee & pastries as well. I've seen a couple of the larger supermarkets in my own country offer something similar - but it's certainly not very common.
    1
  639.  @АндрэаТиамо  It's great that Russians have such a good choice of supermarkets so close to home & within easy walking distance..
    1
  640.  @LenaLena-dy7os  It's obviously very handy, having supermarkets within easy walking distance of one's home.
    1
  641.  @Archaeopteryx_lithographica  It's obviously very handy - having supermarkets within easy walking distance from one's home. Where I'm from, each suburb will have a small shopping centre, with usually at least a small store, where one can buy grocery items - but the prices of items in those small local stores are usually much more expensive than in the larger supermarkets, which are further away, And it's common to buy things in larger quantities so one does not need to shop so often. Also, there is often a considerable "discount" for buying things "in bulk".
    1
  642.  @Ignat_Loshadev  A "bucket" or "tub" of ice-cream is much larger & holds 5 - 6 litres of ice-cream & means one does not need to buy it so often - because the larger size will last longer - especially if it's for a family with a couple of children. Also, the larger sizes are usually sold more cheaply "per litre" than the smaller sizes - so you can save money if you buy it in bulk or the larger sizes. At least, that's how it is where I'm from.
    1
  643.  @АлексПетров-ю3д  Yes - I have actually noticed that I have not seen many over-weight Russian people in these videos. In my country, people go to the supermarket less often, because the supermarkets are usually further away from where they live. So people do tend to buy things "in bulk" when they go grocery shopping, & they have large refrigerators & freezers in their homes, in which to store their purchases.
    1
  644.  @АлександрХрамов-д5е  Perhaps not in Russia, where everyone has supermarkets within easy walking distance of their homes/apartments. But in other countries where one needs to drive to the supermarket or have groceries home-delivered - it's much easier to buy things in bulk when one goes shopping - so as not to have to go shopping so often.
    1
  645.  @светланасветлана-н1д9у  I also like to eat ice-cream - even in cold weather.
    1
  646.  @АлексейСултанов-э1щ  In my country, Pepsi/Coca-Cola does not come in 5 litre bottles either - the maximum we have is 2 litres as well. But ice-cream DOES come in 5 litre tubs in my country.
    1
  647. I'm probably on of those people who fall into the category of only needing to back up to a hard drive - as I don't necessarily need to "sync" or back up everything for a lot of devices. I don't see myself needing something like a Synology personal cloud.
    1
  648. fp470:Re your point 5 - I don't see him as being in a hostile crowd. The crowd seems very jovial and in a great mood, but they are making a lot of noise. I think the guy is overcome by all the noise they are making and just wants a bit of peace and quiet. So to stop them making so much noise, he offers them some food, which of course happens to be KFC.
    1
  649. Despite what Kathy Lette may personally believe, she has now lived in the UK for many years, so I don't know that she can really speak for the Australian people. And let's not forget that the last time there was a referendum in Australia on whether Australia should become a republic - the vote by Australians in Australia, was clearly a "no". So I don't believe that Kathy Lette should be trying to over-ride the views of a majority of Australians on that issue.
    1
  650. Problem is - many people DO have 4G phones - but without the additional "VOLTE" that is also necessary to make them compatible with the new network. Hence there's an opportunity for Telstra to make a lot of money from those people having to upgrade their mobile phones, to new "compatible" devices. Without that addional VOLTE feature as well, those standard 4G mobile phones will not work on Telstra's new network.
    1
  651. Maybe the Canadian authorities will not allow him to do even that...
    1
  652.  @marklloyd4087  I think many people who engage in this race-baiting, or look for anything that may pertain to "race" in a person's comments or questions & then say they were being racist - are just wanting their 15 minutes of fame in the media spotlight - by deliberately misunderstanding what some well-known person has said. They're also looking to perhaps make some money out of it as well through appearance fees on media interviews etc. They are rarely "genuine" people.
    1
  653.  @PorterB  Based on the transcript of the conversation presented as evidence by Ngozi herself, nothing in that conversation which was said by Lady H, fits the dictionary or legal definition of racism.
    1
  654.  @theninjacat7200  Just because someone may have felt offended by what was said/done, does not mean that an "offence" (criminal or civil) has been committed. What Lady H said in that conversation, does not meet either the dictionary or legal definitions of racism.
    1
  655.  @Nutt-u  I have been well aware for many years now, of the difference between criminal & civil offences.
    1
  656.  @Nutt-u  I've never said or implied that anyone could be arrested for racism, or that racism was a criminal offence. Just because I may have previously commented that Ngozi's accusations of racism (based on the evidence she has provided to date) would not stand up in a court of law - does not imply that I meant it would be a criminal court of law. Even civil cases are still heard in the law courts. I've only ever said that perhaps a legal case could be made against someone for false accusations of racism, & that there might be a case for slander/libel/defamation - particularly because Lady H lost her job as a result of such accusations - so she has suffered a financial loss. I've also said that in general, legal cases can be pursued for things like racial discrimination in the workplace (which is illegal) - if someone is not given a job solely based on their ethnicity. Saying that something is a "legal" matter, or that something is "illegal" does not imply that it is a criminal matter. Of course, all those kinds of legal cases would involve civil court matters (not criminal prosecutions). Simply being curious or inquisitive about another person's ethnic origins, does not automatically mean they are a racist. The record of Ngozi's conversation with Lady H, is the only supposed "evidence" she has given us to date, to support her claims that Lady H is a racist. As far as evidence of racism goes - it just does not meet the standard definition - because all it shows is Lady H asking about Ngozi's ethnicity - & that's not racism. Even if it was the palace who sacked Lady H - it was only after the the accusations of racism about her had been made by Ngozi - so that might be recognised as a contributing factor if there were to be any pursuant legal case against Ngozi for slander/libel/defamation. I'm sure that most people these days agree that racism is not good. The problem is, that not too many people these days seem to understand the true meaning of the word, & they have twisted it to mean whatever they themselves want it to mean.
    1
  657.  @Flip-Da-Script  I'm sure that it's not just "white men" who do that. I can immediately think of any number of "non-white men" who do the same thing. There are many non-white male news-readers for instance. But whether they are white or non-white - who's to say that what they say is necessarily believed as the truth?
    1
  658.  @Nutt-u  I think racism IS something that a person can point out & give evidence for - if it meets the dictionary & legal definition of the word. The problem is that these days, everyone seems to want to make up their own meaning for the word - & what a lot of people now claim as "racism", is not real racism at all. In the Oprah interview, I think Meghan & Harry were already saying enough damaging things about the royal family, that it would not have made one bit of difference to their relationship with the royal family, if they had named the person who they claimed had made the racist comment. And I would still say that - even if that racist person happened to be the present Queen Consort. But if turns out the allegations did not relate to genuine racism - then I would of course, have something to say about that - even though I'm certainly no fan of Queen Consort Camilla's. The reason Meghan's family was not offered the same level of security as Kate (when Meghan & Harry were still in the UK) - is because Kate will be a future queen - whereas Harry is only 6th or 7th in line to the throne, so Harry & Meghan are way down in the pecking order, & are seen as not requiring the same level of security as the heir apparent & his family. It was unrelated to Meghan's race - though of course, Meghan herself would want to interpret it as being related to race. I did mention in detail, in one of my earlier responses to you here - that Meghan's comment about a royal family member enquiring about the shade/darkness of her future child's skin, is generally not perceived as a racist enquiry/comment, when discussed amongst families of non-white ethnicity, or families of mixed race. Such families often comment & talk about whether their future child will be lighter or darker-skinned etc - in a way,- it's similar to people wondering about what colour the child's eyes will be, or whether it will have a large nose, or big ears etc. I also mentioned that that comment was not actually made to Meghan herself, but made to Harry (who did not complain that it was a racist comment), who then mentioned it to Meghan, who then claimed it as racist - which may well have been done to make the royal family look bad. I don't know that Meghan & Harry's announced departure from the UK caused an "outrage" as such - I think many people were probably glad to see them leave - though their departure certainly did get a lot of media attention, as their public reputation had been declining for some time by then. In the lead up to their engagement & then wedding, I think Meghan & Harry were both very well-accepted & the British public was very happy for them both & they got a lot of good media/press. I would not say that they got any truly bad press at that time, & if there may have been a bit of bad press - it certainly was not because Meghan was a woman of colour. There was a little bit of information coming out about her family background & why her own father was not invited to her wedding & was not asked to walk Meghan down the aisle. That did reflect slightly badly on Meghan I think - with people wondering the reason for that. As it turned out, a very last minute medical issue meant that Meghan's father was hospitalised at the time of her wedding, & would not have been able to attend anyway. But people were certainly wondering why he was not invited to the wedding - perhaps Meghan felt ashamed of him for some reason? So I don't really believe that Meghan was "villified" by the media prior to the wedding. But it was some time after the wedding that Meghan's public reputation started going downhill with the British public & the media, following further revelations about her family, & things that she was saying. She was obviously wanting to be more outspoken & express her opinions on political issues - but could not do that - as royal family members are meant to be apolitical. I would dispute your statement that the "racist" British royal family ran South Africa & was largely responsible for the apartheid system in that country. The system of apartheid in South Africa only came into being at the end of WWII, by which time, South Africa was a self-governing country (though still a member of the British Commonwealth), with a couple of different political parties in that country vying for power to govern the country. It was largely the white Afrikaaner-dominated party, which campaigned for increased racial segregation in the country, & started to implement it. The Afrikaaners were settlers of Dutch origin & the word "apartheid" is a word from the Afrikaaner language - which is very similar to Dutch. So although the British were colonisers in many parts of the world, it does not automatically mean that they were racist. And the British royal family were never actually the ones who were in charge, or running the countries, or responsible for the apartheid system in South Africa. In any colonised countries - it was always the British government itself that was running the colonies. And the British government was democratically elected by the British people. On the other hand, the British royal family themselves were always apolitical - so who knows whether they were racists or not? And even if some members of previous royal families may have been racist, that does not automatically mean that everyone in the current royal family is racist.
    1
  659.  @Nutt-u  I don't think you can claim that an entire institution is racist, unless everyone who makes up that institution is racist themselves, or the institution has official written policies, which may be racist. Thus, I think it is unfair to say that the royal family is racist, when we really may not know (or even ever find out), because they are not allowed to express their personal views. But I certainly do agree that the royal family should all hold themselves way above racism. Most of the media coverage I saw of Harry & Meghan prior to their engagement & marriage was highly favourable, & Meghan was seen as very popular - so in my opinion, the media did not appear to be against her from the outset. It's certainly true that some racial segregation did exist in South Africa, prior to the introduction of apartheid - though apartheid actually introduced laws, which made the segregation much more harsh & strict. The apartheid laws were introduced towards the end of WWII, when the country was already largely self-governing, but still a member of the British Commonwealth. In reality, the British monarch would have still had a representation in the country - but it was really more just a figurehead, & there was no real "control" of South Africa from the British side. As a result, the British monarchy would not have acted to stop the introduction of apartheid at the time - because it was supported by the political parties in South Africa at that time. It was the South African political parties themselves which formulated & introduced the actual apartheid laws. South Africa did actually become a "republic" as such, in the early 1960's - but even long before then, it was already self-governing. A country does not need to be a republic to be fully self-governing. There are many countries today that are still members of the British Commonwealth, but are not yet republics - but most of them are fully self-governing, & have been like that for many years. Countries like Canada, Australia, & New Zealand, have been independent self-governing countries for many years. They are not republics - yet they are still fully self-governing, & still members of the British Commonwealth. Yes - the monarchy & the British crown still do, in reality, have some powers they can exercise in relation to governments in British Commonwealth countries. But where such countries are now fully independent & self-governing, the British Crown will rarely choose to exercise those powers, as it believes those countries should work to resolve their own matters. For example, there was a political situation in Australia back in the 1970's, where the government could not get some finance supply bill passed in the upper house, which may have caused severe problems in the country's economy. The Australian governor-general at the time (the Queen's representative in Australia), used his reserve powers, given to him by the Australian Constitution, to dismiss the government & call a general election. Many people questioned this action by the governor-general, claiming that it was illegal, & the elected Australian government appealed to the Queen to over-ride the actions of her representative. The Queen refused to do this, as she said it was up to Australia to manage its own affairs. So it is quite a rarity that the British monarchy will ever use their powers to interfere in the government of one of their British Commonwealth countries.
    1
  660.  @Nutt-u  Yes - it was certainly a shame that so much money had to be spent renovating Frogmore Cottage for Meghan & Harry to move into after their marriage - then not long after they got married, they decided to step down from all their official royal duties & move to California. However I did hear in a news item, that more recently, Meghan & Harry had agreed to pay back at last a part of the money that was spent on those renovations. Yes - they certainly did monetise their ex-royal status, once they went to live in California, & I also think that's morally questionable. They probably needed that money to support themselves in California, now that they were no longer working royals. But I also do wonder whether that is what they may have had planned from the start. Instead of living on a much more modest income as working royals in the UK, they saw an opportunity to make lots of money for themselves & live in luxury, back in Meghan's home country - so that is what they did. I can understand why Lady Hussey may have seemed like she was in a position of power at the time she had that conversation with Ngozi. The event may have been held on royal premises & Lady Hussey was part of the team representing the host. But when one is being questioned with a persistent line of questioning, one can always choose to say, as politely as possible, something like - I'm sorry, I just don't know, or I'm sorry - I'd prefer not to say - & that should generally put an end to that line of questioning - especially in a more formal setting as it was. I think the only error that Lady Hussey really made was being too persistent with her line of questioning. If I had been in Lady Hussey's position & got those responses that Ngozi gave - I would have very quickly ignored/forgotten about Ngozi, & promptly moved on to the next person in the queue, who was hopefully more responsive. However, it can be difficult once a guest has accepted an invitation to one of these functions - as there is then a certain expectation on the quest to properly socialise there. If you were not prepared to socialise - why would you accept the invitation in the first place? And especially if you were dressed in the unusual outfit in which Ngozi was dressed on that occasion - you would also expect that to prompt a few questions from people, as to its origins etc. In the end, the palace (Charles & William) did decide to dismiss Lady Hussey, based on Ngozi's claims of racism, even though they themselves had not witnessed the incident first hand. Actually, what I had initially heard, was that Lady Hussey had resigned - though I expect she had been asked to resign by Charles & William, as the process is then made much easier for the employer. If the employer actually has to sack/dismiss someone, then there a a range of procedures which have to be followed, & it would take quite some time before they could eventually be dismissed/sacked. I think if people are going to make accusations of racism, or anything else at all really, then they need to stick to the correct definition of the word & make sure there's evidence to show that it's true racism. These days everyone tends to invent their own definitions for lots of words. But if everyone is consistent & sticks to the dictionary definitions, then you can't really go wrong & everyone will understand what you mean, & know where they stand & there's far less room for misunderstandings. I would have no problem with Ngozi talking about her experience with Lady Hussey - providing she did not refer to it as racism & accuse Lady Hussey, of racism - because at the end of the day, it's not really racism at all - it's just asking someone about their ethnic background/heritage.
    1
  661. I will often go into a city supermarket on my way home from work, just looking to purchase maybe one or two items that I need. But sometimes, the supermarket does not have the products that I need to buy, so I end up leaving the supermarket empty-handed, after having purchased nothing - so I have no receipt to scan, if I choose to exit either through a staffed check-out, or through the self-service check-out area. In such instances, I assume I would probably have to call over a staff member, to allow me to "exit" the store, without having any receipt I could scan - or would perhaps any receipt at all from that store - like an "old" receipt from a previous day's purchase (which I will often still have in my bag), be acceptable to the store's scanning equipment when I exit? Customers who may not wish, for whatever reason, to scan their receipt on exit, could perhaps line up at another "staffed" exit, where they would be required to simply "show" their receipt to the staff member manning that exit. The staff member would check that receipt for things like date & time & perhaps amount. Another thing which I did not hear mentioned in the above video - is that these days, many supermarkets do not automatically issue customers with a paper receipt, unless it is specifically requested. So now, all customers will need to make sure they specifically request a paper receipt for evidence of their purchase, or the supermarkets will need to re-program their check-outs to automatically issue a paper receipt for each purchase transaction. If customers use a supermarket's "app" on their mobile phone - I presume they might be able to be issued with some sort of electronic/digital receipt on their phone - & hopefully that might also be acceptable for scanning purposes - so it can be scanned when they exit the store.
    1
  662. NzerinOz: Well, it is possible for people to have dual nationality if they were born in one country, then later went to another country, and actively took out citizenship of that country. It is also possible for people to be classed as "citizens" of one country (even though they weren't born there, and don't live there) just because their parents were of that nationality...
    1
  663. Just had an idea - maybe "The Chaser" could do a "send-up" of these episodes of TYT, labelling themselves "The Young Twats"/"The Yankee Twits" or some such thing. They could then pretend to be on a panel, dissecting all of America's TV ads, for "racism". I know how much The Chaser loves sending up the Yanks, so I think they'd do a good job of something like that.
    1
  664. In Google Android smartphones that come pre-loaded with a lot of Google apps including YouTube (none of which can be uninstalled from the phone) - you may well find that Google simply does not allow you to watch YouTube through a browser on a phone where the YouTube app exists. I tried doing this myself & whenever I tried accessing YouTube via the phone's web browser - it kept just re-directing me to the app. Due to all the spying Google had done on me & my phone, it obviously knew I had the YouTube app on the phone & would not allow me to connect to YouTube via the browser.
    1
  665. PollockQT: It's unrealistic to assume that KFC would have made an ad anywhere in the world, which would have deliberately offended an audience in their home market - the US. People aren't idiots, and I'm sure they realise that these days, even an ad intended for a local TV audience will eventually be seen by some people who were not the target audience. When this happens they usually assume the viewer will be intelligent enough to try and see the ad within the originally intended context.
    1
  666. I agree that the advertisement has probably worked to get Honey Birdette some publicity. Whether it's good or bad publicity though, remains to be seen. But it's the point behind the publicity that really matters. If the point behind getting this publicity was to actually increase sales (which is, after all, the point behind most expensive advertising campaigns) - then I would say it has probably failed miserably, unless their primary market for this type of lingerie has now changed, & is actually young men, similar to the one in the advertisement. And if young men are now their main market for this lingerie, then it will be a very small market indeed, I believe. I always understood that Honey Birdette's main market for their lingerie, was actually women. And if that is indeed still the case, then I don't think they are likely to increase their sales/market share as a result of the above advertisement. Most women simply will not be able to identify with the male model wearing women's lingerie. And if they have seen that advertisement, it is more likely to actually put them off buying that lingerie, if it is identified with men. The kind of women that purchase lingerie from Honey Birdette, are looking for lingerie that will make them feel good about themselves & "ultra-feminine" & sexy. And none of that is conveyed in the above advertisement by the young man wearing women's lingerie. Most women would not want to wear lingerie/underwear that a man would wear. I think Honey Birdette have done themselves a very great dis-service with the above advertisement & I think are highly likely to see a huge downturn in sales as a result of the above ad. It may be all very well for them to "go woke" - but in the process, they may very well also "go broke". I wonder if we're likely to see any young women modelling men's underwear, in men's underwear advertisements? I'm sure most women probably are not as stupid as the young man in the above ad. I think all women should boycott Honey Birdette - there's plenty of other places they can go, to purchase truly "feminine" lingerie. And while they're at it, maybe they could front advertisements as ambassadors/promoters of such things as penis enhancements & prostate cancer!
    1
  667.  @LinaK786  I really don't believe that he will ruin any translator's career - try as he might. Most rational people will understand that it's simply not possible for a translator to translate names which are not in the manuscript they were given - & it's far more likely that those names WERE in the manuscript that the translator received. I think most people will realise that this whole thing is far more likely to be the fault of Scobie &/or the publisher & one of these 2 is being dishonest, or just outright lying.
    1
  668. I think that by labelling the Australian ad as "racist", simply by applying their own "American racial stereotypes" to it, they are in fact saying that they believe America is superior to the rest of the world. They are also saying that the rest of the world needs to take extreme care not to offend black people in America by making sure everyone is aware of all of Americas own racial stereotypes, so they don't show these stereotypes in their ads...
    1
  669. Those are all corrupt organisations that support Hamas terrorism.
    1
  670. Those are all corrupt organisations that support radical Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas.
    1
  671. IdeaSponge:The thing that I found really annoying about their presentation of the issue was that there was no genuine "discussion" about the matter, and no-one put forward another viewpoint . They were just merrily going along with each other and patting each other on the back for agreeing. I would like to have seen a proper "debate" of the matter, where they brought in some qualified "experts" to talk about the issue, instead of their uninformed opinion.
    1
  672. I believe there is a real chance that people outside the US, not knowing of the "American racial stereotype", will misinterpret America's own criticism about the ad being racist. And if America misinterpretted the ad in the first instance, shouldn't others be allowed to misinterpret America's criticism? If America didn't research the ad properly in the first place, shouldn't others be allowed to do the same about their racist allegations?...
    1
  673. philochs: But I think that episode about the Simpsons in Australia is obviously also a valid refelection of what America thinks about Australia and the rest of the world beyond its own shores. It simply doesn't care less about anyone else. If it did, it would make a bit more of an effort to learn more about other cultures.
    1
  674. I think it might sometimes still be difficult to disappear using only cash, as quite a few places these days are starting to no longer accept cash payments at all, & only accept card payments. Also, even though some places like hotels & motels, may allow you to pay your bill in cash, they will often still require you to provide them with your credit card details & some personal ID.
    1
  675.  @sonsofthesilentage994  But what culture will they replace it with? Islamic/Muslim culture? They all seem to be keen on promoting & protecting the Islamic culture & assuring everyone it's a "religion of peace" - but it's clear that they're even too stupid to read the Quran & hadiths - because if they'd read those, they would soon realise that Islam is certainly not a religion that teaches/preaches peace. And if it's a Marxist society they want to create - because all the founders of the BLM movement have stated they are "trained Marxists" (& other movements may have similar intentions) - well, they're clearly not smart enough to know their history, because all of the Marxist/communist states that have existed in the past have been dismal failures & have now collapsed & are no longer truly communist. North Korea is also a failure, & there is plenty of poverty in China - despite what they claim. So who in their right mind would want to live under any of those kinds of regimes? It seems to me that it would only be the stupid & hypocritical people - the kinds who claim to want a "secular" Christmas - taking the extra holidays while claiming not to believe in Christmas. But there's no such thing a secular Christmas - you either are a Christian who believes in & celebrates Christmas, or you are not a Christian & therefore do not celebrate Christmas at all. But there's no such thing as a "secular" Christmas - except maybe for those hypocrites who just want an extra couple of days holiday from work. But if people are "genuine" about not believing in or celebrating Christmas, then they should not even want those extra couple of days holiday at Christmas.
    1
  676. It's ironic that those who are loudly proclaiming tolerance, diversity, & inclusiveness - often actually "practise" it the least, by excluding certain people. They are effectively saying "in order for us to be tolerant & inclusive, we have to exclude & not tolerate people who do not agree with us". On the other hand - most other normal people are just getting on with things & not making a big deal of it, but quietly accepting of everyone - regardless of their views or opinions - & that is the most genuine form of tolerance & inclusiveness. Unfortunately, with many businesses, it's not too common - you either have to agree with them & positively promote their political & ideological views, or you get excluded & are branded a bigot. That is the point at which we have arrived, with the woke & cancel culture ideologies. And it's happening because businesses & even other individuals, expect everyone else to agree with them & promote their views, rather than their own views. I also wonder - if those statements made have caused a dramatic drop in the company's share price, & it does not recover - would the shareholders be able to take any action?
    1
  677. Rather than "handsome" - I think she just said the guy should be "good looking". In later episodes of this documentary there were at least 2 single Jewish guys around her age who were still looking for wives - both I would have described as "reasonable looking" - perhaps she could have gotten in touch with them.
    1
  678. They don't have to send their babies away - they always have the option to return to their home countries with their babies & leave their employment in Israel. If they're aware of the terms & conditions of their employment visa up front, they should be prepared to take their babies back to their home country & remain there - if they don't want to simply send their babies back to their home country themselves. But if they want to continue their employment in Israel - they really have no option but to comply with the terms & conditions of their Israeli employment visa.
    1
  679.  @blessings515  Everyone needs to abide by the rules - no matter who they are. The law is not disregarded just because of someone's own personal circumstances.
    1
  680. Why don't they just bring in some "real" experts - credentialled and qualified people, and have a proper debate on the issue, to determine "Is the ad racist?". That would be the sensible thing to do. But I suspect they don't want to do it, because in reality, they know who would probably win, and they wouldn't like the result.
    1
  681. It's just one of the many lies that Ms Markle told in that Oprah interview. She has absolutely NO credibility whatsoever - it's just part of the "debacle of Ms Markle". I believe she at least also has a brother/half brother, in addition to a half sister. That Oprah interview was the worst interview ever. Oprah as an interviewer was extremely gullible - just accepting everything Markle said at face value & as being true - without ever delving any further into Markle's responses, or asking her for any evidence at all, of the veracity of any of the claims Markle was making. What I found particularly astounding & which made Markle sound so very stupid, was Markle's claim that she & Harry had already been "married" (a couple of days prior to the official televised ceremony) by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a private back-yard ceremony involving just the 3 of them. And the ever stupid & gullible Oprah even swallowed that story without so much as a question or asking for a copy of the marriage certificate showing that to be the case. It's quite common knowledge these days (but even more so for anyone getting married, or that has ever been married) that all marriages in most western democratic countries, require at least 2 witnesses in addition to the marriage celebrant & the bridal couple - so they could not have possibly been "legally" married in that back-yard ceremony with just the 3 of them. As this was Markle's 2nd marriage (she had divorced her first husband) - you'd think that if she had a single ounce of intelligence in her whole body, she would have understood that. But perhaps Markle thought that since she was marrying a member of the royal family this time - none of those rules applied to her! At the very best, the only thing that might have happened in that back-yard, was a form of "rehearsal" for the wedding, where they may have also rehearsed/practised their vows. But very stupid 30-something divorcee Markle, thought they "got married" in that back-yard situation. How stupid could she possibly be? Even their marriage certificate shows that they certainly did not get married in that back-yard - so Markle was proven to have lied about that - even though Oprah herself believed every word Markle said in the interview & did not query her even once about that lie. They were just both a couple of very stupid people in that interview. Oprah is an absolutely terrible interviewer!
    1
  682. Why on earth are parents taking their children out of school during term time, to take them on a holiday? My parents never did that with me - we either went away on holidays during the school holidays - or we did not go away for the school holidays at all. I think that if parents want to take their children out of school during term time, to take them away somewhere on a holiday - then before they put them back into their regular school class upon their return from that holiday, the parents need to pay to have them privately tutored at home for an amount of time equal to the amount of time they were sway from school - the purpose being, to bring them up to date on all the school work they may have missed out on while they were away. The tutor would then have to sign a certificate for the school, confirming the length of time they tutored the children for, & confirming what was covered by that tutoring, so that the school would know that the items which the child had missed out on by not being at school, had been covered by the private tutoring. That way, the classroom teacher would not have to spend extra time with students who had been on holiday during term time, to try to bring them up to date on what they had missed out on by being on holiday during term time. And the rest of the students in the class would not be disadvantaged by that.
    1
  683. ...It is people like TYT themselves who are keeping such stereotypes alive and well in American society. Maybe this is their way of keeping American black people in their place, by continually reminding them of their stereotype from the past. They will never let them forget they were once slaves who ate chicken.
    1
  684. SirFoggy2Doped: So, using your own standards, Australians would have a right to come over to America and examine all American TV ads in detail, and if they found some TV ads which depicted a racial stereotype of indigenous Australian Aboriginal people, then Australians could insist that all those ads be removed from American TV! Actually I quite like that idea, and I would take pleasure in removing many such ads from American TV!
    1
  685.  @judex3226  It can sometimes be difficult to prove that allegations are actually "false" as such. A finding of "not guilty" for the accused, does not necessarily mean that the allegations were false - only that there was insufficient evidence presented in court to find the accused guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. A court hearing does not prove the accused's "innocence" - it can only find them guilty or not guilty. A separate court case would probably be required, to pursue the accuser for any false allegations - & there would need to be sufficient evidence to show that the allegations were false, before it could proceed to court.
    1
  686. That's quite a lengthy document, just for a paper on "inclusivity language". What a waste of money! I'm sure they must have paid someone or some organisation millions of dollars to come up with that document full of nonsense. Instead of giving all that money to help vulnerable people in developing countries. That's certainly not what I was giving them my money for & I'm glad that I've now cancelled my donations & support of their stores, & am now donating that money elsewhere. Don't want to support any more of that rubbish!
    1
  687. Any messaging system that uses your phone number could be susceptible to receiving such messages. But some messaging systems also sell their users' data, which could include their messaging app user ID - so someone else could also obtain someone's user ID that way as well, then send them a message containing spyware, via that messaging app. But as to whether that message then successfully manages to install the spyware onto your phone handset, is dependent upon the phone's hardware, software, & operating system itself. To date, iPhones have usually been the more frequently infiltrated phones, despite their claims to be more private & secure - which may lull its users into a false sense of security. This is more than likely because most iPhones are basically the same, having the same hardware, software & operating systems, within any single version of the phone. So it may be easier to create a single piece of spyware to more readily infiltrate such phones. Google Android phones, on the other hand, have a great deal of variety - with a number of different makes & models of phones, all with different hardware, software, & different Google operating systems. This may work to its advantage, by making it more difficult for a single piece of spyware to be designed that could infiltrate all the different varieties of Google Android Phones.
    1
  688. As (hopefully) more people become aware of the dangers of revealing all their personal information/data in on-line areas, & big tech starts to become starved of any useful information - I wonder how much longer it will be before the government & other authorities start to ban things like de-Googled/non-Google phones, & even creators of channels like this one, which are telling people to be careful with disclosing their details.
    1
  689. I believe the decision by the royal family not to publicly wish Prince Harry a happy birthday, via the royal family's web site, is deliberate & warranted, given that he is no longer a working member of the royal family. The royal family may well have wished him a happy birthday privately, or sent him a birthday card - & if that is the case - I'm sure that Harry is probably saving that to publish & make public in his next book - & that is why we may not have heard anything about it yet. If he had not received any birthday wishes at all from the royal family - Harry most certainly would have made sure it was on the front pages of the newspapers the next day, because he would have wanted everyone to know about it. Also, sending birthday greetings should a reciprocal thing - & I wonder if Harry sends birthday greetings to any of the royal family members himself. If not, then surely he cannot expect to receive birthday greetings from them himself. But I suspect Harry may well hold other members of the royal family to higher standards than he upholds himself.
    1
  690. It just shows what a bunch of incompetent idiots Hamas really are, if they cannot keep track of where the remaining hostages are located. And Penny Wong is just as incompetent as the Hamas that she supports.
    1
  691. Actually, where I live, our police force has a Facebook page & they will often post photos or video footage there, of people committing crimes/offences, & seek the assistance of the public to identify the offenders in those photos/video footage. So, because those photos/video footage were posted on the Facebook page of the police force itself, anyone at all could view them, & offer their assistance to identify the offenders.
    1
  692. He was not doing anything illegal in the above video that we saw. It just seems like the police are a bunch of incompetent wusses.
    1
  693. Even if Titus' birth certificate may have been destroyed, he could probably always apply to the authorities for a replacement birth certificate if he needed one. So it's not as though he's entirely without any identification documents. Unlike with a social security number/record, you can't just ask the authorities to remove the record of your birth from the register of births - unless you can somehow prove to them that the birth never actually occurred. And it may be that if he asked the appropriate authority, he could probably get his social security record re-instated as well. He may well also have some sort of taxation record, which could serve s a form of ID. He probably would have needed to provide some form of ID, in order to get his land-line phone installed.
    1
  694. When it comes to claims of racism though, it seems Americans don't just want to pay attention to the way American companies such as KFC are advertising overseas. They also seem to want to pass judgement on the ads of any company advertising overseas. TYT also actually claimed a Korean TV ad for chicken was racist - though in this case, it was not KFC and presumably a Korean company called Kyochon chicken...
    1
  695. The "Hey Hey" sketch was always intended merely as a comedy and a send-up of Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five - not a serious impersonation. Some say imitation is form of flattery, even though it might not be portrayed in serious manner...
    1
  696. I believe that "Good Morning Britain" is meant to be an "entertaining" show & without the likes of Piers Morgan (whom I believe was probably its main attraction) - I think the show's viewing numbers will take a steep dive. I for one will feel much less inclined to watch it. now that Piers Morgan won't be part of it.
    1
  697.  @Daisy-tl2lh  That may be - but it would not be a "real" functioning cervix to start with - it's just something that's made to resemble a cervix. I guess you could say it's a fake/pretend cervix. There would not be much point in getting a "smear test" - they would only be getting it to make themselves "feel more womanly". So if they were to get cancer in that part of their body (in the fake cervix), it would really be a "fake" cervical cancer. In the same manner, I would also guess that a "trans man" could have a "fake" prostate made for them, & if that part of their body got cancer, they could try to claim it as "prostate cancer" - which might mean the original statement about women not getting prostate cancer is not totally correct.
    1
  698. ...And if you think the stereotypes ARE well known outside of the US, there's obviously no point in worrying about spreading them further.The fact you are concerned about spreading them further, indicates you think they are not presently well-known outside the US. Yet it is you who are now spreading these stereotypes, by proclaiming them to the whole world on the internet. Prior to this, most of the world would not even have known about them. But now, thanks to you, a lot more people do!
    1
  699. It is not possible to determine whether someone is "guilty" until after any prosecution has been finalised & the court has reached a decision as to whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Before the matter goes to court, a decision will be made as to whether there is sufficient evidence of the allegations, for a prosecution to proceed. Under normal circumstances, people are usually free to talk about the allegations, until the case has actually been commenced in a court of law & is an active/live case. However, in the case of these particular allegations, the police are still investigating the allegations & no charges have yet been laid against Brand. So it is not yet known whether the case will proceed to court. If it does not proceed to court - individuals will still be free to discuss the allegations privately & form their own opinions on the matter - that is what is known as the "court of public opinion" - & there is not much that can be done to stop it.
    1
  700. The apartment does look very modern. But one thing I've noticed about these apartments that seem to have an open plan kitchen/dining/lounge area, is that so often, the amount of bench space in the kitchen, for meal preparation, is very minimal. If someone were really into cooking, I'm not sure that such a tiny amount of kitchen bench space would suit them. I don't think it would suit me - as someone who is used to a larger kitchen, with a double sink. The dining tables also look quite small, & the lounge area rather narrow. Also, even in the master bedroom - there does not appear to be any wardrobe/cupboard space for their clothes etc. I also noticed that in some of the common areas of the building, there looked to be a lot of unused open wasted spaces that could probably put to better use. Having said that, certainly for the price of the apartment though, it does seem very reasonably priced, looking at it through the eyes of someone who lives in a western developed country. But I do wonder how affordable it would be for an average Russian person/family on an average Russian income.
    1
  701. Just wondering whether this threat of contempt of court charges would apply only to people in the UK, where any court case might be likely to be conducted - or whether they could apply to anyone anywhere in the world - given that the internet & social media sites have people from countries all over the world, where the laws may very well be different.
    1
  702. If the political climate in China changes to the point that serpentza feels he can no longer go on living in China, I wonder whether he would have to return to live in South Africa (which he clearly dislikes) - or whether he might already hold the citizenship of another country where he could choose to permanently reside. Or if he does not presently hold the citizenship of any other country to which he could move - would he try to migrate to another country & become a citizen? Or perhaps in the meantime, he might temporarily move to another country on a temporary tourist visa.
    1
  703. Maybe people, instead of using Christian words as swear words, need to start using the words Muhammad/Allah/Buddha etc as swear words. And whenever a festive occasion for another religion comes long - like Eid, Ramadan, Hannukah, Purim, Diwali etc - we should not mention the names of those celebrations, for fear of offending people. Instead, we should just wish those people "Happy Festivities" etc.
    1
  704. Some of my further thoughts regarding the on-line safety bill - I have often wondered whether they will really end up catching any genuine so-called "child abuse material" on phones through the implementation of technology as a result of this bill. Now that they have given everyone fair warning that this is going to happen - it's more than likely all the criminals out there who may have had such illegal material on their phones, will come up with other inventive ways to store such material, so the authorities do not find it. Now that the on-line safety bill is law - I also do wonder whether the authorities are going to be held accountable, by providing the community with statistics on their activities - such as how many documents/images were scanned & of those, how many were found to contain the specified illegal material for which they were searching. And of those illegal documents/images, how many charges were laid & how many people were successfully prosecuted. I suspect it would be a very small number. I'd also be interested to know - how much all of this is actually costing. Is it worth that cost - or could that money have been better spent on using other, much more targeted methods, to identify such criminals? Instead of putting client-side scanning on everyone's phones - they could probably just request the likes of Google & Apple to scan Google & the iCloud for that same information & they would probably comply. After all, they already regularly co-operate & pass their customer information on to government authorities. This makes me think there could possibly be an ulterior motive in wanting to put client-side scanning on all mobile phones. Maybe they are hoping to get some insight into what people might be thinking, or their beliefs - especially now that people have already been arrested for what they might be doing/thinking in their heads.
    1
  705. This woman sounds like she does not even understand the English language. Every time she attempts to clarify or paraphrase her understanding of what Mr Peterson has said - she gets it totally wrong in a way no-one else would. Every time anyone opens their mouth to say something in this world, they risk offending someone. If the world was to introduce laws preventing people from saying anything that offended anyone - then that would be an extremely severe constraint on people's freedom of speech. You'd be surprised at what little it takes to offend some people - & all it would then take would be for some people, somewhere, to claim that they had been offended by something someone somewhere had said, & the person who said it might find themselves up on charges, or worse still - behind bars for having offended someone by what they had said. Laws should not exist solely for the purpose of protecting people's feelings, emotions, & whether they might feel emotionally hurt or offended by something someone says. Freedom of speech is more important than that. All our politicians would probably be behind bars if such laws were brought into force. There's no such thing as people having a legal "right" or "entitlement" not to have their feelings hurt, or not to be offended by something someone else says. People just need to toughen up a bit, & learn not to be quite so "precious" & "sensitive" about what others might say.
    1
  706. I think it's great in many ways. It pokes fun at all those people & companies who promote the idea that a transgender person/woman is the same as a real woman & pokes fun at them awarding transgender people awards that were intended for real women (not transgender people). It also makes fun of the acceptance of transgender people competing alongside real women in women's sporting competitions, & transgender people being used as models to promote women's clothing & lingerie & all things that are very typically female. I don't think any real woman can identify with brands that use transgender people to promote products intended for real women, & I don't think that any real woman wants to be considered the same as a transgender person, when very clearly there are major differences. If anything, I believe real women are likely to be put off by brands which use transgender women to promote female products. But given there's been so much of that kind of utter nonsense of late - I do think it's about time we saw a real woman (not even a transgender person/man) win a male/men's award for something! Now I'd like to see women being used as models to promote men's clothing & underwear & other typically male products! It just goes to show that the best man for the job is often a woman - & a man's job is so easy, even a woman could do it! Go Kim Kardashian! If a transgender person can win an award designed for real women, then why can't a real woman win an award designed for a man? Why do some people consider it acceptable for a transgender person to win an award intended for real women, but then object to Kim Kardashian winning an award intended for men? Is there a double standard with some people? I suspect so. If people cannot answer the very basic question "what is a woman?" - then should we not also be asking the similar question "what is a man?" - & expect similar answers - like "a man is anyone who thinks they are a man. Anyone can be a man". I just wish everyone would use some common sense & only give women's awards to real women & only use real female models for women's clothing & other women's products. And let's have women's sporting competitions only for real women.
    1
  707. It's a difficult question for most people to answer - but always having been a strong swimmer, I could probably save both of them. But if it came to the crunch between girlfriend/boyfriend & my mother, I would probably choose my mother. I think I would feel terrible, if, further down the track after having saved my girlfriend/boyfriend over my mother, my girlfriend/boyfriend just dumped me (after having already lost my mother), & we did not end up getting married. However, if it is a choice between saving one's wife/husband, & one's mother - I think the "correct" answer, for someone in western society, should be the wife/husband. Using the traditional Christian/Biblical concept of marriage in the west, marriage is when one leaves one's own family (the family that one was born into), to "become one" with one's wife/husband, & start a new family of one's own. Therefore, that new family becomes independent from, & now takes precedence over the family into which one was born. Having "divided loyalties" usually does not work very well, & can certainly be a hindrance to everyone. Parents should understand that, & allow a newly-married couple their independence, which is at it should be. Also, saving the wife & mother, or husband & father of one's children (if one has children), is very important - because no-one wants their children to grow up mother- or father-less. While it is true that parents can re-marry following the death of their spouse, having a step-mother or step-father can be a traumatic experience for children, particularly when that step-parent does not treat their step-children very well. Having said all of the above, I can certainly understand the temptation to save one's mother over one's wife/husband - particularly if one has a difficult marriage. However there are other options available to take care of that - other than letting them drown.
    1
  708. What the law may consider as "phone hacking" & what the technology industry refers to as "hacking" can be 2 different things. Generally speaking, what the technology industry regards as "hacking" is the "brute force" definition, to which a passing reference was made in the above video. What the law may regard as "hacking" is a wider definition, which may include any form of unauthorised access to information using a person's phone. Using the stricter "brute force" definition of the technology industry, most Android phones & iPhones are actually reasonably secure, & quite difficult to genuinely "hack" unless one has access to the phone handset itself. Government authorities of course, also have ways to access information on phones, which the average person cannot legally access. Often people will claim that their phone has been "hacked" when this is not technically the case - but the owner may have somehow inadvertently allowed other people or computer programs/apps to access information on their phone. The phone user may have discovered something about their phone or some information on their phone that they did not know was there, or they believe should not have been there - resulting in their claims that their phone has been "hacked" - though technically this was not the case. It's possible their phone's settings, or an app on their phone, may have allowed a 3rd party access to certain information on the phone. As mentioned in the above video, this is a very good reason not to allow anyone else access to your phone, or give them the phone & log-in password, & ensure that the phone's settings are sufficiently strict not to allow apps to access information on the phone, that they do not need to access.
    1
  709. The UN is about as useless as the WHO was at the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak - providing totally incorrect information on situation.
    1
  710. I often wonder - if one lives in a very remote & isolated area where mobile phone coverage/service is very limited or intermittent at best & even internet coverage via satellite can be intermittent, due to things like the weather & other unfavourable conditions - is it still possible for one's precise location to be tracked/pinpointed via things like wi-fi triangulation & other tracking methods using one's phone.
    1
  711. That may be - but only the phone company has access to that information - or government authorities, if they have a warrant. The likes of Google, Apple, Facebook etc, will not know that information unless you give it to them yourself. Which is why a husband & wife could use the same phone number for 2FA with Google. Google/Apple/Facebook etc have no way of knowing who actually legally owns that phone number you give them for 2FA.
    1
  712.  @colours4301  It's covered by the word "government authorities" in my above comment - & those authorites include the police, with a legal warrant for that information. But that kind of information (as held by one's phone service provider) cannot just be revealed to anyone at all, on request - & certainly not the likes of Facebook, Google, Apple etc. It is confidential information that can only be released to government authorities on their request with a warrant.
    1
  713. It seems the media/press can never get things right - the lady who asked the question was not even a member of the royal family - she was basically an employee of the royal family who had worked for the Queen. She may have had the title of "Lady" because she was either a member of the aristocracy by birth (just as Diana had been "Lady Diana Spencer" before her marriage to Prince Charles) - or may have had that title bestowed on her at some stage, by the Queen. Her comments/questions were merely inquisitive/curious about the lady's heritage - rather than racist. It's certainly not racist to be curious about the background/heritage of a person who is clearly of a different/non-indigenous British ethnicity - even though they may have been born in the UK & are a British citizen. And let's also remember that Lady Hussey is 83/84 years old & would have grown up in a totally different era, to those in the media who are referring to her comments as racist. So surely her age itself means we should give her a bit of respect & also give her the benefit of any doubt that there may be in some much younger people.
    1
  714. Jemini29944: To clarify: each ad in the series separately depicts the "opposition" supporters at a match, being offered KFC.
    1
  715.  @bigbinji6145  If the original allegations can be proven to be false, then they could be prosecuted, I would think - providing there is sufficient evidence of the false allegations, to satisfy the court. It would not be the first time someone has been prosecuted for making false allegations.
    1
  716. I agree - if people in America would just stop talking about all their American racial stereotypes, maybe their stereotypes would eventually fade away into obscurity, disappear altogether, and just become ancient history. By trying to see their stereotypes in every little thing, such as ads, and making a big thing out of it, they only perpetuate them - thus ensuring they will never go completely go away...
    1
  717. philochs: I can't claim to like AC/DC music, but they are generally thought of as Australian. Yes, we do lay claim to Mel Gibson sometimes, because Australia was where he trained as an actor, and he started his career. I think Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman (both Australians) are pretty cool - but they're not rock musicians.
    1
  718. These two are claiming the ad itself is "spreading the American racial Stereotype about black people and chicken". I disagree - the only people who are truly spreading that stereotype is these two people. They did that the minute they claimed the ad was racist purely because they misunderstood it to portray a certain American stereotype about black people. Before that, most of the world had not even heard of the stereotype. Now, thanks to these two, a lot more people do know of it.
    1
  719. I'm posting this message here, because I don't use Twitter or Instagram & there does not appear to be any other direct address to which a message can be sent. On 25 September, 2023, I subscribed to monthly support of the channel through Stripe/Link. At the time of signing up on the subscription page, it did indicate that "you can always cancel your subscription". Some time later, I decided to support the channel via another method. However, on 10 October, when I tried (on-line) to cancel that monthly support subscription through Stripe/Link - there did not appear to be any easy on-line way of cancelling it. When trying to work out how to unsubscribe (on-line) from that monthly support, it also appears that I inadvertently subscribed for a 2nd lot of monthly support instead. From what I can see, there does not appear to be any way to simply unsubscribe on-line, from the monthly support commitment through Stripe/Link. It therefore appeared that the only way to cancel/stop future monthly payments from being processed through Stripe/Link, was to cancel/remove the payment method (credit card) altogether from Link - which I have now done. However, the Stripe/Link Terms of Service indicated that even though the payment method may be cancelled, it does not necessarily cancel any monthly subscription payment obligation with the provider/merchant - & in order to cancel that subscription arrangement, it needed to be done directly with the provider/merchant. Please therefore take this message as notification that I am cancelling the monthly subscription/support payments through Stripe/Link, & will be setting up a channel membership instead. It also appears that a channel membership will be easier to deal with & cancel/change on-line, should the need arise.
    1
  720. The fact of the matter is that the authorities in neither country (Australia nor the US) have pursued allegations through the legal system of racism against black people in the ad. That itself is enough to indicate to most people that according to official definitions and interpretations of racism, there is no blatant racism against black people in the ad. If there was, someone, somewhere would be taking legal action. It also indicates the claims of the people in the video are unjustifiable.
    1
  721. Palantir really does not enjoy such a good reputation for being "privacy conscious" - either in the US or internationally. It is considered to be quite privacy invasive - gathering information from many sources & pulling all that information together for its own purposes & then marketing its services to various government authorities in a number of countries. Although the NHS may just be using some software provided by Palantir - it's still very concerning that with Palantir - one never really knows where that information might ultimately end up & what it might be used for. Also, the concept of people having to consciously "opt out" of something so they are not included in it (rather than having to consciously "opt in") - means people will automatically be included in the program unless they actually take some action to opt out. People having to opt our of something is generally not considered to be "privacy friendly". It's far more privacy friendly if people are not included unless they consciously "opt in".
    1
  722. The Israeli government only installed the wall & the checkpoints as a protective/safety measure for Israel, after previous rocket attacks from Palestine on Israel/Jerusalem, & also the bombing of at least 1 Jerusalem passenger bus. You can't eally blame them for wanting to protect themselves & their country/citizens.
    1
  723. Douglas1102: I wasn't implying that you were speaking for Americans. But the reference to Americans in my comment was purely because Americans were the ones who exerted pressure on KFC Australia, resulting in the withdrawal of the Australian TV ad. I was just trying to indicate that America may not be prepared to do the same if the situation were reversed and America screened a TV ad that was offensive to Australia.
    1
  724. From what I read - it was closer to 14 hours that the network was down. It apparently went down at around 4am in the morning (though there may not have been too many people using it at that time), & was not fully restored until about 6-30pm that same evening. And some people had to re-start their services/devices, to get the network operational again on their devices.
    1
  725. I heard that the network went down at around 4am in the morning, but some customers did not have their services restored till around 6-30pm in the evening - so for some customers, they were without service for just over 14.5 hours. This is yet another reason why it's good to use a dual SIM phone, with each SIM being with different phone carrier/network.
    1
  726. A very wise & sensible decision thank goodness!
    1
  727. Jemini29944: I agree that we shouldn't really be having this discussion in the first place, because Australians weren't previously aware of the stereotype. It is only when the ad got such bad publicity in America that we were even made aware that the stereotype existed.
    1
  728. Douglas1102: I certainly agree we need to do it better. However this TYT business has made most Australians realise how heavily censored American TV must be, with all this politcal correctness going on over there. I very much doubt that they would agree to show any TV show or ad, which puts Americans in a bad light and points out how silly they are.
    1
  729. Harry is certainly not the only person to have been born into the royal family as a "spare" (in terms of being an heir to the throne) - & he won't be the last. Most of his predecessors in that regard have been able to successfully manage their role & found their particular "niche" as a member of the royal family - so why has Harry not been able to do that as well? In terms of being highly critical of the royal family - even to the point of telling lies (which some people claim is just "their own truth") - I think the damage has already been done & there is no turning back now. Many people already want them to be stripped of their last remaining titles of Duke & Duchess of Sussex.
    1
  730. Jemini29944: What I actually meant was, how do they market chicken products in predominantly black countries - like many African countries, if it is racist to portray black people eating chicken? It simply would not be realistic in most of those countries to show a racially diverse population in the ad, because the fact is, their populations are predominantly black, without much diversity at all. Therefore, all chicken ads in these countries would be racist by American standards.
    1
  731. Ricadamu: That's probably true, but then people of Indian ethnicity are a minority group within Australia. To be fair, one would have to look at the number of assaults on Indian people, compared to the Indian population in Australia as a whole, to determine whether there might be a problem there. I haven't yet made my own mind up as to whether the recent assaults may have been racially motivated - but I do acknowledge it's a possibility.
    1
  732. Oh no - I'm very sorry to hear that & I wish her a successful & speedy recovery. I wonder if she caught it while she was in the UK ecently for the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II?
    1
  733.  @Musingsonthelawofattraction  I believe you're mistaken about the farting, but people burping could be a possible cause - thus possibly creating the airborne droplets which carry/transmit the virus. But there's no need for people to stay home if they exercise appropriate precautions such as adequate social distancing & wearing face masks where social distancing is not possible. But I noticed there was no social distancing at Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, & on top of that, very few people were wearing face masks - so it's a possible transmission source.
    1
  734.  @yviewilson2552  Yes - a Muslim would say that anyone who disagrees with any of those things, is an Islamophobe.
    1
  735. When ordaining a deacon or priest, the bishop is meant to "lay his hands" on the head of the ordinand (in this case, Calvin). I think the bishop may have been concerned that with Calvin's thick "Afro" hair style, his hands may not have been able to touch Calvin's head, without upsetting his hair style.
    1
  736. I should point out that it's a very common thing indeed for anyone on YouTube who is critical of the ideology of the religion of Islam, to be accused by Muslims, of being paid by Israel, or secretly working for Mossad. I guess they need to find some excuse (no matter how untrue it might be) for people who criticise Islam, since they cannot see (from the inside) anything wrong with Islam themselves.
    1
  737. Maybe when Muslims pray to Allah when they are in a life-threatening situation - like the aeroplane they are travelling on being about to crash - Allah may not necessarily stop the aeroplane from crashing, but if it does crash, the Muslims may survive & the non-Muslims may die in the crash - because it was the Muslims who prayed to Allah & asked him to sav them in that situation.
    1
  738. ...The context of the ad was Australian because they were trying to sell KFC to Australians - that is normal for advertising agencies. All they did was create an ad they knew would cater to Australian culture and tastes, so they could sell more chicken in Australia. There is nothing wrong with that. When considered within the original intended context, and viewed as an Australian would view it, the ad is certainly not racist - there can be no doubt about that.
    1
  739. ...If it was not an American company, then obviously America could not force the ad to be withdrawn. But I think that sort of thing is something people throughout the world need to be very careful about.
    1
  740. If you don't want your own words/views/beliefs to be used against you at some time in the future, then it's best to run a campaign of "disinformation" on all your on-line devices like computers, mobile phones, Alexa/Siri/Google Home etc. You need to feed it "utter nonsense" on occasions so that it then becomes very confused & has no idea at all what your real views & opinions might be.
    1
  741. NzerinOz: Personally, I loved the sketch - thought those guys were great!
    1
  742. It may do - but it also might not. If it goes to court, Brand can only be found either guilty or not guilty. A finding of not guilty does not mean he is necessarily innocent - just that there was insufficient evidence before the court to satisfy the judge/jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It may not necessarily make clear what is true & what is not true. If he is found not guilty, it does not necessarily mean that the allegations against him were false or not true - just that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him.
    1
  743. The little girl already gave her reasons - it was because of the many changes to the parenting schedule - & they had quite an argument about that.
    1
  744.  @poppy25718  In some countries the parents do not have any choice - if there is a standing court order for child custody arrangements - the parents must abide by that court order whether they like it or not, & whether the child wants to go to the other parent or not. Otherwise the non-complying parent risks legal action & possible time in gaol.
    1
  745. Actually in Australia, blood & blood products themselves are provided free of charge when required. But when these products are actually administered in hospitals, the hospitals & the doctors make their usual charges for administering them.
    1
  746. I almost can't believe that he has to pay $90 per month just for a land-line phone - even though he gets internet with that (which he does not use). For that price, I would want an awful lot of internet! I pay $20 per month for a land-line with no internet as well as $10 per month for a mobile phone with 4GB internet as well as unlimited within the country phone calls & texting. So $90 per month for a land-line seems extortionate!
    1
  747.  @SeecondToNone1  Wow - that's atrocious! In my country, if a national land-line phone company provides coverage in a certain area/region of the country, they have to provide that service at the same standard cost for the same phone plan, as they would in any other part of the country (& there are some very remote/rural areas in my country). So the same standard phone plans with each company apply right across the country. And even if there is only one phone company that provides coverage in a certain region, that service has to be provided at the same cost per phone plan, as in any other area - even in a metropolitan area.
    1
  748. How pathetic can these idiots be - being political activists whilst on the job in paid employment? I would not feel comfortable knowing there were pro-Hamas supporters amongst the staff on that plane. Remember 9/11 & what Islamic terrorists did with planes in the sky back then! I'll certainly be signing that petition being circulated by the Jewish community.
    1
  749. Probably the only reason the term "anchor baby" even exists, is because in some countries, like the USA, any child that is born in the USA, automatically is a US citizen. But these days, it is rather unusual for someone to acquire the citizenship of a country, simply by being born there. For example, for a great many years now, most European countries have had laws that state that a child born in their country can only acquire the citizenship of that country, if at least one of its parents is also a citizen of that country. That is why, for example, many children born in Germany (West Germany at the time) to "guest workers" (foreigners who were allowed to work in Germany at the time) were sometimes officially "stateless" - since neither of their parents were actually German citizens, & in some cases they were also not considered citizens of their parents' home countries, because they had not been born there. It's probably also worthwhile pointing out here that in some European countries, one can only purchase property if one is also a citizen of that country. Since the 1980's, even countries like Australia have now changed their citizenship laws, so that children born there are no longer automatically Australian citizens by birth. They must also have at least one parent who was either an Australian citizen or Permanent Resident of Australia on the date the child was born. Prior to that, it was not unusual for some Asian women to go to Australia on a tourist visa & have a child there, because they knew it would be an Australian citizen, & they could then use their "Australian" baby, as a means to settle in Australia as a migrant, when they would not otherwise have qualified to migrate to Australia. These days, when people apply for an Australian passport (which can only be issued to Australian citizens), people who were born in Australia after the date in the 1980's when the citizenship laws changed, need to provide not only their own Australian birth certificate - but also documentary proof that one of their parents was an Australian citizen/Permanent Resident on the date they were born. If there is no such evidence, then the person is not an Australian citizen, & therefore cannot be issued with an Australian passport. If the parents were only granted their Australian citizenship/Permanent Resident status on a date AFTER the child was born, then it does not count, & the child is still not an Australian citizen. In such cases, if the parents wanted their child to be an Australian citizen, they would then need to apply separately for their child to become an Australian citizen, & go through the whole citizenship application process again, on behalf of their child. It surprises me to see that a country like the USA has not woken up long ago to the loopholes in their citizenship laws, & tightened them up to prevent things like "anchor babies" being used, often as a means of "back-door" immigration to their country. It also makes me wonder how many other countries still have laws whereby children born there are automatically considered citizens of that country.
    1
  750. ​ @Handallah It's true that there are similarities in SOME of the teachings of Christianity & Islam. As Christianity came along around 600 years before Islam, & Judaism existed thousands of years before Christianity, & both of those religions were the main religions in the middle east by the time Muhammad came along with Islam - it's understandable that Islam may have copied some of the teachings of those religions. But contrary to what you have stated in your above comment, there is nothing in the Holy Bible of the Christian faith which states that anyone "married" a three year old girl. Many Muslims before you have also tried to spread this lie - but any Christian who has read the Holy Bible cover to cover knows that that part of your comment is simply untrue. But Muslims will simply say/repeat that lie, to try to excuse the behaviour of their own prophet Muhammad, in marrying a six year old girl & consummating the marriage with her when she was nine years old. Muslims will often say that marrying such young girls was a very common thing back in Muhammad's time. Yet the truth is, you will never read anywhere in the Christian Holy Bible, that anyone ever married even a girl as young as six years old. That just goes to show that back in Biblical times, the moral & ethical standards of the society must have been a lot higher than they were 600 years later in Muhammad's time. Either that, or Muhammad himself was just a very strange/weird/perverted man, & his immoral behaviour was "tolerated" by his followers, because he was their leader, & his perverted behaviour in marrying a six year old girl, was taken as setting a new example for his followers to practise. I think it should also be remembered that many things which are described in the Holy Bible (especially in the Old Testament) are simply recountings of historic events which took place at that time. In such instances, there is no explicit instruction or command from the god of the Jews or Christians, for everyone or all Jews/Christians to go out & do the same - because no human being is perfect, & there are plenty of people even in the Holy Bible, who did the wrong things & did not behave appropriately in the eyes of their god. Therefore, just because something may have happened, according to the Holy Bible, does not mean that it was sanctioned by the god of the Bible, & therefore it is okay for everyone else to go out & do the same. In fact, there are some good examples in the Holy Bible, of where people went out & did the opposite of what their god had told them to do - thus showing their lack of faith in their own god. And in such cases, things often did not work out well for them.
    1
  751. TonyCheekyful: No, I am not Dougle.
    1
  752. There is a difference between a "welcome to country" (which the Sky News host originally said it was), & an "acknowledgement of country" (which was what the Australian representative actually did, as stated in the words that she actually used/said). An official welcome to country can really only be done on Australian land by indigenous people of the land. An acknowledgement of country can be done by almost anyone, to acknowledge the previous/indigenous people of their country, which may now also be inhabited by other people. So it may not be entirely inappropriate for an official Australian representative visiting another country, to state an acknowledgement of country - acknowledging aboriginals as the indigenous inhabitants of Australia prior to white settlement. It appears to me that the Sky News host in the above video clip does not really understand the difference between a "welcome to" & an "acknowledgement of" country. Which shows that she may not know what she is really talking about. Having said that though, we must all realise that whilst the Australian aboriginals may have been the indigenous inhabitants of the land at the time of white settlement, they were not necessarily the "original" inhabitants of the land. Before them, there would have been other indigenous inhabitants which the aboriginals may have displaced. And before those, there would have been other indigenous inhabitants which those ones displaced etc. So we could keep going back & back ad infinitum & millions of years, & we may never know who the true "original" inhabitants of Australia really were. And perhaps the present day Australian aboriginals themselves, ought to be stating their own "acknowledgement of country" for the prior inhabitants of the land, who were here before them, & whom the aboriginals themselves may have displaced. But by an Australian stating an acknowledgement of country, all that is being done, is acknowledging that the aboriginals were the inhabitants of the land, prior to the arrival of white European settlers. Such statements are being made regularly every day by Australian public servants working in government offices around Australia & overseas. So it is not inappropriate for such an acknowledgement to be made by an official Australian representative overseas.
    1
  753. Maybe they saw all those child grooming gang members getting away with so much for so long & thought they stood little to no chance of having a successful prosecution, back at the time the events took place.
    1
  754. Yes - just think about all the women who carried their pregnancies to term & gave birth in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. That was a far far more stressful situation than anything Meghan is ever likely to experience. So there is no way Meghan can conclusively prove that the "stress" from the media caused her miscarriage. Absolutely anything at all could have caused it. Miscarriage is actually very common in any case, & Meghan, at almost 40 years of age at that time, would have had a naturally higher risk during her pregnancy in any case. They are just looking to blame the royal family for absolutely anything at all that they can - & this is one of those things.
    1
  755. I don't think they'd be capable of doing that - they're such a big bunch of pussies...
    1
  756. @Jim Will fix it The original comment was referring to the fact that the couple are not married but have a child. Of course, people are free to do as they wish these days. But when it comes to immigration (which was what the video was about) - both of those things can be affected by a country's immigration laws & what those laws will allow.
    1
  757.  @wn.111  I would agree that in general, divorced women (not just Muslim women) with children often find it difficult to re-marry. But what makes it harder on divorced Muslim women to remain un-married, is that in many circumstances they may require a male guardian, & therefore many divorced Muslim women may very keen to re-marry. That's not the case with most other divorced women, who don't need a male guardian in their everyday life - therefore there's not necessarily the same urgency to re-marry. A Muslim husband may have religious obligations to support all multiple wives equally, but as happens in many cases, it just does not work out like that in practice, resulting in unhappy wives & divorces - as we see in some of the cases in the documentary. That includes some Muslim men with multiple wives (& numerous children because of those multiple wives) who end up on government social security benefits which is barely enough (& certainly not designed) to support multiple wives & numerous children. It's also clear that some of the men at the outset (when they take on extra wives) just do not have the financial means to support multiple wives & many children - so that they end up still dependent on government benefits. And when a man has multiple wives, there is obviously the potential to have so many more children than a man with just 1 wife. I am aware that Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women only under certain circumstances - but in my view those circumstances are not really that strict - whereas a Muslim woman is not allowed the same level of choice in marriage partners - which will obviously severely limit her choice of a husband to only Muslim men. This situation could also be a contributing factor in why there are more Muslim women than Muslim men, seeking marriage partners in countries like the UK.
    1
  758.  @wn.111  I agree there are some monogamous marriages that experience financial difficulties - but in the case of polygamous marriages that situation is made far worse. I think everyone should be able to get married to 1 wife - but Muslim men should be restricted by their religious authorities from marrying more than 1 wife if they cannot afford any more. If a Muslim man is having difficulty supporting his 1st wife (or does not have sufficient finances to support a 2nd & subsequent wives) - he simply should not be allowed to take more than 1 wife. The problem is - no-one (not even Islamic clerics) is preventing them taking more than 1 wife, if they cannot support any more. Before an Islamic cleric is allowed to perform marriage ceremonies for such Muslim men - their finances should be examined & if they don't have sufficient to support more than 1 wife & their existing children - the Islamic clerics should refuse to marry them. But nothing like that ever happens. As for Muslim women requiring a guardian on journeys - it does not necessarily need to be a very long journey. In any case - since many of the subsequent wives in the above video appeared to be not from the UK - they may wish to travel to visit overseas family members & having a male guardian who can accompany them at any time - would obviously make their life much easier - hence that could be part of the reason they wish to marry reasonably soon & are often willing to accept "almost anyone" - even if they may not be a very good person.
    1
  759. ...KFC Australia has now withdrawn the ad from TV screens in Australia, as a result of the American racism allegations. KFC Australia did not acknowledge that the ads were racist, but pressure was brought to bear on them by KFC's head office in America. I'm sure Americans would not like it if Australians wanted to censor American TV by claiming some programmes or ads were racist according to Australian standards and sought to have such programmes removed...
    1
  760. I don't think the general public has a need to be able to look up everyone else's salary/wage & see how much tax they paid - it's really none of their business. The only people that really need to know that information are the government taxation authorities, & they already have access to it, to be able to determine the correct amount of tax the person should pay, & also to collect that tax from them. However, if a member of the public suspects that someone may be cheating the system & not paying enough tax, or perhaps not declaring any additional sources of income they may have, to the government taxation authorities, it is always open to the public to report such things to the appropriate authorities, who may investigate to see if those claims are true. Most people who are paid a wage or salary, have the appropriate amount of income tax deducted from their wage/salary, before it is paid to them. But in addition to being paid a wage/salary, some people may have additional sources of income, such as investments - which under certain circumstances, may reduce the amount of tax a person needs to pay (if for example, they sell an investment at a loss). So a person's salary/wage is not the only thing that determines the amount of tax a person needs to pay.
    1
  761. PollockQT: I'm not saying that when the ad is taken out of context and misunderstood, some people won't be offended. But just being offended by something, does not necesssarily make it racist, according to the strict and legal definition of the word. TYT are actually saying "the ad is racist".
    1
  762. sidittygal: There are plenty of people who would disagree with you on that matter. TYT's first show about it, certainly did not demonstrate they had any understanding of the real context of the ad, which indicated they may not have done any research. The second interview (after much feedback from Australians, not necessarily any research done by themselves) did indicate they now had some understanding of the context, though the still found the ad racist.
    1
  763. To a certain extent, I think it depends on the subject matter, & whether it lends itself to other types of visual representation, as opposed to a lecture/information type presentation. And of course, some people may find other types of visual representations too distracting & confusing, from what is actually being said in the video at the same time. It's hard to find a single video presentation format that will suit everybody, & different people have different learning styles. I think we should leave it up to the presenter to determine what works best for them & is going to be easier & less time-consuming for them - especially when they are giving us that information free of charge. In any case, this channel already has 363,000 subscribers, which is quite a decent number of followers, & the channel is slowly growing - so it already must be doing something right in the eyes of many people.
    1
  764.  @007travelbug  Okay - I understand that it may not be totally "free" in terms of maybe having to spend some time watching ads & YouTube/Google may be gathering some information from you while you ae watching any video on YouTube - but I personally find these intrusions to be minimal. With most of the ads - you can skip over them if you wish, after only a few seconds, or close them off if you don't wish to view them. You could even choose to watch the videos on a site other than YouTube if you are really concerned about having to watch ads, & information gathering etc. And there are ways to minimise the gathering of data from viewers, or simply feeding the system false information about the viewer. For some reason unknown to me (& without me even doing anything) - YouTube keeps giving me lots of IT/computer programming tutorial videos in my feed - when I am not the least bit interested in that sort of thing. But perhaps it's a good thing that YouTube's algorithm managed to get my tastes all wrong.
    1
  765. The "woke" crowd will eventually all be put back to sleep again one of these days - or maybe they will just wake up from their "wokeness" & their zombie-like sleep-walking. These people think they are "woke" - but they are really just walking in their sleep. It's about time they all went back to sleep now.
    1
  766. @Sergi Tsanz So what is the benefit to me of using a password manager, if I don't presently have any problem remembering my passwords for a few different web sites that I regularly use?
    1
  767.  @unmapped89361  Yes, I do have a different password for each account. The passwords are similar in part, though have something which makes each one unique. Some of the older passwords are still 8 or 9 characters - though the more recent passwords are at least 15 characters.
    1
  768. Yes - policing in the UK has now got to be one of the easiest jobs in the world! It seems you have got to be a real wuss to be eligible to join the British police force.
    1
  769.  @seanmurray8051  Of course - it's a gamble for a defendant to plead not guilty when they may be guilty - in terms of the penalty/sentence they are likely to get if proven guilty anyway - even though that guilt may be more difficult for the prosecution to prove in a court of law. My comment was mainly to do with the initial comment about the "best advice" always being to automatically plead not guilty to everything - even though one may be guilty. Personally, I believe that "advice" may not always be the "best" advice - especially in cases where there may be overwhelming evidence that the defendant is guilty, & they are bound to just end up with a much heftier penalty - such as many more years in prison. I wonder what the defendant would think then about that "good advice" - was it still the "best" advice to "always" plead not guilty to everything - even if you are guilty?
    1
  770.  @seanmurray8051  Even if the person is silent in a police interview though - if the police still have enough evidence to take the matter to court anyway - the person won't be allowed to "remain silent" in a court of law - they will have to honestly answer all questions put to them. And once in court, it will very likely hurt their case if they try to rely on something which they did not previously mention to the police in an interview.
    1
  771.  @explorer0213  Regardless of whether it's about a TV licence or murder, the same principles usually apply.
    1
  772. It's only an "invasion of privacy" - if H & M do not get paid mega-millions for their photos & story, & someone writes a story about them without paying them any money for that story. If they're being paid mega-millions for their story & photos, then they are more than happy for their privacy to be invaded - it just depends on the amount of money on offer. Basically - they love as much publicity as they can get - as long as they are being paid a lot of money for it.
    1
  773. ​ @blakesleyk.7166 Absolutely! Apple iPhones are one of the very worst devices when it comes to tracking & lack of privacy for their users. They literally will never stop tracking you - even when they are switched off, or when the user changes their settings. When they are turned off, Apple iPhones behave like air tags & continue tracking the phone & it's user - there is simply no escape from that ...
    1
  774. PollockQT: I believe the only reason why the people who made the ad, knew that it would not work in an American context, was because the ad was about cricket, and most Americans know nothing about cricket. That is why the ad was not intended for an American audience (not because of some ulterior motive).
    1
  775.  The Werewolf of Somalia  The problem is that the supposedly "woke" people are no good at debating their own views/opinions (probably because there are no valid/decent arguments which can be made for their views) - so the only way they can win their argument is by cancelling/banning/blocking or silencing opposing views by even threatening & killing people. Hence the "woke" people have developed an extremely aggressive & violent agenda which involves threatening people with death & even killing them if need be - as we have already seen them threaten many people with death - including people like JK. They also do things like find out where people work & harass them &/or cause them to lose their jobs & their livelihoods - all because they just have a different opinion/point of view. These "woke" people are the ultimate extremists & are extraordinarily dangerous. Because the law itself cannot force people to agree with the "woke" people - these evil people have adopted their own methods of dealing with people who don't hold their same "woke" views.
    1
  776. Some more common childrens' birthday party games, when the birthday party is celebrated at home, is "pass the parcel". This involves the party organisers wrapping a very small gift in many layers of old newspaper. The children at the party all sit in a circle & music is played. The children then pass the parcel from one to another around the circle. When the music stops, the child who has the parcel in their hands, holds the parcel & unwraps one layer of the newspaper wrapping. Then the music starts again & the parcel is passed around the circle again until the music stops again & another layer of paper is unwrapped etc. As this process is repeated many times, the parcel gets smaller & smaller & gets more exciting towards the end when the parcel is very small. Because then, with each unwrapping the children are eagerly waiting to see if it is the final wrapper with the gift inside.The person who unwraps the final layer will get to keep the gift inside. Another popular game is a "doughnut eating competition" where cinnamon doughnuts are hung/dangled from long pieces of string at a sufficient height, so that the children can eat them without using their hands (usually their hands are tied behind their backs). The first child to finish eating their doughnut wins the competition & receives a prize.
    1
  777. ...Having said that, I'm sure Australians don't mind if you want to watch their TV ads. However, if you choose to do so, most people would think it only proper that you should view it within the original context that it was intended, and try to see it the same way as an Australian would, before jumping to hasty conclusions and allegations that the ad is racist. That is simply a matter of common courtesy...
    1
  778. Just for the rcord - I don't think it's that uncommon for trains to depart from both sides of the platform in the same direction - when that particular train station happens to be at the end of the train line, with nothing further beyond it. In my home city (not in Russia) of about 350,000, a new "light rail" service opened about 6 years ago now & the "end of the line" is basically in the heart of the CBD, with the service not going any further. So in peak times in particular, when the services/departures are more frequent - both sides of the platform are used for departures - which all head in the same direction - otherwise you might have some trains colliding! Outside of peak hours when the services are less frequent, they tend to only use one side of the platform - so the other side does not get used very much in off-peak times - except for perhaps new driver training. From memory, there's a similar situation with the standard London Underground train service (the one which stops at just about all stations) which goes from the east of London at one end, though the city centre, then terminates at Heathrow Airport at the other end. It is the Piccadilly Line (blue) - & because Heathrow Airport is the end of the Piccadilly Line - trains depart in the same direction from both sides of the platform at Heathrow Airport. It's been like that for many years. But that sort of thing only happens of course, when the train station happens to be at the very end of the line.
    1
  779. This vote to ban the Bible really just goes to show how stupid & ignorant our young people these days truly are. I would venture to add that most of those total idiots who voted to ban the Bible have probably never even read the entire Bible from cover to cover - so they really have no idea what they are actually banning. And as Christianity is still the largest single religion in the UK - they would be banning the scriptures for the largest religion in the country. And if they banned the Bible, they would of course have to also ban the holy books of all religions - not just Christianity - otherwise they would be discriminating against Christianity as opposed to all other minority religions. So the Quran & hadiths would also have to be banned - & if you banned the Quran - many heads would roll!
    1
  780. I guess that's because men get to spend a lot of time at work with male work colleagues & also for occasional social functions outside of work - whereas the women in traditional orthodox Jewish & Muslim families would be mostly home-makers & busy with looking after all their children (of which there are usually many). That does not leave a lot of time for & often makes it difficult for women to get together & socialise with other women - except perhaps at family get-togethers.
    1
  781. If they're deliberately evading a fare though - that shows their criminal intent - & unless they are punished for it, they will probably go on to even bigger criminal activities in the future. It's best to nip such criminal activity in the bud, before it becomes more serious & too much of a societal problem. And the people who end up paying for all this fare evasion are ultimately the other passengers, who are doing the right thing & paying the correct fare. The fares will just be increased to compensate for all the free-loaders
    1
  782.  @mrpreciousmanners6341  Price increases can happen for many reasons - & inflation is only one of them. But they also happen for a variety of other reasons - including to cover the cost of things like theft & shoplifting from businesses, & in the case of public transport - the cost of fare evasion. Although the cost of prosecuting someone for a small fare evasion may seem disproportionate - it's still very important to send a clear message that fare evasion will not be tolerated & a criminal record may be the result. It's really no different to theft or shoplifting in that regard.
    1
  783. ...I have no idea whether Michael Jackson would have been offended by the sketch, but one of the things I found so funny about it was that a group of professional guys (they were all medical doctors/specialists) were prepared to get up on stage and make complete fools of themselves. The sketches' title was actually "The Jackson Jive".
    1
  784. Yet another of the supposed "issues" she revealed in her original Oprah "expose" - was that the staff at the royal household prevented her from seeking help when she claimed to have had mental health issues. She claims to have been prevented from seeking help for her condition, because it would have been bad publicity for the royal family/household. I don't find that at all believable - because Markle is not exactly one of the "stars" of the royal family & directly in the line of succession. Harry is only now 6th or 7th in the line of succession - & Markle is not royalty herself - she only married a member of the royal family - so no member of the public would genuinely care in the least if she sought help for mental health issues. It would also not create bad publicity, because health/medical matters/appointments are totally private & no-one would even have found out if she sought medical help for such issues. In previous interviews & biographies, several members of the royal family, including Prince Charles & Prince Harry, & even Diana, stated that they had sought professional help for mental health/psychological issues at some stage in the past - & no-one ever found out about those issues at the time they were receiving such treatment. So what makes Markle or supposedly the royal household, think that it's going to be bad publicity & all over the newspapers the very next day, if Markle decides to seek professional help? Who of the public would even really care? Other far more senior & more popular members of the royal family than her have previously & successfully sought such assistance without it being front page news the next day - so there would have been absolutely no problem with publicity in Markle's case - since she is way down in the royal household "pecking order" & popularity ranks. And both Markle & Harry admitted they knew what Markle was going through - yet even Prince Harry himself did nothing to help her get the assistance she supposedly needed. This makes Harry look particularly bad, especially when he has previously stated that he himself at one time sought assistance for mental health issues & is now supposed to be some kind of ambassador for good mental health. Yet he dismally failed to get even his own wife the mental health assistance she needed - when she was supposedly already pregnant? And why can't this supposedly "strong" woman who is a feminist & advocate for various "woke" issues speak up for herself & arrange to get assistance for herself, even if others suggested it was a bad idea because it would create bad publicity for the royal family? What is wrong with her? If she knew that she had some mental health issues, even when she was pregnant, surely any decent expectant mother would put the health of her unborn child first & either ensure she got that help for herself, or ask her husband to get her some help? When it comes to that issue, I feel that she's just trying to portray herself like some very weak, helpless female, who's not capable of even speaking up for herself. Yet she certainly seems to have no trouble doing that at all, in her Oprah interview. Other members of the royal family have sought help for similar issues - so no-one at all will care if she also seeks help & no-one will even know about it because such health issues are always confidential, unless you want to publicise them yourself. There's no use trying to blame others for a lack of assistance, when it seems she did nothing to help herself, nor did her husband try to get her help. She could have easily done something to help herself. Who cares what the staff of the royal household may want her to do - one's own health & that of one's unborn child always comes first. Why did she not even consider seeking some form of on-line assistance for her health issues, if they were so bad & others were supposedly preventing her from seeking medical help? Surely she would have already been seeing doctors/specialists for her pregnancy in any case - so why did she not at the very least, confide in them about her mental health issues - because if she had, I feel sure that they would have done something & gotten her some help. Doing nothing, if she was in such a bad way would have amounted to medical negligence. So I don't think Markle's claims about her mental health issues in that original Oprah interview, ring very true to me at all - regarding her not being allowed by the household staff to seek help because it would have been bad publicity for the royal family. Within the royal family, she's really not a very important or high profile person at all - so why would anyone care if she went to get such help? Was she just trying to make herself look like another "Diana" - another "victim" of the royal family? Yet she & Diana are so very different. Diana had scarcely finished high school when she & Charles became engaged - so she was very young & with very little experience of the real world & had only worked as a kindergarten employee & a nanny. On the other hand, Markle was in her 30's, & was a reasonably successful American actress who had already been married & divorced. So Diana & Markle were 2 completely different people. Due to her youth, no-one could blame Diana for possibly not knowing what to do in certain situations from the outset. But Markle should have known better than to allow someone else to tell her that she could not seek treatment for mental health issues while she was pregnant - that's quite implausible. She was certainly not young & innocent in the same way as Diana.
    1
  785. Initially, the way a person looks, & particularly good looks can be the thing that attracts potential romantic partners. Yet we see many not so good-looking people in romantic relationships & marriages. So it obviously shows that looks are not everything when it comes to selecting a romantic or marriage partner. It also seems that these men in the INCEL community believe that particularly attractive women should desire to enter into a relationship with them, when perhaps they themselves are not the most attractive men in the world. So it seems there may be a bit of a double standard at play here in that the INCEL's believe that even though they themselves are not the most attractive people, that attractive women should want to be in a relationship with them. Another point I wanted to make is that perhaps these INCEL's are just not moving in the right circles to find themselves suitable romantic partners. Are they members of any sporting clubs/teams, work groups, or other social groups where they could widen their horizons in that regard? It would appear not.
    1
  786. I'm not sure about phones - but definitely music (unless it is religious music) & dancing are not allowed.
    1
  787.  @elizabethmccaffrey4805  I'm certainly already aware that Turkey is a Muslim country.
    1
  788. If I know the caller is a scam artist, I usually don't let on to them that I know they are a scammer - & I try to string them along & waste their time for as long as possible. If they ask me to do things on my computer, I pretend to go along with them, but also pretend to be not very computer literate & feign some ignorance of what they ask me to do on the computer. So it ends up taking a long time to do it, & they eventually give up, because they think I just don't understand what to do.
    1
  789. Yes - that was probably the biggest lie of all & was very easy to prove as a lie, by getting a copy of the actual marriage certificate itself. Yet stupid Oprah just accepted what Markle said & did not query her about it at all.
    1
  790. MilitantPeaceist: I quite like that series of CBA ads on TV. The most recent one is where the bank executives are in a meeting with their American ad men who are coming up with some pretty goofy, unpalatable advertising ideas. In the end, it is the 5 year old kid in the room (playing with his colouring-in book) who gives them the best idea for their bank ad.
    1
  791. The entire country voted for these laws by electing the government which put the laws in place, or is enforcing the pre-existing laws, which were put in place by the duly elected government of its time.
    1
  792. There is a police investigation currently underway about the allegations - but as yet, no criminal charges have been laid against Brand.
    1
  793. A very interesting topic indeed. With the prevalence of mobile phones & texting these days as a form of communication - I've occasionally come across people who've told me it is their preferred means of communicating with others, rather than going out & actually meeting up with people. Almost everywhere one goes, one will see people glued to their mobile phones. So much so, in fact, that I've often thought (& mentioned it to some friends a few years ago) that people might eventually lose the ability to communicate with each other by word of mouth - & the sole means of communication may become the written form - via SMS, email etc - with actual "speaking" becoming quite a novelty, if it even still exists. Of course, that is probably a very long way down the track - & somewhere along that track, there may come a time when the art of actually "speaking" not only develops that certain novelty value - but also becomes quite popular once more - in the same way that mobile phones have become popular. It might be a case of "history repeating itself", & the trend being reversed.
    1
  794. I don't understand how an academic like this man in the debate, can call "Islamophobia" a type of "racism", when Islam is actually a "religion", not a "race" of people. Muslims actually come from many different types of races throughout the world - so I think he's very much mistaken when he says it is a type of "racism". People often enjoy publicly making fun of a lot of things in the media - including the various religions of the world, politics, politicians etc. And let's face it - the simple truth is that, some things & some people are much easier to make fun of than others - especially when we see them as being different, comical, silly or stupid in some way. So it's only natural that not everyone & everything will always be equally made fun of or criticised in some way. It should also be noted that there is a difference "Islam" & "Muslims". Islam is the ideology of the religion itself & what it actually teaches & promotes through its scriptures - the Quran & the Sunnah (hadiths) - which are basically the writings of & about the Islamic prophet Muhammad & which followers of Islam believe are the actual words of Allah/God as spoken to Muhammad. "Muslims" are the actual people, who claim to follow the religion of Islam. Obviously some will be more religiously observant than others - & some will be simply "nominal" Muslims who may have been born into a Muslim family, but may be not observant at all. Some will "cherry-pick" their religion & only believe in the good/nice/fluffy bits - but claim not to believe in the "bad" bits - which to my own way of thinking really makes them "non-Muslims" if they cannot say that they believe in "all" the teachings of their religion. As with many religions, there are certainly "bad bits" in Islam & the Quran as well. Those people (including non-Muslim politicians who often themselves have never read the Quran &/or Sunnah - & usually get their information about Islam from a select group of Muslims) who publicly state that "Islam is a religion of peace" are not always being entirely honest or telling the full story about the teachings of Islam - & can probably be placed in the "cherry-picker" category. There are certainly some passages in the Quran which indicate that Islam is a peaceful religion. But equally, there are probably even more passages in the Quran & Sunnah that support violence against non-believers, Jews, & Christians in more or less that order of preference. And those passages mostly come "after" the peaceful passages in the Quran, which would therefore "supersede" those peaceful passages, under the Islamic doctrine of "abrogation". It seems like Muhammad may have started out with a peaceful attitude towards non-Muslims, but as time went by, he became somewhat more aggressive towards them, to the point where he wanted to spread Islam to other parts of the world by trying to convert people to the faith. There are some Islamic imams who will willingly speak out & state this publicly - thereby correcting the "politically correct" but public misconception that Islam is simply "a religion of peace" - but these imams are too few & far between. Many of those same imams will also say that Islam does need reform - but that is never likely to happen, because to do that, one would have to revise the very teachings of Islam, which are based on the Quran, which Islam claims is the very word of God - & how can any mere human being possibly "revise" the very words of God? Since they believe it's impossible reform "Islam" as such, many of these imams are concentrating their efforts on trying to reform & shape "Muslims" themselves, rather than trying to reform the religion & ideology, which may be impossible.
    1
  795. AWholeCanOfCranky: Are these people even ("professional") journalists? Their presentation certainly is very amateurish, and they've obviously done no research, which a good journalist should ways do.
    1
  796. You can't really claim to be a practising Muslim if you are gay/homosexual, because the religion of Islam - just like Judaism & Christianity - teaches/believes that homosexuality is wrong/sinful & for that reason also does not believe in same-sex marriage. Islam forbids homosexuality, & prescribes very severe punishments for any Muslim found to be a practising homosexual. Within the Islamic community, those who are known to be gay/homosexual are often castigated & become outcasts. So those who may have been born into a Muslim family & therefore claim to be "Muslim", but are actually gay/homosexual, are not really accepted within their own religious community of Islam. They may still claim to be "Muslim" because it's the religion they were "born" into - but they are not considered to be practising Muslims & often also have to hide their homosexuality from their own families & religious communities, so that their community does not punish them for their homosexuality. So for someone who is a practising homosexual, to also claim to be "Muslim" - probably just means they are Muslim "in name only" & do not practise their faith, because they are not accepted within their own Muslim community. So it does not surprise me at all that many of the Muslim students he was talking to were challenging him & saying that it was not possible to be both a homosexual & a "Muslim", according to the teachings of Islam. It also does not surprise me that he received death threats from some of the students (& maybe the parents of some of those students) that he spoke to. The religion of Islam takes it very seriously when Muslims directly go against the teachings of their religion. He would not be considered a Muslim in the eyes of Islam.
    1
  797. The Australian government has offered its citizens a "digital identity", for many years now - since at least about 2007, as far as I am aware, or perhaps a bit before then. However, the digital identity has only ever been used to access mostly national & some state government services - which a person can then "link" to their digital identity, if they want to use those services on-line & in conjunction with their digital identity (which is not compulsory). Services such as the tax office, government health service, social security benefits department etc can be "linked" to one's digital identity. It's not compulsory to have a digital identity to use government services - though it does certainly speed up the process a lot, compared with accessing those same services via phone or post. No private services can be accessed via the digital identity - only government services. For example - it's not possible to access one's bank accounts or loans via the digital identity & it's not possible to use the digital identity as a form of identification to open a bank account etc. I think the digital identity is just seen as a way to access most government services on-line - which usually expedites access to those services.
    1
  798. A public wifi internet connection is not the only internet connection option when using an app. If you have a mobile phone plan that includes even a small amount of data - you can just switch to using your phone plan's own data, rather than worrying about making a wifi internet connection. Yes - there are some places these days that will only accept card payments - & that is always annoying. All businesses should still offer cash as a payment option, I believe.
    1
  799. There's nothing we can do about the "court of public opinion" - as people will always be free to form their own personal opinions on matters. Fortunately "public opinion" will not be judging any court case, if there is one. That is a job for a judge & jury.
    1
  800. There is actually a lot of bribery & corruption in many Asian & East European countries. It's not unique to the Ukraine. But if all Putin was wanting to do, was to take back those Russian-speaking parts of the Ukraine - then why does he not just concentrate on that & leave the rest of the Ukraine alone? It's clear his agenda involves more than just those Russian-speaking parts of the country. Ukraine itself is a small country & can only win the war against the might of Russia, with the help of other allies from the west & that is why Zelensky & his wife are giving interviews etc & doing the odd photo shoot to garner support & supplies for their country in the war against Russia. Most leaders of countries are not in the front line during any war their country may be involved in - so I would not expect Zelensky himself to be on the front line - though he may visit troops who ARE in front line areas, so it's necessary for him to put on a uniform & wear protective gear when doing that - just the same as any other soldier would do - so he does not "stand out from the crowd" & become a target himself.
    1
  801.  @buddy6743  Apologies for calling it the Ukraine instead of Ukraine. I was actually going by what some Ukrainian neighbours of mine used to call it some years ago (they always referred to it as the Ukraine) - but I guess the language has changed over the years (as languages have a tendency to change) - & now it is just called "Ukraine".
    1
  802. Douglas1102: I think most Australians would be sensible enough to at least try to view another country's TV ad within the original context that it is was intended, and considering the ad's target market, without making hasty allegations that the ad itself, is racist. And that was what the original debate was about - saying that the ad itself was racist, without seeing it in the proper context...
    1
  803.  @rossleeson8626  There's nothing wrong with using the word "Marxist" to describe the BLM organisation - because that is in fact what they are & the present day founders of BLM have even stated that they are "trained Marxists" in an interview right here on YouTube. It's also plainly stated on the BLM web site that they are a Marxist organisation. So what's wrong with stating the truth about BLM & saying they are a Marxist organisation - even BLM themselves are not trying to hide that fact.
    1
  804. Someone once asked the actor Morgan Freeman what his suggestions would be for stopping racism. His answer was simple - "stop talking about it!". Your silly actions and racist ramblings are only having the opposite effect to that which you might have intended, Please, stop talking about it, and in so doing, help rid America of racism and American racial stereotypes!
    1
  805. Douglas1102: From a technical and legal definition of the term racist or racism, it's not racist, because if it were, someone would be suing KFC for racism by now. The most that one can say about it is that it could possibly be taken out of context as being reflective of racial stereotypes existing in America. But portraying stereotypes is not the same as racism, and it's certainly not illegal - though some people might find it offensive...
    1
  806. Not a bad list - though I'm not sure how well-known internationally some of those ones are. Certainly INXS, maybe Midnight Oil, Little River Band (I was going to mention LRB, but didn't have enough room withinn 1 post). I think John Paul Young was a bit of a one hit wonder on the international scene. The Seekers were well known mainly in the UK (though not a rock band). At a pinch Aussies can probably claim Olivia Newton-John and the Bee Gees.
    1
  807. A couple of years ago, I did receive one or two calls/messages on my mobile phone, which were just recorded messages, & were in a foreign language - which sounded to me like Chinese. Of course, as I do not understand Chinese, I could not understand what the message was saying, & just thought at the time that it must have been a "wrong number". Now I'm wondering whether it may possibly have been one of these Chinese "scammers" calling random numbers - who just happened to call my mobile number - not realising that I am not Chinese - nor do I speak Chinese. Even quite some time before that - I received a text message on my mobile phone which I recognised as being in Vietnamese - but again, I could not understand the message because I am not Vietnamese & do not understand Vietnamese. Again, I assumed it must have been a wrong number & politely responded in English, that they had the wrong number, as there was no Vietnamese person available on my mobile number. The sender responded in English, appearing to be convinced they still had the correct number & said they were wanting to contact a person by the name of Mr X - but I told them there was no-one by that name available on my mobile phone number.
    1
  808. These weak woossie wokies like Don Lemon will just pick on any white person in authority who has a bit of money up their sleeve & claim they should be paying reparations for slavery. But if paying reparations means putting up everyone's taxes to pay for it - then that of course means that all the taxes paid by black people as well would have to go up so they could pay reparations back to themselves! So in Don Lemon's view, it's far better just to pick on a white person with plenty of money & claim that they should give away all their money in the payment of reparations.
    1
  809. That information is certainly very interesting. I have heard of these kinds of "fraudulent" activities being perpetrated on businesses by obviously highly dishonest people - some of whom do not consider they are doing anything wrong/fraudulent or criminal at all. But why would it not be criminally fraudulent under such circumstances? I always feel very sorry for the businesses who are the victims of these fraudsters - especially small businesses which cannot afford to lose such money, & often believe there is very little they can do about it. I'm so glad there is an option for these businesses to pursue a private criminal prosecution against such fraudsters - & would hope that they pursue such a prosecution against each such criminal/fraudster that their business encounters.
    1
  810. There was a kind of science fiction movie made (& which I saw - but I just forget the name of) a number of years ago, where some people lived indoors in a building in a very remote, yet pleasant but very controlled "facility", where they all had jobs & worked, but were never allowed outside. Every so often, one of them would "get called up" & it was rumoured that these people had more or less "won the lottery", because they were being given their freedom & allowed to go outside & experience the outside world. The rest of them were all given some sort o "excuse" as to why they could not go outside. It turned out those getting called up, were going to die - because their bodies were going to be used for "spare parts" by their "sponsor" in the outside world. It turned out all the people living indoors in that facility were actually "clones" of someone in the outside world, who had had them created so they could be used for spare body parts if one of their own organs or other body parts failed. It was an interesting movie & concept - but rather disturbing as well.
    1
  811. It seems to me that Rugby Australia has its priorities all wrong. When I think of all the other atrocities (many involving criminal acts of physical violence, drug use etc) committed by other rugby players (many of whom have ended up in court over what they have done & been found guilty) - Folau's simple quoting of some Bible verses on his personal social media page seems to pale in comparison with what they did, & seems pretty tame. Any rational, sane, logical-thinking person would automatically come to the conclusion that the people running Rugby Australia, not to mention quite a few of the players themselves, are just full to the brim with hypocrisy & double standards galore. What Folau did was not even illegal, let alone criminal. Yet those rugby players whom our country's legal system has found guilty of committing actual crimes, are for the most part still playing the game & have not been banned for life, unlike Folau. Even those rugby players themselves who are not coming forward & supporting Folau, need to question their own moral values as to why they have no objection to continue playing the sport with criminals - yet think that Folau's sacking for quoting some Bible verses is somehow warranted. According to Rugby Australia, apparently those players who have been found guilty of criminal offences by the legal system, have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to breach the game's code of conduct or their contracts - so they are allowed to continue playing. But quoting a few Bible verses is a hugely serious offence. Let's be honest - the only people who are being profoundly "intolerant" here are Rugby Australia & many of the game's players. Their intolerance & lack of diversity & inclusivity is now publicly on show for all to see & goes far beyond anything at all that Folau could possibly be legitimately accused of. Isn't it odd, the way that most people who proclaim they want "tolerance & diversity" - are usually the most intolerant people of all? It seems that the only people they will supposedly "tolerate" - are those who hold exactly the same views as they do. But if everyone thinks exactly the same way & believes exactly the same things - then there is no need for tolerance at all in the first place! But by restricting one's "tolerance" to a bunch of robotic beings (dare I even call them "human"?) who are only capable of parroting what they are told to parrot - a lack of diversity is what also follows on from that. So at the end of the day, what you end up with is a community (as Rugby Australia has proven) & society which is completely intolerant of anyone with a different point of view & which is utterly devoid of diversity, whilst complete rubbish comes out of their own mouths boasting about themselves & how tolerant & diverse they are being. They are not even intelligent enough to be able to understand that the real test of tolerance & diversity is how other people (third parties) perceive & view their actions. Australia is certainly on a very steep & slippery downhill slope to becoming one of the most intolerant & dictatorial societies in the western world. I think it's been trying to follow hot on the heels of the Canadian government - & that's certainly nothing at all to be proud of. With such a bunch of hypocritical idiots trying to run the game of rugby - is it any wonder that support for the game in Australia, is waning? I for one, along with many others that I know - will never attend another rugby match again - my conscience simply will not allow me to lend my support to such blatant hypocrisy. And if all those officials at Rugby Australia are just following what has been done in Canada - then let's teach them all a lesson they'll not likely forget in a hurry - let's give them all one heck of a big boot up the rear end with a steel-capped boot - & boot them all the way over to Canada. They're not wanted in Australia!
    1
  812. Why did France choose to mock Christianity over & above Islam & other major world religions? Did they think they could get away with it? Or were they just way too scared of the repercussions if they mocked Islam or other major religions? What filth this Paris Olympic games is turning out to be...
    1
  813. Unfortunately, radical fundamental Islamic terrorism is presently running rampant in the western world. It needs to be stopped.
    1
  814. I agree with Peter Dutton - let's all boycott Woolworths!
    1
  815. Maybe part of the reason Australia hasn't experienced the modern day racial problems that America has, is that Australia doesn't waste so much time "talking" about racism, and continually reminding people of these stereotypes. Australia just tries to get on with everything as best it can, and deals with overt racism if it does present itself.
    1
  816. I guess in many ways, China could be regarded as "preposterous" as you claim...
    1
  817. Sebro28: Thanks for the info!
    1
  818. And now her father needs to be killed - as capital punishment for murdering his own daughter. If he remains alive, he will undoubtedly murder any other daughters he may have, before then starting on his wife & any other female relatives. He need to be killed before he is able to murder anyone else.
    1
  819.  @jeffkok9170  No you don't have to be "born" a princess for that to be your official title. Diana certainly was not "born" a princess. Prior to her marriage to Prince Charles, she was certainly not a princess - her official title was "Lady Diana Spencer", as she was already a member of the British aristocracy by birth. After she married Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales), Diana's official title then became, "Diana, Princess of Wales" (not Princess Diana, as some people incorrectly refer to her). So Diana only acquired the title of "princess" after she married Prince Charles. But I certainly would agree with your assertion that Markle is a con artist.
    1
  820.  @Arcad1010  Only in certain circumstances, & if the reigning monarch agrees to bestow that title on the wife of a prince. Diana was not a "princess" prior to her marriage to Prince Charles - she was only "Lady Diana Spencer" & already a member of the aristocracy by birth. But after her marriage to Prince Charles, her official title became "Diana, Princess of Wales" (not "Princess Diana", as many people incorrectly refer to her). In Markle's case, the only title that was bestowed on her following her marriage to Prince Harry, was "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". Meghan is not a princess, nor is she a member of the royal family per se - she is only the wife of a member of the royal family. One does not need to be a member of the royal family to have the title of "Duchess". The reigning monarch can bestow the titles of "Duke" & "Duchess" on anyone they choose & many "commoners" like Meghan have had such titles bestowed upon them.
    1
  821.  @Arcad1010  Prior to her marriage to Prince Charles, Diana's official title was "Lady Diana Spencer" & she was already a member of the British aristocracy (not a commoner, like Markle). Following her marriage to Charles, the reigning monarch chose to bestow the title of "Diana, Princess of Wales" (not "Princess Diana", as many people incorrectly refer to her) on Diana, as she was marrying Charles, who was the "Prince of Wales". All titles are bestowed at the discretion of the reigning monarch. It was probably thought fit that Diana be attributed the title of "princess" as she was marrying "Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales" - a title which is usually only bestowed upon the male heir to the British throne. Charles's & Diana's sons also received the titles of "prince" as sons of the "heir" to the throne & the fact that Charles would one day be king. Charles' 2 brothers - Prince Andrew & Prince Edward, ae not actually "Prince of" anything at all - they just have the titles of "prince" before their names, as they are sons of the reigning monarch. When Andrew & Edward both got married, neither of their wives were given the titles of "princess" - they were just given the titles of "Duchess of York" (Sarah) & "Countess of Wessex" (Sophie). As Prince Harry is only the 2nd son of the "heir" to the British throne (not the actual reigning monarch) & is now only about 6th or 7th in line to the throne, the title ascribed to his wife, to make things fair, I suppose, at the very best could only be roughly equivalent to the title ascribed to the wife of Prince Andrew - who was the 2nd son of the actual reigning monarch, at the time of his marriage to Sarah Ferguson - who was also a "commoner" - like Markle. Sarah was not given the title of "princess" - but just "Duchess of York". So, the title of "Duchess" (not "princess") was about the very best that Markle could have hoped for - given that she was only the wife of the 2nd son of the "heir" to the throne - whereas Prince Andrew was the 2nd son of the actual reigning monarch.
    1
  822. It's a non-mainstream branch of the Anglican Church in the UK. I believe it's called the Free Church of England.
    1
  823. I regularly visit the main large (3 levels) indoor shopping complex in the CBD of my city. I have on a number of occasions been there when an ambulance has turned up to attend to a shopper who was experiencing health/medical problems - even outside of normal business hours, but while the centre is still open. I'm very glad to say that in those situations, the centre's security staff also attend to assist the ambulance officers, by erecting privacy screening around the situation & preventing bystanders from interfering or approaching to take a look - so the patient can be treated in privacy. This scenario is probably not quite the same as being in a "public place", because it is an indoor shopping centre & the centre's owner would probably be able to control what goes on within that centre & evict anyone who was behaving inappropriately under the circumstances. There is also a police station literally just across the road - only about one minute away at most - so if the centre's security staff were having difficulty with a particular bystander - they could just call the police & the police could get there very quickly indeed. I must say though - I have never noticed there to be hoards of people hovering around trying to take photos of that type of situation using the cameras in their mobile phones. Most people were respectful of the patient's privacy. Which in turn, indicates to me that most people would probably think that the patient had a right to privacy in that scenario. For those people that would want to take photos/video footage of a vulnerable person in that situation - I wonder how they themselves would feel if the situation were reversed - or if the patient happened to be a member of their immediate family. Would they have wanted an unknown person there taking intimate photos of the patient, showing them perhaps not fully clothed - because parts of their clothing may have had to be removed by the paramedics in order to treat them? And would they have then been happy to have such photos/video footage of themselves posted on a social media site & shown all over the internet? I suspect perhaps not.
    1
  824. The fact that Israelis do not let people "off" the train, before getting "on" the train - just tells me that Israelis are obviously severely lacking in "common sense" - as something like that is simply "common sense" for the average person in most western countries...& that is rather disappointing...
    1
  825. In my country, it us compulsory for all citizens to register to vote as soon as one becomes a legal adult (at age 18 years) & meets all the eligibility requirements. Those requirements state that one needs to be a "citizen" of the country. One no longer achieves citizenship simply by being born in our country. One not only needs to be born in our country, but one also needs to have at least one parent who was already a citizen, or legally recognised permanent resident of the country, on the date one was born. For those who legally migrated to our country from a foreign country, they need to have demonstrated their commitment & allegiance to our country, by successfully applying for, & being approved for citizenship (one of the requirements of which is a "legal" period of residency of at least 5 years) & then going through a formal & public citizenship ceremony, during which they take an oath of allegiance to our country & are then presented with their citizenship certificate. Once they are a citizen, they are then obligated to register to vote, & actually vote in every election, as part of their new citizenship responsibilities/obligations. In our country, registering to vote, & actually voting in all elections, is compulsory for all citizens over the age of 18 years, & monetary fines may be issued to registered voters who do not vote in any election.
    1
  826. therepublicanknight: The ad would only be racist if the people who made the ad knew about the "American" racial stereotype of black African American people and chicken, and deliberately chose to portray that stereotype in the ad. The Australian ad was made in Australia, by Australians, and for a targetted Australian audience. The people who made the ad probably had no knowledge of that "American" racial stereotype, especially since there are so few black African Americans living in Australia....
    1
  827. NzerinOz: There are also some Americans who say that this is only a racist issue because of the American stereotype and the fact that KFC is an American company, and that is where their biggest market lies. However, when it comes to such furores, you only need to look at what happened in the case of the "Hey Hey It's Saturday" programme and the supposed American stereotype about "blackface". Americans still kicked up a fuss about it, yet it had nothing at all to do with an American company...
    1
  828. Well, The Chaser only does sketches about "stupid Americans" occasionally, and it is not a regular feature of their show, but I think they have done some good ones. I've never seen the "Talking to Americans" show, just as I'm sure you have never seen "The Chaser" show. But I have to admit that Australians don't always find American comedy funny, and I'm sure the reverse also applies.
    1
  829. One of the problems is that many people are simply highly ignorant & uneducated & do not understand the correct dictionary meaning of what a "phobia" is - which is an unfounded or irrational "fear" of something. Thus the terms homophobic & Islamophobic are terms which are rarely used correctly, because you would be highly unlikely to find someone who truly has an unfounded or irrational fear of either homosexual people, or followers of Islam. Most of those highly ignorant people are incorrectly labelling those who are somehow simply critical of homosexuals, or Islam, as homophobes or Islamophobes - when that is not the correct meaning of those words at all. So if that incorrect use of those terms is somehow "acceptable" to the ignorant & uneducated people - then maybe what Christians need to do, is start labelling everyone who criticises Christianity as a "Christophobe" - so the ignorant people will then understand what is meant by that. Maybe I will even start doing that myself & label anyone who criticises Christianity as a Christophobe...
    1
  830.  @djdoolittle1315  Of course - but they still could have had a relatively comfortable life as working members of the royal family in the UK - though clearly they wanted more money than that would have offered them.
    1
  831. The problem with that approach - is that sometimes other people will be intent on making sure they give you "consequences" when you have done nothing illegal at all - other than expressing an opinion with which they disagree. Meting out personal "consequences" to someone who has done nothing illegal, is simply not acceptable in my view, & it is happening all too often these days - spurred on by the "woke" & cancel culture" people who are intent on "punishing" people for having what they deem to be a "wrong" opinion - even though it is not illegal. Usually they know that nothing in your opinion is against the law - so they cannot bring legal charges against you (though they do sometimes try - albeit unsuccessfully - which is just wasting the court's time). So they will then often try to destroy you & your family in other ways. They will "dox" you by trying to find out where you live & harass you outside your family home. They will find out where you work & contact your employer & tell them they should not allow you to continue to work there because you have a certain view on an issue . They will sometimes give the employer bad publicity if they don't take some action against you for your views. They also spread false rumours about you & they can be very inventive with those rumours. To sum it up, they can make life very difficult for you & your family - even though you have done nothing illegal. And there's often very little that can be done to stop these kinds of "consequences" which they will impose on people that they disagree with. Personally, I think it's time the government acted to make these sort of "consequences" illegal, because it's been going on for far too long now. If the government can make it a crime for people to be praying silently in their head in some locations - surely they can stop people from meting out their own "consequences" to people that they disagree with?
    1
  832. Maybe he'd be better off raising the cost of alcoholic beverages & lowering the cost of basic grocery items & utilities for everyone. I'm sure the general public would be grateful - unless you also happen to be an alcoholic of course...
    1
  833. NeonXenon: The Americans would say it's okay to work on that, providing those who are dying are not black, and providing you don't feed them chicken!
    1
  834.  @dianeframe7914  So I guess then you would also not agree with placing a child in child care, or sending them to school - or anywhere where the child is not under the direct care of a parent.
    1
  835. I often wonder how long it will actually be, before the government decides to ban mobile phones like the Brax2 & others, which do not support mass surveillance in the same way that Apple phones & Google Android phones do. They may decide that users of such devices, which are not easily tracked, must have "something to hide" & therefore, need to be tracked. Those who presently claim they have no problem with such mass surveillance devices, because they have "nothing to hide" - are simply not capable of being forward-thinking enough, to realise that one day in the future, they may well have "something to hide", or at least, something they may wish hide, from government, & the authorities. It's a bit like people saying they're not worried about infringements on people's freedom of speech, because they themselves have "nothing to say". But what happens when some time in the future, they DO decide that they have something to say - but they're no longer able to say it, because by then the right to that freedom of speech has already been done away with, because no-one stood up & objected to it. Or perhaps even, because no-one was allowed to object to it - & all those who DID speak against it were banned/blocked/cancelled/silenced etc. Once upon a time, the authorities had to get warrant, or some kind of special legal authorisation/permission, if they wanted to implement surveillance on any individual person. And in order to obtain that authorisation, they had to justify/prove that that particular individual was somehow a threat, or suspected to be involved in some kind of illegal activities etc. And why shouldn't everyone have an automatic right to privacy, unless the authorities have a very good reason, to implement surveillance on them - which means they are suspected of being involved in some kind of illegal activity. These days, with the type of mass surveillance that big tech is now capable of - the authorities can spy on everyone, regardless of whether those people have anything to hide or not. Everyone can be spied on - for a price - & if the authorities are willing to purchase the surveillance data/information from those big tech companies. The claims by many social media sites that they will not release the personal/private information of their users "unless REQUIRED by law", DOES seem to imply that they will not release your information voluntarily, unless presented with a warrant or some kind of legal documentation/subpoena, where they themselves would be subject to legal action if they do not release that information. However, if they voluntarily decide to sell that information to the government authorities for a fee, & so as to make money for themselves in the process, I believe that does go against that condition of "unless REQUIRED by law" as so often stated in the privacy policies of big tech. It all just goes to prove that you cannot trust the privacy statements of the big tech organisations.
    1
  836. TonyCkeeyful: Actually, one survey done in America found that only 42% of Americans thought the ad was racist, with another 6% being unsure, and 51% thinking it was not racist.
    1
  837. What these two from TYT say about the ad being racist is all just uninformed "rubbish". If they wanted to prove their point they would have brought onto their show some academic "experts" on the matter. They didn't do that because they KNEW that any qualified expert would say the ad was NOT racist. No-one is interested in the views of a couple of ignorant young people such as these. That is why they are in America, not Australia.
    1
  838. Sadly, there are way too many of these "drongo drivers" on our roads. It's a pity this driver could not have been "named & shamed" for wasting police time - though I'm sure there are people out there who do know the name of this total fool. I think part of the problem is that silly people like this man in the UK, watch way to many American TV programmes & get some very silly ideas into their little heads. Those programmes also sometimes use terms like "sovereign citizen" - which I can only assume means "I am a law unto myself" - so they think they can make up their own laws as they go along. Unfortunately, people like the driver in this video, are just not intelligent enough to understand that the legal systems in the UK & the USA do operate somewhat differently, & different laws apply.
    1
  839. Jemini29944: If that's what American corporations are really trying to do with their advertising in Australia, then I don't think they are being very successful, so it's not really genius. I think those sorts of messages simply go over the heads of most Australians, who don't see life or people in that way...
    1
  840. @@user-lu3nn5ly3f I understand that some of those were actually the Islamic "Red Crescent" organisation - which are nevertheless affiliated with the Red Cross, but because of their base in Islamic countries - may well hold different values & opinions to the Red Cross proper, in western countries.
    1
  841. @@user-lu3nn5ly3f Even if it was the Red Cross rather than the Red Crescent - they may still have been using staff & volunteers from the Gaza side who were Muslims, & thus with different values to people in the western world. In Islam the value of human life is generally not considered quite so important. According to the Quran & hadiths, it is an honour to be able to sacrifice one's life for Islam - because then one becomes a martyr & is guaranteed a place in paradise/heaven. So the Red Cross staff may not have considered it important to treat the hostages well. Having said that - I would not want any donation I made to go to the people of Gaza either. There are other organisations one can donate to, to support those Israelis who were the victims of the Hamas attacks on 7 October.
    1
  842. There's often a "two-tier policing structure" in place, when it comes to these kinds of protests. If it's a pro-Hamas rally/protest - people can get away with most things. But if it's a rally in favour of say, Donald Trump, there will be no leniency at all (unlike the pro-Hamas rallies), & people will be tracked down & arrested for the slightest little infringement. But with a pro-Hamas rally, the police will just say there is nothing they can do, because the people are entitled to protest - even when doing illegal things like defacing & damaging property that is not theirs. These people are highly destructive when it comes to damaging the property of others - they just have no respect for it at all. I wonder how THEY would feel if someone damaged THEIR property, such as their car or house? Would they just accept it, like they expect others to just accept it, when they damage the property of others? They clearly do not believe in "the golden rule" - they just want everything to favour them. They want to be able to treat others like dirt, while expecting others to treat them like gold in return. Theirs is a totally one-sided system. Oh what a lov-e-ly bunch of idiots - see them all a-standin' in a row!....
    1
  843. philochs: I wouldn't have a problem with counting Neil Young as a US artist, if that was where he got his start in his musical career.
    1
  844. Actually, if you read the Bible, there are verses there that indicate God's love is not always unconditional. There are verses that state that God hates certain people or certain sins/activities. It's not always a warm & fuzzy "God loves everyone & everything" situation.
    1
  845. It's more like "AS" - Artificial Stupidity".
    1
  846. Sounds like the police have fast become just a bunch of lazy sods who cannot do anything to prevent or investigate crime.
    1
  847. Yes - I think the only mistake Lady Hussey made, was perhaps being a little too persistent in her line of questioning. If I had been in Lady Hussey's situation & did not get the answer I was looking for, after the first couple of questions - I would have simply given up on Ngozi by saying something like "Enjoy your day" & promptly moved on to the next person in the queue. There were obviously a lot of people at that function - so there's no need to waste time on one individual, if they do not want to answer your questions. But if Lady Hussey had done that - then Ngozi might have still complained that no-one seemed interested in her & her charitable organisation - & claimed that was due to racism as well. So either way - I think the intention was to make Lady Hussey look bad, whatever she did.
    1
  848.  A M  Look - there could have been a very simple solution to Lady H's questioning if it was unlawful - but no-one seems to have been smart enough to have availed of it (even that Muslim lawyer you mentioned, it seems). As soon as Lady H asked the question about their background/ethnicity - they could have simply & politely said to her something along the lines of "I'd rather not answer that question" or even "I'm sorry, but under the Equality Act, it is unlawful for you to ask me that question - so I'm not going to answer it". But instead of saying that, they allowed Lady H to continue her line of questioning, which more or less indicated that they were okay with her asking those questions of them. And if a person is happy for other people to enquire about their heritage/ethnicity & is happy to answer questions about it - that should be okay. But if a person is not happy to be asked those kinds of questions - then it's not difficult to make it clear to the questioner that they'd prefer not to answer such questions. We must also remember that these people were all at a social function/event & not at a job interview where the prospective employer may not be permitted to ask the prospective employee certain types of questions such as their age, marital status, religion, sexual preference etc. But the prohibition on those types of questions does not usually extend to social functions - they are confined to the workplace. All the people at that function would have willingly accepted the invitation to the event, knowing that it was a social occasion & when people attend social functions, they are expected to socialise & intermingle with others who are also attending the event by invitation. Socialising generally means chatting with others, & possibly even being curious about the origins of a person's attire, if they are dressed in rather unusual attire, as Ngozi was, on that occasion.
    1
  849.  A M  I don't believe I'm victim blaming at all. I can only ever recall experiencing one genuine incident of racism (according to the dictionary definition of the term). It happened many many years ago as a child, & the comment came from another child in a playground in a small town where our family was briefly staying, as part of a holiday. We had ended up staying a little longer than planned in that town, because my mother had been hospitalised with food poisoning at the time. If I recall correctly, that child in the playground had said something to me along the lines of "Your mother is a filthy piece of rubbish". Apart from that, I don't recall experiencing any other incidents of racism at all.
    1
  850.  A M  I disagree with you that it was not racism. My mother is of a different ethnicity & the child making the comment had seen us at the hospital (the playground was very near the hospital where we had visited my mother). In fact I would say that comment was genuine racism, whereas someone simply enquiring about a person's ethnic background, is not racism as at all, by dictionary definition of the term. I was not trying to tell anyone how they should "feel" - simply saying that enquiring about someone's ethnic background is not racism as such. Lady H is not my "comrade" - but at least I can identify genuine "racism" when I see it. And I would say that your own comments may be bordering on racism. But don't worry - no-one has anything to fear from me - regardless of what colour they may be.
    1
  851. @Xavier Foisset Yes - unfortunately, it seems that these days, any criticism (whether it's warranted or not) that a caucasian person makes about a person of colour, is immediately referred to as "racism". And in one of his previous interviews, Harry even indicated that Meghan should be treated differently to & better than others in a similar situation, simply because she is a person of colour.
    1
  852. I very much enjoyed this discussion - though I'm not an atheist & never will be. I also do hate the fact that so many universities these days are "going woke" & are no longer the bastions of free speech & debate that they once were. If the world continues down the path of cancel culture & wokeness I think it will eventually reach a point where the skill & art of debate will be lost altogether - because people will have all been taught to think exactly alike & see no need for debate. That indeed will be a very sad day for the world. Because only the dumb "go woke".
    1
  853. I think that if one views the ad within the whole "series" of similar ads that it was meant to be seen, then if one sees the KFC as some sort of "pacifier", the only conclusion that could be drawn is that KFC is the "universal pacifier" - it calms everyone - no matter who they are - New Zealanders, Indians, Sri-Lankans, Pakistanis, West Indian etc - in fact anyone at all who plays cricket.
    1
  854.  @kristend344  Yes - they all somehow expect to be treated differently & preferentially to everyone else, because they are people of colour. They want to gather up sympathy from the rest of the world, merely based on the colour of their skin. Fortunately, anyone with an ounce of common sense will simply not buy into that.
    1
  855.  @Mr3X7R3M3  Okay - thanks very much for that additional information.
    1
  856.  @LeslieBurke8  He has previously indicated that he has a home in Los Angeles, but because he is also into sailing, he has a boat, & often uses that to film videos.
    1
  857. Douglas1102:...All that I'm really trying to do is dispute The Young Turks claim that "the ad is racist", when technically it's not, because that hasn't been proven in a court of law. Yes, the ad might be misinterpretted as reflecting racial stereotypes and thus offending some people, but its not quite the same as racism.
    1
  858. ArcDodelijk: I had someone recently try to tell me that West Indians and black African Americans are racially and culturally almost identical. I don't know about the race side of it, but I certainly wasn't convinced on the cultural side of things.
    1
  859. DoctorRosenRosen: From a purely technical and legal point of view, I don't think the ad is racist because if it were truly "racist" then a litigious society such as America would surely be suing KFC by now. No-one wants to throw money away on a legal case they're not likely to win. If they thought they had a strong legal case, they would be taking it up. I don't deny that some Americans may have found the ad (even racially) offensive. But technically, it's not the same thing as being "racist"...
    1
  860. No - she's not a princess & will never be a "princess" - she is only "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex", & is now prohibited (since moving from the UK & resigning from full-time royal duties) from using her former "royal" title of "Her Royal Highness, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". She is now just "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex".
    1
  861. It's ironic how those who claim to be promoting tolerance & diversity & inclusivity, are often the least tolerant of all, because they simply won't include those with different views to themselves. They rationalise that to themselves by saying in order to be inclusive, they need to exclude those who have different views to themselves. So all they end up with is a bunch of people who think exactly like themselves - usually so called "woke" people who are intent on polital correctness & exclusion of different people at all costs.
    1
  862. I think it's all down to how "religiously" some Mormons follow the teachings of their religion in relation to the shunning of those who leave the religion. You may just happen to know Mormons who do not follow the teachings of the Mormon church in relation to the shunning of apostates & admittedly, not all Mormons follow this teaching of their church - nevertheless, it is still an official teaching of the church, whether church members actually choose to follow it or not.
    1
  863. Jemini29944:Perceiving them as "rowdy blacks" is purely an American interpretation of the scenario. To Australians, the West Indian cricket supporters in the ad are just doing what they normally do.
    1
  864. writergrrl92:...But I would also be smart enough to realise an American TV ad was made for an American audience and that Americans probably don't find it offensive. And I'm not going to run around crying racism and insist the ad be removed from American TV. That simply wouldn't be fair to Americans, because their culture is different, and I recognise that, and am tolerant about it. And it's time Americans realised that the world simply has no knowledge of some of their culture and prejudices.
    1
  865. That is certainly not a new problem & was the case even when I was growing up in the sixties & seventies. We simply were not able to go away on holiday during every school holiday period, because my father was not always able to get the school holiday period off from his work. So when that happened we simply stayed at home & did other things during the school holidays. There's no law that says children have to go away on a holiday every school holiday period they get, & if they can't go away during the school holidays, they then have to go away for a holiday during school term time.
    1
  866. bvwcad:... In any case, if people boycott KFC they will probably go to other Australian fast food outlets in Australia, and jobs will be created there for some of the former KFC employees.
    1
  867. Tony Cheekyful: Well, as I said before, Australians also class as "Australian", some overseas-born artists (Olivia Newton-John, the Bee Gees, AC/DC etc)who started their artistic careers in Australia. I don't know much about Neil Young, but it might be the same in his case. Maybe he went to the US at a young age, and that's where he got started in his career.
    1
  868. Yes, we should all point our finger at the Sussexes (Harry & Meghan), make the sign of the cross, & say "Get thee behind me, Satan!" Those 2 are simply "good for nothing".
    1
  869. Well, if America thought that cricket ad was racist, then a lot of Australian comedy which makes fun of various racial and ethnic groups such as Muslims, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Catholics etc, probably wouldn't go down well in America, since their TV shows and advertising must be heavily censored to remove material which could be deemed offensive. I can imagine The Chaser boys sketch on "The Biggest Muslim" (a send-up of "The Biggest Loser", probably wouldn't go down too well there....
    1
  870. yebbut: I think the question that needs to be asked is: If this ad is racist, then how can any company at all selling chicken, safely market its products to black people in any country outside the USA, without Americans claiming it is racist?
    1
  871. The studio apartment/bed-sitter certainly looks nice & is light & airy. But there a a few unusual things I noticed about it. The sofa/divan, which pulls out into a double bed, does not look like it would be particularly comfortable - either as a sofa, or a bed - it appears too "block-like" in shape. But of course, I could certainly be wrong on that score. The desk/table could do with at least one extra chair - in case the apartment is rented out by a couple - & if they decided to have someone over for a meal, a third chair might also be preferable. The kitchenette has no micro-wave oven at all, & there does not appear to even be enough space for one. If it were placed on the kitchen bench-top, it would take up whatever little free bench space there is, leaving no room for meal preparation etc. I guess you could probably put it on top of the refrigerator though - as that would be the only place to put it, if one wanted to leave the bench space free for meal preparation. The other obvious thing missing was the vanity basin for hand-washing etc in the bathroom - which I thought would have been essential for good hygiene reasons. Of course, one could wash one's hands at the kitchen sink - but that means any bathroom germs will be carried into the kitchenette - which is not good. I would much rather have seen a vanity basin in the bathroom - & if that meant there was then no room left for the clothes washing machine in the bathroom - the washing machine could have been moved into the general living area if need be. Or was it intended that people use the bath tub for washing their hands etc?
    1
  872. I find it strange how these Rajneesh followers were also often called "the orange people", because they mostly dressed in orange coloured garments - & Dr Grande in his video about them is wearing an orange-coloured shirt.
    1
  873. Maybe there's no room for her at the son's place - after all, he lives in the Arab refugee camp with his own wife & children, so I would imagine there's not a lot of room for his mother as well.
    1
  874. Contempt of court usually applies to media outlets publishing discussions about current/ongoing court cases (in progress). In the particular case of the allegations against Brand though, Caroline Dinenage has warned that contempt of court may possibly now also apply, even before the court case is in progress. In other words - also even before any charges have been laid, & while the case is still "pending" & not "active". In these days of social media though, where members of the public are normally free to express their opinions openly & in public view on social media sites like YouTube/Facebook/Rumble/TikTok - I'm assuming that these web sites could now be considered by the government to be some sort of media outlets, where all comments are publicly available for viewing. So then, anyone who publicly comments & expresses an opinion or reveals information on these kinds of social media web sites, which may possibly affect the outcome of Brand's future court case (if there is one) - then that might also be considered contempt of court - just as it would have, if it had been on a mainstream media outlet, like in the newspapers/magazines/TV/Radio etc. To reduce the risk of being in contempt of court, members of the public commenting publicly on such social media sites, now need to be careful about what they say on these social media sites in relation to the Brand allegations in particular. But personal/private conversations about the allegations, which you may have with other people who are not involved at all with the Brand allegations, should still be okay, I believe, as those conversations are private & not in the public domain for everyone to see.
    1
  875.  @jim373  The same contempt of court laws apply to everyone (both media organisations & individuals) making public comments published in a media publication about an ongoing court case. However, in relation to the Brand allegations in particular, it has now been drawn to everyone's attention by Caroline Dinenage in the recent letter she sent to a social media web site - that contempt of court may also still apply to such public comments made prior to a court case even commencing. To date there has been a lot of public comment about the Brand allegations, because there is still no case before the court & Brand has not even been charged & the matter is still being investigated by the police. But that comment by Caroline Dinenage might still not prevent the media from commenting on the allegations at this stage, because the media might have received their own legal advice regarding her comments. They therefore might believe it is unlikely there could be a successful claim for contempt of court, whilst the Brand allegations are not currently being heard in any court of law. Or it could be that, since that letter came out from Caroline Dinenage - the media is just being slightly more careful with the public comments they are making about the allegations. But even so - not all public comments about the Brand allegations will have the potential for contempt of court - it is only those which could likely have an impact on the outcome of a court case. But to be on the safe side - once any court case has actually commenced - media organisations usually limit themselves to factual reporting on the court hearing itself.
    1
  876.  @ascelinred1000  From reading the Quran.
    1
  877.  @ascelinred1000  Would you be able to name one of them for me, so that I could look into it? Could you give me the Quran or hadith references showing the prophecy that was made & the reference showing that it then came true within his lifetime, thus warranting the people of his time referring to him as a prophet?
    1
  878.  @ascelinred1000  I generally just prefer to go by the accepted holy scriptures of Islam, which are just the Quran & hadiths. Books may be a bit easier to read - but they are usually only expressing the opinions of their authors. My main interest is actually in the beliefs & teachings of Islam - which I believe can best be found in its acknowledged holy scriptures - because Islam believes the Quran to be the literal word of Allah/God - so what better source could there possibly be than the word of God? And the Quran & hadiths are not very difficult to read - so I use those as my sources, to learn the beliefs & teachings of Islam.
    1
  879.  @ascelinred1000  Yes - I use an English language translation of the Quran. I know that some people say it should be read in its original language of Arabic - but not everyone is able to do that, because they do not understand Arabic. And if it's a good quality translation done by an appropriately qualified & accredited translator - then there really would be no need to study it in its original language. And I say that as someone who has formally studied several other languages at university level.
    1
  880.  @ascelinred1000  I will get back to you with the name of the translation that I use - as I don't actually have my hard copy of the Quran with me right now. But I really don't believe I should need any other book or commentary to help me "understand" the Quran. If the Quran is the word of Allah/God, & Allah/God has been able to express himself adequately in his very own book - then upon reading a translation of it in my own language, I should be able to quite readily understand it without needing any other explanatory book. What is the point of a book, if it can not simply be read & easily understood upon reading, by most people? In fact, I have already read the Quran about 3 times, & have not had any difficulty understanding what it was saying at all.
    1
  881.  @ascelinred1000  I've just checked, & my English language translation (hard copy) of the Quran is by N. J. Dawood.
    1
  882. Ha ha...Yes, that would be a much better name for the "The Young Twats", not The Young Turks!
    1
  883. NzerinOz:...But Harry has to realise too that he was not in America, and American values don't apply in Australia, and the sketch was not racist. Nevertheless, that still didn't stop the Americans kicking up a fuss about it and saying the sketch was racist. I think it just goes to show that their present claims about the KFC ad only being racist because KFC is an American company and the stereotype is American, and America is where their largest market is, is just an "excuse"...
    1
  884. Yes - Harry & Meghan have indeed sold their souls to the devil - & those of their children. They will do anything at all if it makes them mega millions
    1
  885.  @fksthn3235  And a flag for each other "minority group" as well, in addition to a flag for all the "regular" people (those who don't belong to a minority group)! Every "group" of people who made war-time sacrifices (whether a minority group or not) should be acknowledged with a special flag at the shrine. ALL people who made sacrifices during wars, need to be acknowledged at the shrine - no small group should not be singled out for special treatment.
    1
  886. Of course they would infiltrate this border crossing - after all, Hamas are terrorists (not soldiers) & they will stoop to any depths to achieve their aims. They are cowards who simply do not comply with the legitimate terms of war - they are terrorists & not legitimate soldiers in an army. And so far as the treatment of the hostages is concerned - Hamas will definitely NOT be treating them according to the terms of the Geneva Convention. They will be treating them just as kidnapped hostages - not legitimate prisoners of war.
    1
  887. After what happened at the outset with the Covid pandemic - I would not trust the World Health Organisation (WHO) as far as I could throw it - & neither would most other sane people. The WHO is almost single-handedly responsible for the pandemic initially spreading as quickly as it did - when it came out & publicly stated that there was a problem with a virus in China - "but don't worry - China has everything under control & there's no need for any country to close their international borders for fear of the virus spreading - if you do you'll be guilty of discrimination & racism!" Then there were photos shown in the media of the happy smiling faces of the head of the WHO, & the Chinese government leader, as they shook hands. All that really showed was that the WHO was "in the pocket" of the Chinese government & China probably paid the WHO a large sum of money NOT to alert the rest of the world to the REAL seriousness of the problem. The USA (Trump) & Australia both initially "did their own thing" & decided to close their own international borders to flights from China in any case (for health reasons - to avoid the spread of the virus) - but there was a big hue & cry about that, claiming those actions were racist & discriminatory - so those border closures did not last very long. And we all now know what eventually happened - of course the Coronavirus then actually spread very quickly to almost every country in the world! And we have the WHO to single-handedly thank for that! If the WHO had recommended that all countries take precautionary actions at the outset & close their international borders with China - the virus probably would not have spread so widely & so quickly. But because the WHO "sided with China" instead of looking out for the health of the entire world - we now had a world-wide pandemic on our hands. This pandemic has indeed proven that the world simply cannot trust the WHO when it comes to matters of health. Each individual country should just do its own research & follow the advice of its own medical specialists - or liaise with other countries that it knows it can trust - but do NOT rely of the WHO - as they are not an organisation which can be trusted. So if anyone is advocating a role for the WHO in the WEF - then they should simply forget about it - because after their exceptionally poor performance in the pandemic, the WHO has a very bad reputation & no-one will ever trust them again - no matter what advice they give out. No sane person would ever want their own health & life to be solely in the hands of the WHO.
    1
  888. Just because Lady Hussey persisted in asking her questions about Ngozi's heritage/ethnicity, does not make those questions necessarily racist, as Ngozi was claiming. It may have been a tad insensitive to persist in that line of questioning, given that Ngozi appeared not to want to answer those questions - but still not racist. Ngozi was at an event that presumably she had been invited to, & she had accepted the invitation. So surely she would have expected to have been asked a few questions by the hosts - especially since she was dressed in a very unusual manner. But if Ngozi then wants to do the rounds being interviewed by all of the TV stations, claiming that her interaction with Lady Hussey was "racist" - I think she totally deserves any public backlash that she gets. And I think her charity organisation will suffer as a result - I can't see more people wanting to donate to it after this fiasco, & probably a lot of existing supporters may withdraw their support - & that's fair enough. There are plenty of other charitable organisations out there supporting victims of domestic abuse - & people can transfer their donations to those other, more worthwhile organisations.
    1
  889.  @alberve  And I am not going to support Hamas & Palestine, just because someone from Hamas/Palestine told me they are oppressed. I only have to look at the children's TV programmes produced in Palestine & for Palestinian consumption, to understand how indoctrinated the Palestinians are, almost from birth, to have a hatred for Israel & the Jewish people - but for no obvious reason. And you have not provided any hard evidence to refute the points in the above video - most of which can be supported by reliable historical documentation & other sources.
    1
  890. danglestars:I think it's understood that people aren't claiming Australians are racist, rather that the Australian ad is racist. But the ad is not racist in Australia, and this is, after all, the audience it was designed to please, regardless of whether the company is American. You can't blame KFC or the ad company for any "perceived" racism there might be.They were only trying to create an ad to suit Australian tastes and culture, and they did a great job...
    1
  891. NzerinOz:..Even if KFC were an Australian company, and their largest market were in Australia, I believe they would still be making the same racist claims, as they obviously have also done in the case of a similar Korean chicken ad.
    1
  892. NzerinOz: We all know that Sam Neil, Russell Crowe, and Rebecca Gibney, were born in New Zealand - but if they have got their career starts in Australia, and have since taken out Australian citizenship, I would say it's fair to call them Australian as well.
    1
  893. No payments are made to blood/plasma donors on Australia.
    1
  894. And anyone claiming that it's possible to be both a practising Muslim & gay/homosexual at the same time (as was the speaker) is simply not being truthful about their religion. Like the other Abrahamic religions, Islam does not tolerate practising homosexuals & Muslims who are gay will usually try to hide that fact, so as to remain a member of their Islamic community, as there are also punishments for those seeking to leave Islam. If the Islamic community were to find out one of their members was gay, there would be punishments for that as well.
    1
  895. philochs: ...But who would believe TYT anyway? What qualifications or credentials do they have to claim the ad is racist? I have said all along that I would like to see a proper debate on the issue using appropriately qualified academic experts. The views of a couple of young people on a very home-made and amateur-looking show like that certainly wouldn't be enough to sway the views of any logical, rational, or well-educated person.
    1
  896. Jemini29944: If the message is truly subliminal, then there are probably a lot of people who would just not pick up on it anyway. One generally has to give something serious consideration to pick up on subliminal messages.
    1
  897.  @Tomara710  While it's true that contempt of court usually only comes into play after any court case has commenced & is actually already in progress - in this particular case, it has already been mentioned in a recent previous video on this same channel - that in one of the letters sent out by Caroline Dinenage - it had been indicated that "contempt of court" could possibly still apply even if a court case was still "pending" & had not yet been commenced. This is rather unusual & has only been mentioned in relation to these particular allegations against Brand. It was thought that this unusual claim regarding contempt of court may relate to common law, which was thought to no longer be applicable since more recent changes to the laws - but as it turns out - might still be applicable.
    1
  898.  @BozesanVlad  If an allegation is made to the police - even though it may not have resulted in any charges being laid at that time, or leading to a court case - a record of that complaint will usually still exist in the police records. Not all matters reported to the police result in charges eventually being laid, or a court case. Usually the police will investigate the matter, & if they believe there is sufficient evidence, charges may be laid, which might then eventuate in a court case. Ultimately, the Crown prosecutor will make a decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence from such a complaint, for the matter proceed to curt. This is standard practice as part of the legal system & is also intended to prevent potentially frivolous claims from proceeding to court & wasting the court's time. In my above comment, I was only trying to suggest possible reasons why these allegations against Brand may not have been reported to the police at the time they actually happened & are only being reported many years later - so using words such as "maybe", "it could have been", "I suppose" are indeed appropriate in those circumstances - & they are not intended to "prove" anything. Ultimately, if or when questioned about that in a court of law, the accusers themselves would have to state their own reasons why they did not report the matters at the time they actually happened - & there could be any number of reasons for that - as I previously suggested.
    1
  899.  @theoverunderthinker  People may choose not to pursue charges at the time something happens, for any number of reasons. One might be because they do not have the time & do not want the hassle &/or the matter may be embarrassing - especially if no damage appears to have been done at the time. But if some damage later becomes apparent, they may wish to pursue charges &/or to be compensated for that. So they might choose to pursue charges some time after the event, if the statute of limitations has not yet expired & there is still sufficient evidence to support those charges. It does not necessarily mean that people are being dishonest about what happened. Ultimately, that may be a decision for the courts to make - though of course individual people are always free to form their own opinions - but that will not affect the outcome of any court case. People can still be held accountable for things not reported to the police - for example, things said in the media about a person which cannot be proven to be true, may result in claims of libel/slander against the person who made those claims. Statements made in the media by people, about other people, are still referred to as being "on the record" - even though they may not have been reported to the police.
    1
  900. Divorce is actually frowned upon by all 3 Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, & Islam - if one is a practising believer of any of those religions. But it still happens in all 3 religions. In Judaism & Islam, it is usually the husband who can agree to or initiate the divorce. In Judaism, if the husband does not agree to the wife's request for a divorce - she can literally remain tied to him for years, in the eyes of the religion, because there is no such thing as a "secular" divorce in Israel - just as there is no such thing as a secular marriage in Israel. But for those Jews who may have gotten married & live outside of Israel, a secular divorce & secular re-marriage may be possible - but they may not be allowed to have a Jewish re-marriage, without the Get (ie Jewish divorce) - even outside of Israel.
    1
  901. So I guess you'd want to then tear down/destroy all the hospitals, schools, & charitable organisations that were started by all these despicable religious people...
    1
  902. I honestly never knew that Ben & Jerry's was such an anti-semitic company & had such double standards. But I suspect any kind of stance they take which purports to be on moral & ethical grounds, is probably just all money-based anyway, rather than based on any genuine ethical standards which people at Ben & Jerry's may have. Israel & the middle-east generally may well be a small market for them compared with many other regions - so they probably figure they can get away with not selling their products there, without it affecting their financial bottom line too much. On the other hand, if they were to protest China's treatment of the Uyghurs by stopping sales of their products there - their financial bottom line may take a real hit. So any so-called "standards" they may have, are only centred around money in any case. But now that I'm aware of their anti-semitism & double standards, I & most of my friends will now be boycotting all Ben & Jerry's products. I will also be writing to the large Australian supermarket chains to inform them of Ben & Jerry's anti-semitism & to request that they no longer sell Ben & Jerry's products. I'm really sick & tired of companies like Ben & Jerry's parading their double standards in front of everyone - as though it's something to be proud of. I & my friends are also boycotting Qantas for showing their double standards for advocating for the sacking of Israel Folau - while at the same time showing their support for governments of middle-eastern predominantly Islamic countries who persecute, punish, & even put to death LGBT people. Qantas is very happily signing up to reciprocal frequent flyer & code-share arrangements with several government-owned middle-eastern airlines - thus indicating its support for the way those governments treat LGBT people. At least Folau only indicated that according to the Bible - LGBT people would not go to heaven when they die - & he was not advocating they be persecuted or killed. But apparently Qantas thinks it's quite okay for those middle-eastern governments to persecute & kill LGBT people. I used to tell people that the "woke brigade" were either half asleep, or walking in their sleep. Now I just tell them that the woke brigade have fallen completely asleep at the wheel. And for those woke brigade people who may not yet be quite fully asleep - it's probably about time we put them all to sleep & never ever woke them up again. They just carry on with way too much nonsense, & anyone who's got even an ounce of common sense in their head can see their nonsense for what it is.
    1
  903.  @aaliyahmehnaz9616  Even if no-one at all reads it - it does not worry me in the slightest. I still don't consider it a waste of time.
    1
  904.  @aaliyahmehnaz9616  Nothing is ever really a waste of time - everything eventually has a benefit or purpose. An ice-cream company claims to be "standing with the oppressed" by oppressing & discriminating against another/different group of people. They are supporting oppression of people in some other countries just by coming to an agreement with the corrupt governments of those countries, to sell their products there. They obviously do not care that that government is persecuting various minority groups. That ice-cream company clearly has a double standard!
    1
  905.  @aaliyahmehnaz9616  Whatever Israel may do - it's nothing compared with what many other countries in the world do - including countries with which Ben & Jerry's continues to happily do business - indicating Ben & Jerry's obviously agrees with the actions of those governments, including persecution of minority groups etc. People should boycott their obvious double standards.
    1
  906.  @aaliyahmehnaz9616  I'm not trying to justify anything - just calling out Ben & Jerry's for being anti-semitic & having double standards & I'm therefore recommending that people should boycott their products - just as this supermarket chain in New York is doing. If Ben & Jerry's are going to pretend they are doing the right thing by stopping the sale of their products in certain countries - then they should do the same thing for all countries who persecute certain people - rather than single out & discriminate against any particular country. But if they are going to single out any one country for special discriminatory treatment - then most people would probably say they should select the country that is the worst offender - & there are many countries that are far worse offenders than Israel. And by not taking action against those countries - Ben & Jerry's is sending a very strong message to the world that they whole-heartedly support things like China's persecution of minority groups. Honestly, these companies like Ben & Jerry's who pretend to be "woke" are really just totally asleep - so much so that even if "fairness & justice" were to walk right up to them & slap them in the face 10 million times - they still would not be able to wake up from their very deep sleep.
    1
  907. I don't think any apology at all was warranted. Enquiring about a person's ethnic origins is not racist - but by Ngozi immediately taking her claims of racism to all the media etc, public damage was done to the reputation of Lady Hussey & she lost her job as a result of Ngozi's racism claims. So, thank goodness many people in the media also castigated Ngozi for her false claims of racism, & also, thank goodness that her charity is now being investigated. I for one, certainly will never be making any donation to her charity, & neither will many others, I am sure.
    1
  908. MilitantPeaceist: I know KFC said some good things in their statement, and I believe KFC Australia were probably told by KFC America to pull the ad. But at the end of the day KFC Australia still "caved in" by withdrawing the ad. In my view, they didn't make a strong enough stance for Australia values. That's why I'm still boycotting them, and so are many others.
    1
  909. Douglas1102: The Australians who were upset were probably those who may have known about the American racial stereotype involving black Americans and chicken. They might also have had more exposure to America, or lived there at some time. Most Australians didn't know about the stereotype, and in fact Australian authorities received very few complaints from people who had seen the ad on Australian TV...
    1
  910. balancedss:I really didn't mean to infer that the US is a "predominantly black" country, as I am aware that it is not so. But I understand how my sentence could have been understood as such - perhaps I should have put "predominantly black" in brackets to make it a little clearer. I really just wanted to make the point that there are no predominantly black countries crying racism on this issue.
    1
  911. My mobile phone has a so-called "distress PIN code" that I can key in (if someone were to ask me to unlock the phone & I did not want to do that) - which will automatically delete all the data on my phone (which is securely backed up elsewhere). If I were forced to type in my PIN code say, by the authorities, but instead typed in the "distress PIN code" - which deleted all the data, so that the authorities would then gain nothing from my phone - I wonder if I could be prosecuted for that - even though, under normal circumstances, there would be no way they could know for sure what information/data (if any), I actually had on my phone to start with.
    1
  912. ​ @MariamMariam-ue7vz "AP" stands for "Apostate Prophet", another ex-Muslim, who has a significant YouTube following, on his channel of the same name.
    1
  913. Yes that's right - my mother said that prices of a lot of things actually almost doubled after the currency was decimalised - because often people/shopkeepers would treat 1d the same as 1p & vice versa so there were a lot of rip-offs at that time & I'm sure a lot of shop-keepers made their fortunes as a result of decimalisation.
    1
  914. I think she is doing the right thing by paying for 2 seats, if due to her size, she needs to occupy 2 seats - & I think that the airlines should allow plus-sized people to purchase 2 seats for themselves if they need to.
    1
  915. It's that infamous "Moaning Markle debacle" yet again. Every time she does something - it just turns into an absolute debacle. And "her truth" is not related to the facts in any way at all - it's just a made up version of events, to make herself look good, & make everyone else look bad. Everything that comes out of her mouth is nothing but a load of rubbish. Unlike Nelson Mandela, she has done absolutely nothing important or significant in her life at all. She has delusions of grandeur - even though she would be barely noticeable alongside Nelson Mandela - like the size of an ant. She is also highly ignorant of protocol & any matters at all to do with the workings of the royal family.
    1
  916. Douglas1102:KFC are the ones who withdrew the ad from Australian TV, and they are responsible for that. That action sent a clear message to Australians that KFC simply does not care about, nor is it prepared to take a stand for Australian values, traditions, and cullture. This is what Australians find upsetting and for that reason a "Boycott KFC Australia" movement has now started in Australia. If KFC Australia cannot stand up for Australia, then many Aussies now won't buy their chicken.
    1
  917. sidittygal:...Australians aren't saying that racism doesn't exist in Australia. Yes, there are racial stereotypes in Australia, but they're not the same as in America, and Australia doesn't want America's stereotypes forced on them as well. I'm sure America wouldn't expect to be mindful of all Australia's racial stereotypes, when designing American TV ads. And most Australians probably wouldn't even know who "Stepin Fetchit" is (I certainly don't!).
    1
  918. I think the key wording/definition in the above video is that it is an offence "for somebody to sell a vehicle... that is not roadworthy, that is going to be used on a road". In other words, it's okay to sell an unroadworthy vehicle, as long s it's not going to be used on a road. And it may be necessary to make that clear with the buyer "in writing" - that you are both aware that the vehicle is unroadworthy - & therefore it should not be driven on the road in its present state (irrespective of whether the vehicle "will drive" or not) - & in its present state, it is not being sold for use on the road. It is either being sold for scrap/parts, or the buyer intends to have mechanical work/repairs done on the car to make it roadworthy in the future, before using it on the road. The problem with TikTok is that most people who watch such videos have extremely short attention spans - & they are unlikely to be able to watch even a one minute video to the very end. So it's not surprising that they would reach their own conclusions & become criticl, before having watched the entire one minute video.
    1
  919. ​ @samyal2082 You can't get much more "victimhood" than that already being claimed by the Palestinians, after several generations of claiming refugee status...
    1
  920. ​ @wwitness Yes - & Islam is naturally a radical & fundamentalist religion.
    1
  921. Of course, Titus DOES actually have a legal identity - even though he may not have any documentation currently in his possession to prove it. When documents of identity are lost/stolen/destroyed - there is always a procedure in place for getting such documents replaced. Titus could probably easily apply to have his birth certificate replaced if he wanted to - it's just that he has not had a need to do so as yet. But that does not mean that he has no legal identity. Everyone in the US these days - especially someone of Titus' age/generation has a legal identity - it's just a matter of obtaining the necessary documentation to confirm it.
    1
  922. ... Australians want to view TV programmes and ads which cater to their own cultural tastes, without interference from other countries like America. I believe this should be every country's right.
    1
  923. One only has to recall what happened with McCarthyism many years ago, & the "reds under the bed" scare tactics of the government, when the US government tried to "out" many people as communists or communist sympathisers - especially Hollywood actors & actresses, shortly after World War 2. Many such celebrities, in effect had their careers ruined by such accusations & the ensuing legal proceedings, even though in most situations, these cases were never "proven". And we have come almost full circle, back to making out that people are "domestic terrorists" - just because they may hold certain beliefs on one side of the political spectrum, or beliefs which may not be mainstream, or "politically correct" or "woke". So much for society claiming to want "tolerance & diversity"! It seems that the minute someone appears who has different views to the "very loud minority" - they are branded a domestic or community terrorist. And I refer to the "very loud minority", because what people often do not realise, is that those people who are given free reign to shout their views the loudest, are not actually in the majority. They are simply able to shout their views the loudest, by in effect, silencing or cancelling all opposing views & branding those people as domestic terrorists. None of these people are even capable of, or smart enough to enter into a genuine debate on the issues, with the people who they are "cancelling". The "very loud minority" simply blocks/bans/cancels their opposition, "because they can" & their views are often supported by "big tech". In many cases, true "freedom of speech", often seems to be a thing of the past - especially in on-line situations & social media, which are all now controlled by "big tech". About the only place one might have real "freedom of speech" is out in public & on street corners, standing on one's soapbox to convey one's views. But doing that is, unfortunately, not going to reach the millions of people that can be reached through the social media channels which are now controlled by big tech. Yes - the world is truly "going backwards" & history is repeating itself. Most people have learned absolutely nothing from those "lessons" of the past. It is so very true, that those who forget the tragedies of history, are doomed to repeat them - & that is exactly what will happen, unless something changes.
    1
  924. Jemini29944: If most Americans were asked to name two racial stereotypes about the Australian Aboriginal people, then I would say that most Amercians would not be able to do it. So why do Americans expect the rest of the world to know about their own American racial stereotypes?
    1
  925. People holding signs like the person in the photo - claiming children are being murdered, are clearly not intelligent enough to understand the difference between killing & murder. Civilian lives lost (whether they are children or adults) during times of war are not "murder" - they are simply collateral damage of the activities of war. Many civilian lives are lost during times of war, & they are not "murder". Think of all the thousands of civilian lives lost during the British bombing of the German city of Dresden during World War II. No-one claimed that Britain "murdered" all those civilians in Dresden. There are literally millions of civilians who have lost their lives during the 2 major world wars - no-one has claimed that all those people were "murdered". It is really no different during this Gaza conflict - it is a war & there will be civilian lives lost & casualties - that is just a fact of war - it is not murder.
    1
  926. The traditional eating of lamb at Easter time in Germany could be related to Jesus Christ sometimes being described in the Bible as "the lamb of God" (the sacrificial lamb). In many English-speaking countries, "hot cross buns" are traditionally eaten on Good Friday only. Religious/church services are usually held on Maundy Thursday (celebrating the Last Supper & Jesus' washing of his disciples' feet), Good Friday (a solemn service commemorating Jesus' crucifixion), & Easter Sunday (celebrating Jesus' resurrection). On Easter Sunday many churches also "light the new fire" of the Paschal candle in the church, for the following church year . For children in particular, Easter bonnet competitions at Easter time are also very popular - to see who can make the best/fanciest Easter bonnet. The "Easter bunny" often leaves Easter eggs for the children overnight, from Easter Saturday onwards (sometimes Sunday & Monday as well - as Easter Monday is usually a public holiday). Another popular Easter activity for children is making hard-boiled eggs & painting them in nice colours.
    1
  927. ... With this show as a prime example, who knows what other rubbish they are feeding people and turning out on a daily basis.This particular episode would have to give people the best reason ever NOT to watch or listen to their programmes. I for one certainly won't be watching any of their other rubbish, and perhaps in addition to boycotting KFC, we should stop watching this show as well.
    1
  928.  @fameismine2  Trump's proposal to purchase & re-develop the area of land currently known as Gaza, could end up being quite a profitable one, if they buy the land & develop it, all at the right price. After a successful re-development they could sell everything off at the right price & make a tidy little profit for the US. I cannot imagine too many other countries or developers wanting to purchase that land, with the state that it will be in, after the conflict has ended. Trump's US may be able to purchase the land at rock bottom prices, then make a killing when they sell it off again having developed the area. But none of the Gazans who had to leave the area are likely to have the necessary money to purchase a piece of Gaza after it has been re-developed - though no doubt some of them will expect it to be handed back to them for nothing, after someone else has spent billions of dollars to develop it all.
    1
  929. I find it hard to understand why so many people would have viewed this video, yet only roughly one-tenth of those viewers have "liked" the video & 4 of them have actually "disliked" the video (what is there to "dislike" about the video - unless those dislikes are coming from people who actually work for the likes of Facebook, Google etc.). If people watch the video & find its content useful & informative - why not automatically give it a "like"? That's certainly what I do - & it does assist the content creator to continue making such helpful videos.
    1
  930. I really don't think the Director-General of the WHO has any credibility left at all - not after his own words helped to spread the Chinese virus throughout the rest of the world - by deliberately yet falsely reassuring the world towards the end of 2019 - that the Chinese virus was not a threat to the rest of the world - & that China was "doing the right thing". Personally, I will never again believe anything at all that he, or the WHO says - especially when it comes to reassuring people that something is "safe". I would much rather wait until my own country, or some other "reliable" source has conducted thorough testing themselves & releases the results of that comprehensive testing to the general public. Countries should not allow themselves to be duped by this guy, or the WHO ever again.
    1
  931. Because unfortunately, there is way too much "hokery pokery wokery" nonsense going on in the world at the moment. And a highly vocal minority of very gullible people have "fallen for" the Hamas propaganda, claiming they are the victims. And because Islam is given "privileged status" as a minority group in most social media platforms, it is very difficult for individuals to show the truth about what these radical Islamic terror groups are doing, without being banned or penalised in some way by the platforms, for having "offended" someone somewhere in the world. Islam in the social media platforms is a very sensitive religion & cannot withstand much in the way of criticism.
    1
  932. Actually, it is perfectly normal for foreigners to be asked questions by the immigration/customs & security authorities at international airports - whether they have a valid visa to enter that country or not. When I travelled to the USA (New York) from Germany as a tourist (visiting friends in the USA) some years ago, I was asked by the immigration/customs people at the airport how long I was going to stay in the USA, where I would be travelling within the country, & where I would be staying in the country etc - a lot of questions like that - even though I had a valid visa in my passport for that trip to the USA. I was also asked similar questions on entering the UK - again, even though I had a valid UK visa in my passport. The only places I have not been questioned like that, was when I was travelling within Europe. So, Ben Gurion Airport is really no different to other international airports, if they ask those kinds of questions. Some countries also have very strict requirements on what people are allowed to bring into the country - especially in terms of food & drink products, weapons & cash/money etc - & these kinds of things are usually picked up when going through customs at the airport. Even when you follow the line that indicates you have "nothing to declare" - you may still be chosen for a random luggage inspection - just to make sure you are not bringing any prohibited goods into the country. That's all perfectly normal at most international airports & Ben Gurion Airport is probably no different.
    1
  933. Everyone should have a basic right to freedom of speech & freedom of religion in the UK - but unfortunately things like this are getting very bad in the UK - specially when you have people getting arrested for things like allegedly silently praying in their heads outside an abortion clinic. I mean, how is anyone going to be able to conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law, what people may have been doing/thinking silently in their heads? To the best of my knowledge - no-one has yet been able to create a mind-reading machine. Probably the closest the authorities could come to something like that would be a lie detector machine, to try to determine whether someone was lying about their claim to have been silently praying or not silently praying in their head at the time. And when it comes to claims of people having been caused distress by what others may be saying - it all only goes in one direction - & that is against the Christian preachers. No-one ever stops to think that Christians may find the views & opinions preached by other people, as being highly offensive & distressing, especially in a traditionally Christian country such as the UK. And Muslim preachers can also often be seen out in public places with their dawah stands & handing out their leaflets & talking to people - but we never hear about any of them being arrested for having caused offence to members of the public on the streets. I wonder why that is? Are only Muslims & members of the pro-abortion & LGBTIQ+ communities allowed to be offended, but not practising Christians for some reason? It really is getting to be quite a ridiculous situation in the UK with believing Christians being persecuted for their beliefs.
    1
  934. These guys at TYT just have no credibility for any "thinking" person. It's easy - "too easy" - just to sprout a few thoughts off the top of one's head. But as for them doing some proper research on the issue, or engaging in informed debate with experts - simply "too hard"!
    1
  935.  @loonaticsrunningtheassylum  Yes - it's often the case that the larger a charity becomes, the more corrupt & "woke" it becomes. I don't really understand why they felt the need to make such changes. Maybe "Black Lives Matter" or some other Marxist woke organisation was putting pressure on them, & telling them they would out them as racist & "anti-black" if they did not join them & subscribe to their woke views & make such changes. But up till now, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has complained about the language/terminology they've used.
    1
  936.  @paldridg  That's what I thought.
    1
  937. MilitantPeaceist:I'm not quite sure that you mean by that comment - perhaps I should have said 'black South Africans" rather than "blacks"? Or did you mean it as a joke?
    1
  938. I'm sure that Oxfam's approach is not going to go down very well in the developing countries they may be trying to assist. Are they going to have a universal policy that applies world-wide & force their workers in developing countries not to use the word "mother". I don't think some of them are going to like that. And they may well lose a lot of supporters in developed countries if they "go woke". I for one, will be ceasing to support them & going with another charity instead. Go woke, go broke as they say.
    1
  939. I too believe it is wrong for this man to have been "charged" for 17 years worth of "bed & board" for his gaol cell whilst he was incarcerated. He was definitely not there of his own free will & had no choice in the matter - he was forced to be there by the court & government - even though his conviction was eventually quashed. It is certainly quite an insult to the person who has had to spend 17 years of their life wasting away in gaol, due to something done by corrupt police. I do also wonder whether the corrupt police who were responsible for withholding that information from the court & the defence, have now been charged for doing that, & if so, what is their penalty for having done that? Perhaps they too, need to spend at least 17 years in gaol & be forced to pay for all of their own "bed & board" in their gaol cell! It's always good to emphasize that a court of law never finds an accused person "innocent" - only "guilty" or "not guilty". So many people do make the very serious mistake of thinking that a finding of "not guilty" means the accused person was innocent of the crime - but that is not necessarily the case - it just means that the court did not believe it had seen sufficient evidence presented to it, to find the person guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Some people also even take that a step further, & by claiming that the accused was found "innocent" of the charges, conclude that their accusers must therefore have been lying in their claims about the accused - & then want to have the accusers "punished" for supposedly lying or making false allegations. Just because the accused is found not guilty, it does not automatically follow that their accusers did not tell the truth.
    1
  940. It's of both - the will of God & supported by the people.
    1
  941.  @trevorluft6032  It's an instruction in the Bible, from Jesus to Christians - "Go ye into all the world & preach the Gospel" etc.
    1
  942.  @trevorluft6032  The procedure may vary among churches. But generally in the Church of England, it is the decision of the regional Diocesan bishop (in accord with the will of God) to ordain someone as a deacon - which is the first step towards full ordination to the priesthood. A deacon who is a candidate for the priesthood will usually spend about 12 months as a deacon, before then being ordained as a priest. But as a deacon they are required to serve time as a curate, which is a sort of assistant minister role, in a parish church. There is really no "vote of the people" to determine whether a person will actually be ordained. But during the service, the candidate/ordinand makes a vow/declaration to "make Christ known among all", & after that, the congregation is asked whether it is (also) their will that the person be ordained & whether they will support & uphold them. That is not an indication that the congregation itself could veto the ordination by simply saying "no". If that were to happen, the bishop could simply ordain the person in another parish church, where the congregation was supportive. In reality, the ordination ceremony would not be happening in the first place, if a decision had not already been made to ordain Calvin & appoint him to that parish as a deacon, with the parishioners being agreeable to it.
    1
  943.  @dakota4927  ROFL! Just exercising my freedom of speech - same as everyone else commenting here. And no-one is being forced to read my comments if they don't want to. LOL!
    1
  944.  @shawroberts5149  Yes - Harry & Meghan had been asked by the Queen to stop using their royal titles of "HRH" by the Queen, after they left to live in Canada/USA. And in any case, Meghan never had the official title of "Princess" (although she may have wanted it).
    1
  945. Yes - it just came 40 years later...
    1
  946. yelspa: I don't think anyone can necessarily say it's offensive to black people around the world. Some black Americans and other black people who misunderstand and misinterpret the ad might find it offensive, but that can't be helped, unless they're prepared to try and view the ad within the original context that it was intended. I doubt many people would agree that speaking to Australians is stepping back in time - but Americans are certainly clinging to all their old stereotypes.
    1
  947. I certainly recall reading about this case & thinking how very tragic it all was for Lisa Harnum - especially since she appeared to be alone in Australia from Canada, without any family members or good friends for support. She may have only known the people she worked with & perhaps a few other people. Her mother was obviously not able to get there quickly enough from Canada. I'm glad that Simon was found guilty of her murder. I'm a bit surprised that she agreed to marry him in the first place - though I guess she would have found it very difficult to say no to him with such a public marriage proposal - being filmed surrounded by all his family & friends, with no-one there from her side. And if she had said "no" to his marriage proposal so publicly - one never knows how he might have reacted at that time. I've certainly heard about these types of relationships before. It does remind me a bit of that Julia Roberts movie from many years ago ("Sleeping with the Enemy"), where Julia's character had to go so far as to fake her own death in a boating accident, in order to escape from such a husband & start a new life. But in that case, her husband had his suspicions about whether she was really dead (her body was never found) & eventually tracked her down & still tried to kill her. I guess it all just goes to show that in these kinds of cases, one really needs to have a very carefully thought out but secret escape plan to avoid such things happening, & so as not to arouse the suspicions of the perpetrator. And it certainly does not help when the perpetrator is spying on one's every move - including computer & mobile phone use. Fortunately Lisa's mental health counsellor & someone at her gym, did their best to help with her escape plan, but unfortunately the perpetrator got to her before she was able to fully execute that plan. And to think she came so close to almost getting away from him - but he managed to drag her back to the apartment. I feel truly sorry for any woman in this kind of a situation.
    1
  948. @NeriaWolf Surely there must be other forms of photo ID one can obtain from the government, without having to pay out a lot of money for a full passport? Where I live, anyone can obtain such a thing called a "Proof of Age Card" for a nominal fee. It is a well-accepted photo ID card issued by the same government authority that issues driver's licences etc - & much less expensive than a passport. Anyone can apply for such an ID card - though it originated as a form of ID for young people wishing to enter venues serving alcohol - to prove they were over 18 years, yet may not have had a driver's licence.
    1
  949. A lot of "anchor babies" are born to people who are "legally" (albeit temporarily) in the US. Even people who have a baby in the US while they are in the US on a tourist visa (like many Chinese), are still in the US "legally". People who go to another country to work, & are granted a "work visa" for that country, are generally not considered "migrants" as such, because a work visa is usually only a temporary type of visa valid for a limited period of time (sometimes a few years), & one needs to apply to renew/extend it (if that's possible) if one wants to continue to work in that country, after the visa expires. Winston mentioned that he got a work visa to work in the US. So if he's still in the US on the basis of that work visa - then technically he's not considered a migrant - because "migrants" are people who go to a country with the express intention of settling there permanently to live, & are granted a visa or some sort of permanent resident status, which will allow them do that. A work visa will usually not allow people to remain in a country permanently, unless they subsequently change that work visa (if that's possible), to a different kind of visa or permanent resident status, which will allow them to remain there permanently. So unless Winston has already changed his "work visa" to a different kind of visa which will allow him to stay in the US permanently, then he's not really a "migrant" as such.
    1
  950. I went to donate plasma just yesterday evening. I donate as often as I possibly can & am allowed to - which is fortnightly. But yesterday when I donated - there were only 3 donors in the centre & 2 staff manning the centre. Usually there are more donors & more staff there on a Friday evening - so I can only assume the quietness of the centre yesterday was due to many people being away on leave at this time of year. I should also add that since 25 July last year (2022) people who have lived in the UK for 6 months or more back in the 1980's & 1990's are no longer prohibited from donating. So it's a good time for such people who were previously prohibited from donating, to re-commence donating. Admittedly - it's not an entirely painless procedure & some staff are more skilled at needle insertion than others, making it more or less painful - depending on which staff member you get. If you go regularly to donate - you get to know which of the staff are better than the others at needle insertion. But yesterday as there were only 2 staff at the centre, & only 1 of those was qualified to do the needle insertion - I knew it was going to be slightly more painful. That's just the luck of the draw. But it does not put me off donating at all. My father was always the one in our family who was a regular blood donor for most of his adult life - right through to his later years. I like to think that I'm following in his footsteps (being the only member of our immediate family who is a regular donor, as far as I am aware). It is a very worthwhile thing to do & I also like to think that I'm doing my bit - especially if any member of our own family ever needed blood or blood products.
    1
  951. Konnoisseur: Actually, if Americans can only see one side to this ad (ie their own view that the ad is racist), then I would say it is the Americans who are backwards and ignorant. Not only that, but they seem to think they're superior to the rest of the world by expecting non-Americans to know all about their "American" racial stereotypes, when in fact most Americans know very little about the world outside America.
    1
  952. ​ @sarahs3988 Yes - polygamy did "occur" in the Old Testament of the Bible & there are records of it happening there. But just because it "happened" in the Old Testament, does not mean that it was "allowed" or specifically permitted by God. In fact, in the case of Abraham & Sarah - who were told by God that Abraham would be the father of many - it was specifically because of God's delayed "fulfillment" of that promise by God, & Sarah's own impatience, that when a child was not forthcoming to them quickly enough - Sarah urged Abraham to sleep with the servant girl, who then had a child to Abraham. But that child & his mother ended up being a source of endless trouble to Abraham & Sarah's own child & their relationship. So much so that the servant girl & her child were eventually banished to the wilderness by Abraham & Sarah. So Abraham's adulterous relationship with the servant only took place because Abraham & Sarah did not sufficiently trust God to keep his promise to them, & they went against that promise of God when Abraham had a child with the servant. That was something God never told them to do, & it worked out very badly for everyone. So there is definitely no indication there that God "allowed" or approved of Abraham's relationship with the servant. So I don't know where Christian men these days get the idea that the Bible & God approve of polygamy. Maybe they have not read the Bible properly for themselves. In fact, anywhere that marriage is actually spoken of in the Bible, it is spoken of as being between one man & one woman. And how can those 2 become "one flesh" if there is more than one woman involved?
    1
  953. It depends on what country you may be in. In some countries, even though you can readily purchase pre-paid SIM cards using cash - when it comes to "activating" that SIM card - you will usually need to provide some sort of verified identification - so they will still know who is using that phone/phone number.
    1
  954.  @linsqopiring6816  In some cases & countries, flashing/changing the IMEI is not legal & may only be done by the phone's manufacturer.
    1
  955.  @linsqopiring6816  In some cases & countries, flashing/changing the IMEI is not legal in all cases, & may only be done by, or with the authorisation of, the phone's manufacturer.
    1
  956.  @linsqopiring6816  In my country that is not the case - you will always require verified ID, whether using a pre-paid or post-paid mobile phone service. With a pre-paid service, your SIM card will not be activated by the carrier, unless you provide verified ID. The verification is is usually done electronically by your carrier when you type in your identification reference numbers like, for example, your driver's licence number, or your passport number etc. The carrier has access to a system which sends these reference numbers & details back to the ID issuer for verification - then tells the carrier whether the ID has been confirmed/verified by the issuer.
    1
  957. Yes - most certainly - it's time all of us "normal" people in the world started standing up to the hokery pokery wokery nonsense & cancel culture that has invaded our world over the last 10 - 20 years or so. And we should have done it much sooner! I was just speaking about this with some friends with whom I went out to dinner last Tuesday night - we got into quite a discussion about it. Maybe we ought to get some T-shirts & placards made up with slogans like "Say "No" to Nonsense", "Only the Stupid go Woke", "Cancel Cancel Culture", "Put the "Woke" back to sleep!", "I'm "awake" NOT "woke"". I was very shocked & surprised to see that you lost your role on the RAD board - in fact, I did not even know you were on the RAD board! Shocked also, because as a subscriber member of the RAD myself, I had no idea the RAD was supportive of drag queen story time & the sexualisation of young children. That's very disappointing to learn indeed. I will certainly be sending a letter to the RAD about that myself, expressing my disappointment in them for that. The woke & cancel cultures have now become very pervasive in our society. Despite their relatively small numbers of supporters, they do wield tremendous power, simply because the media allows them to & gives them the platform to do that. They dox people & attack them from all angles, causing them to lose their jobs & ruin people's careers. They effectively blackmail many organisations into supporting them, with threats of being outed for having anti LGBTIQ+ views (whether true or not) if the organisations do not go along with the wokeness of the day. It's such a shame to hear that your Easter Special church venue was cancelled because some of the people at that church obviously no longer believe in the teachings of the Bible. I do hope you are able to find another suitable alternate venue & that there will still be sufficient time to film it prior to Easter. I think the church that cancelled your booking really needs to be named & shamed so we will all know not to support them. Will you let us know the name & address of the church? Perhaps we could all send in letters to the church letting them know how disappointed we are that they no longer believe in the teachings of the Bible. If Gary Lineker wants to talk about his personal political views, then I don't think its appropriate for him to do that while he is under contract to the BBC which is meant to be an impartial TV station & not express any political views. If he wants to make political comment, he should resign from his role at the BBC & use his own media platform/s for expressing his political views - which by the looks of things, are in line with the "woke" crowd.
    1
  958. I whole-heartedly support the argument of the Revd Calvin Robinson, that anything at all (including drag queen story time for children) that includes sexualised content for children, especially with scantily clad people, is entirely inappropriate content for children - whether the parents want to expose them to it or not. Would we accept it if parents were showing their children some of the so-called "milder" forms of pornography - & would that even be legal - or would parents likely be arrested for it & deemed an unfit parent? Pantomine is different because the content is not sexualised & people are not scantily clad.
    1
  959. Some great information there about a number of messaging apps - though I guessed the number 1 messaging app would probably be Session. But I also got some good information about a few messaging apps that I'd only heard of - but never knew a lot about.
    1
  960. philochs: I've never heard of "Outback Steakhouse", and I doubt that most other Australians have either. Australians loved giving Bart the boot! Most Australians would have found the episode funny - and at least that shows that Aussies are capable of having a good laugh at themselves - unlike most Americans. Australians make fun of and laugh at themselves all the time.
    1
  961. Whatever happened to the recording of the latest video livestream "Live - Is there ever a need for a government disinformation agency? Q & A" I just caught the tail end of it "live" - but was hoping to watch the rest of it from the recording - but now it seems to have "disappeared" altogether!
    1
  962.  @robbraxmantech  Thanks - will check it out there.
    1
  963. It's such a shame that video (re the government disinformation agency) was banned by YouTube - without being given any rhyme or reason for it, or being able to appeal it. What nonsense - it certainly goes to prove that YouTube clearly does not believe in "freedom of speech" - & is politically censoring all content. I cannot see or understand why it possibly would have been banned - so thank goodness for the "alternate" channels such as Odysee - which DO understand what freedom of speech is all about. I did not see anything at all objectionable in the video content. I don't really see much need at all for any "disinformation governance board". Even if something of dubious truthfulness may be put out there - it can always be immediately disputed & rebutted by the parties concerned, or investigated to ascertain its truthfulness. And people themselves are more than capable of deciding the truthfulness of something. The government seems to be saying - no need for you members of the public to bother your little heads with doing any "thinking" for yourselves at all - we will "do all the thinking for you!". What condescending rubbish! Even when some of the social media sites started using so-called "fact-checkers" - many of those people they employed as fact-checkers were biased in some way & gave biased opinions about "the facts". I suspect that exactly the same thing would happen with any so-called "disinformation governance board" - it would contain biased people just giving their biased opinions on any matters referred to them. About a week or so ago, I checked out the Amazon web site for the Brax2, with a view to posting a review of the Brax2. Even though I have a log-in there which was established back in 2010 - I was not allowed to post a review, as I had not made a purchase of $50 or more from that site within the last 12 months. But I did check out some of the other reviews there at that time (I think there were only 3 reviews there at that time) - & they were all positive.
    1
  964. I would say it's people like Waleed Aly who need to get themselves a much better quality tertiary education than they already have. Most of the people with doctorate degrees from universities that I personally know, told me they voted "no" in the recent Australian referendum. So clearly, Waleed's own tertiary education is very lacking.
    1
  965. TonyCheekyful: Olivia Newton-John and the Bee Gees were all migrants to Australia from the UK who started their musical careers in Australia after appearing on Australian TV shows like Brian Henderson's Bandstand, and later became well-know internationally. For that reason I feel Australia can still claim them as "Australian", even though some people may say that they are technically not "Australian".
    1
  966.  @Alex.R.O.P  Could have been any one of those many people at the funeral she attended in the UK.
    1
  967. There are still plenty of cases in most countries, as well as people dying of COVID - it's just that they're no longer being reported on as regularly as they used to be. Just because one does not hear about it, does not mean that it's not still happening.
    1
  968.  Dougal Douglas  The pandemic still exists - even though the statistics on it may not be published quite as regularly as they used to be.
    1
  969.  @fredbear-sf9st  Most woke people are simply way too lazy to look up the correct & original meaning of the word "phobia" in any good dictionary. As far as they are concerned, that word should be able to mean whatever they want it to mean.
    1
  970. NzerinOz:... There was no acknowledgement after the fact by the TV station or the show, that the sketch was racist. As an American, Harry Connick Jnr may have been offended by it, and I believe it was right for the show to apologise if it caused him offence, as he was after all an invited guest, and that is simply common courtesy - especially if they want him to come back on the show at some time in the future...
    1
  971. Moostachioed:Actually, "West Indian" people come from the "West Indies", which is in the Caribbean, and not a part of India as such.
    1
  972.  @Stephanie-zd5im  No matter what anyone else might think about Charles' & Diana's marriage relationship - who is anyone else to say whether Diana & Charles loved each other or not, at the time of their wedding? Clearly, the fact is, that in their televised engagement interview viewed by millions of people around the world - Diana DID confirm that she was in love with Charles - though Charles' further response to the question was "whatever love means" - so it seems he was not very sure of the meaning of the word "love". In their wedding ceremony they also both took vows before God, the Church, & the many wedding guests at St Paul's Cathedral, to be faithful to each other, in sickness & in health etc. Once they are married, having made those vows, they should stick with them, no matter what - not just separate or start having an affair because things have become a bit difficult - no matter the situation. I'm sure there are many other married couples who might feel an attraction towards others during the course of their marriage - but they don't all go out & commit adultery. If Charles believed the marriage was failing & he no longer wished to be married to Diana - then the right & proper thing for any decent self-respecting human being to do, would have been to seek a divorce, PRIOR to commencing any other relationship with another person. Because even if one is separated prior to a divorce being finalised, as long as a person is still legally married, any new relationship is still adultery. People expect better of a member of the royal family who will be the future king. & also the titular head of the Church of England. There's no conclusive evidence that Diana ever had an affair with her bodyguard Barry Mannake - & Diana herself never mentioned it at all. Although there may have been rumours, many people have stated it was highly unlikely there was any such relationship.
    1
  973.  @Stephanie-zd5im  As I've said before - whatever the opinions of others may be as to whether Charles & Diana were in love - the fact is, Diana did confirm she was in love with Charles. It does not matter how bad people think the marriage might have been (that's not an excuse for adultery) - they had an obligation to stick to their marriage vows, until such time as they were officially divorced. It became clear that did not happen, & by most credible accounts, it was Charles' adulterous affair with Camilla which upset Diana & started all the problems. There's also no credible evidence that Diana had an affair with Barry Mannake - just rumours.
    1
  974. Jemini29944: I certainly agree that it is very scary that Americans might have the power to dictate what Australians watch on TV, and I think that is a genuine concern of most Australians. However I think that KFC Australia withdrew the ad solely because they were instructed to do so by KFC's head office in America. KFC America were obviously afraid that the bad publicity the American media had stirred up about the issue might affect the company's substantial business in America...
    1
  975. philochs: I don't think you can really say that the majority of black people around the world found it offensive. The main place that the complaints were coming from was America. There weren't too many complaints from other countries with substantial populations of black people, such as African countries, or even the West Indies. The only reason KFC pulled the ad was because they were afraid of losing business in America.
    1
  976. Douglas1102: I think we already do that with The Chaser on TV. The trouble is, shows like that don't get enough publicity in America - at least, not as much publicity as TYT are getting with their claims that an Australian TV ad is racist.
    1
  977. We all understand that the issue here is whether the ad itself is racist, not whether Australians are racist. However, you two still don't understand some things with regard to this matter. The reason this ad was not meant to be shown in America was NOT because Australians knew it would offend some Americans, according to American racist stereotypes. Most Australians would have been unaware such an American racial stereotype even existed until you told them just now...
    1
  978.  @Loulydollx3  I'm aware of that - but I doubt that many men who want to take on more than one wife, would worry about whether they can be just to them all, They would probably just be thinking about themselves & their own desires.
    1
  979.  @Loulydollx3  Yes - it does state that both the man & the woman should be stoned. But that's only if they "both" get caught. And sometimes it happens that only the woman gets stoned - because she is the only one that is caught. For example, if a woman becomes pregnant out of wedlock, it is obvious there has been a sexual encounter - whether it was a case of rape - or whether it may have been consensual. But unless it can be proven who the other party was in that instance - often only the woman will be punished. Also, it often happens that when women are raped in a predominantly Islamic country, & choose to report it to the authorities - unless the other party can be identified & "proven" - it is only the woman who is punished for the crime of "adultery" - even though she was actually raped. The authorities usually don't believe the woman was raped - so they punish her for adultery.
    1
  980.  @okabutifoundit  And yours is a fairly typical response from someone who has absolutely no decent arguments of their own to put forward on the comment. They simply resort to personal attacks on people whom they do not know from a bar of soap.
    1
  981.  @okabutifoundit  If you expected anyone to take such a comment seriously, you should have expressed it differently & in a much more serious manner. That's not the sort of comment anyone would take seriously, & certainly would have expected better from someone who claims to have 3 degrees in Islamic studies.
    1
  982.  @drmutindikakuti1012  I could well believe that.
    1
  983. I have an LG phone (almost 6 years old now), which has no problems downloading apps from the Google Play Store. In fact, I just downloaded a brand new app from it on to my LG phone this morning.
    1
  984. @lhavenothingtosay I'm wondering why, with a name like "Ihavenothingtosay" - you are even bothering to comment at all - because it sounds like you really do have absolutely nothing worth saying, or anything worthwhile to contribute to society yourself, if that's the only kind of comment you're capable of making. You would have absolutely no idea what kind of contribution most others are making to society. So unless you can say something more sensible/rational/logical - I would suggest you don't say anything at all - because you're only making yourself look very stupid indeed.
    1
  985. @lhavenothingtosay The employment laws in Australia do vary from state to state, & are sometimes also dependent upon the industry in which one is working (eg working in entertainment, or a family business will often have no age limit). In some states, children under 15 do need a special permit to be able to work outside of a family business. Some states also have a slightly lower minimum working age of 11 or 12 for specific things like delivering newspapers/pamphlets/advertising material. But in most states, children need to attend school until they have at least completed year 10 & are somewhere between the ages of 15 - 17. In most cases they are also not allowed to work full-time until they are at least 15 years of age, & until then, are only able to engage in casual or part-time work, & the number of hours they are allowed to work will be limited, except for during school holidays. Until they have reached the minimum full-time working age, there may also be limits on the types of work they are allowed to do, & they will usually need their parents permission to work. Of course, if they ARE working & earning money, they will be required to pay taxes at the appropriate level, on any income they earn, including cash income. If they are deemed to have received unearned/passive income above certain amounts (such as, from investments etc), then that will often be taxed as such, & at a much higher rate. That sort of thing would often happen if parents put investments etc in the names of their children, so they would not have to pay tax on the investment income themselves. It might also happen if a child is paid unusually high amounts to work in a family business. To avoid these things, such unearned income (exceeding certain limits) in the name of a child may be taxed at a higher rate. However, while it may not be unusual these days for young people of 15 years or even less to have part time jobs while still attending school full-time - not many people these days actually leave school at 15 years to join the full-time workforce. And my comments were generally referring to a majority of young people - not those few who may leave school at age 15. It was never my intention to indicate that "taxes=voting" - rather, that paying taxes was an indication that someone may be in the full-time workforce. Many children with part-time/casual jobs may not have earnt sufficient income to pay any tax, so may get a tax refund at the end of the tax year, if they have already had tax deducted from their wages. And even some adults in the full-time/part-time workforce may not be earning sufficient income to pay tax, after allowing for deductions etc. I made the point about non-citizens because in your earlier comment, you indicated that anyone under 18 was being censored by not being allowed to vote. But it is only natural that in any scenario, there are "eligibility criteria" & the age criteria of 18 is just one of them. But for anyone - even for people over 18 there are also other criteria - being that one also needs to be an Australian citizen. So, given that your claim for 16 year olds to be able to vote, was on the basis of censorship/discrimination - I'm assuming you would also claim that non-citizens are being censored & discriminated against, by not being allowed to vote. After all, claims of censorship/discrimination would normally not be limited just to those under the age of 16. My comments about people of 16 years not being allowed to vote still stand. I am not anti-Greens - I simply believe that there needs to be a minimum age limit for voting, & that at 16, young people are still too young to vote, as most of them will still be in school (even though they may have part-time/casual jobs). But most political parties would do anything they could, if they thought it would win them more votes.
    1
  986. @lhavenothingtosay Yes - in that particular instance, I made reference to the Greens - because they are obviously the ones pushing to lower the voting age & I therefore suspect they believe they will gain more votes as a result - otherwise, why would they be pushing for it? But for example, if it had been the Labour Party of the Liberal Party wanting to do away with the criteria that people have to be Australian citizens to vote - then I would have made reference to that Party in my comment - or any other party who was looking to make changes to the voting eligibility criteria. And the reason why some of my comments are lengthy - is because people like you keep querying my responses & some of the statements you make are not actually correct - so need correction & explanation.
    1
  987. @lhavenothingtosay More to the point - some of your own comments were actually incorrect.- whereas it was a case of you having just misunderstood what I wrote.
    1
  988. @lhavenothingtosay I certainly never reported you for harassment. If anyone did report you for harassment, it must have been someone else (or at the extreme end, it may have been a case of hitting a wrong button somewhere!). I have never & would never report anyone for on-line harassment. I totally believe in freedom of speech, even if someone may disagree with me. As far as any adverse comments go - am quite "thick-skinned" & such comments would be like water off a ducks back to me & I would just enjoy a good laugh at them.
    1
  989. LOL - it's called "the laying on of hands" (by the bishop on the ordinand's head) & forms a traditional part of any ordination service.
    1
  990.  @d.jparer5184  Yes - I did think so - that's why I prefaced my comment with LOL.
    1
  991. ... By making accusations of racism in such circumstances, and without knowing the correct context of the ad, Americans demonstrate to the rest of the world how lacking they are in knowledge of matters outside their own country. The rest of the world does not share America's history of race relations, and American racial stereotypes exist nowhere but in America. Not all "black" people are black African Americans!...
    1
  992. gjrolfe:Yes - it's pathetic that KFC Australia removed the ad. We should all now boycott KFC Australia to show them what we think of them cow-towing to those silly racist Americans.
    1
  993. She should not have been allowed there given her anti- Semitism.
    1
  994. This tragic incident emphasises just how important good, responsible adult/parental supervision is, with children so young. You simply cannot expect children of that age to be totally responsible for themselves, & to always act responsibly. It would appear that these children did not have any adequate adult/parental supervision when they were at the lake, which is so sad. Perhaps if they had had adequate adult supervision, this tragic event could have been avoided.
    1
  995.  @terrydaktyllus1320  Thanks for your comments. Actually, I already practise many of the privacy recommendations previously suggested by this video channel - including browser isolation on both my mobile phone & home laptop PC. The concern I have with making phone calls, SMS & internet use from a mobile phone using a SIM card that also has mobile/cellular data, is that when you use that SIM card/phone number for those purposes, it then links to your phone's IMEI number in your mobile phone carrier's records, & it then usually displays as your IMEI number in your on-line account details with your phone carrier (at least, in my case, it does) Of course, once an IMEI number can be linked to a SIM card/phone number which, in my country at least, will also have a real identity associated with it, someone could then continue to use that IMEI for tracking purposes, even after the SIM card has been removed from the phone - because they now know who that IMEI number belongs to. As far as internet access using free public wifi is concerned - I don't just connect to any (unknown) wifi internet connection when out & about - I only connect to known sources of free wifi internet such as that provided & advertised by shopping complexes, restaurants, & public transport - which advertise that they offer free wifi internet for their customers etc. And I can't say that I've ever had a problem with them. Most of the free public wifi internet connections I've used do not require people to log in using a mobile phone number or email address as an identifier. If they've requested such information at the outset, then I do not use them. I was not suggesting using free public wifi internet access as a last resort only, but something which might be used to ensure privacy, because perhaps then, there would be no way your actual "identity" (which is at the crux of the privacy issue) could be revealed using that "combination" of methods I mentioned in my original post. While in theory, they may be able to still track your device, if they do know its IMEI, if they do not know the identity of the person to whom that IMEI belongs, there probably would not be much point to such tracking. Also, even though being used in the way I've suggested, may make the mobile phone seem more like "just a computer" than a mobile phone, I think someone carrying a mobile phone is likely to be seen as less "unusual" than say, someone carrying even a small laptop computer with them.
    1
  996.  @ralfsteiner7751  Thanks for your comments & extra suggestions for privacy. I did think that some of the suggestions made by Terry could possibly put me "in danger" if I were in a "Jason Bourne" type situation. In fact, if Jason Bourne had actually followed some of Terry's suggestions - he would have very easily been caught! So it's probably just as well that I would not have followed those suggestions of Terry's, in any case - as I could see their flaws. Some of those suggestions made by Terry sound like a "downright dodgy daktyllus" - LOL!
    1
  997.  @ipodman1910  An iPod, as an Apple product, brings with it its own set of privacy concerns, so I would not consider using one. As mentioned in my original comment, I would be using the de-Googled phone on public wifi in conjunction with a VPN or something similar. However, in situations where there is no public wifi available, a SIM card would be the back-up/last resort data option in any case (as also mentioned in my original comment). There are also ways to check for a "man in the middle" type attack.
    1
  998. And no attempt at all was even made, by the highly corrupt Red Cross/Red Crescent organisation, to visit or check on the welfare of the Israeli hostages in Gaza. Because of that, I will never again financially support or donate to the Red Cross - because they are obviously a very hopeless organisation. Goodness only knows what they are doing with all that money that people donate to them. They are certainly not using it to support humanitarian causes. In future I will be directing my donations to Israeli/Jewish charities which support the rehabilitation of people who have been the victims of Islamic terrorism. I will also support charities that assist the IDF & their veterans. I will never support any charity which assists the Palestinian cause.
    1
  999. ​ @hhh-bu1kj Maybe because many of the previously released hostages were women & were treated slightly better. And maybe the men that were previously released were held in a different area, by different people, who were not quite as primitive.
    1
  1000. I don't know why, in order to totally get rid of any speculation, the German police, when she approached them, did not just take a DNA sample from her, so it could be conclusively proven, once & for all, that this girl was most definitely NOT Madeleine McCann. They could have then insisted that she remove any material from her social media accounts, which implied that she was possibly Madeleine McCann.
    1
  1001. It seems that while there may be laws preventing the US government from spying on their own citizens without a warrant, there is still nothing to prevent them from allowing private companies such as Google & Apple to collect all that information & sell it on to the US government authorities. Why could a law not be introduced to prevent the US government authorities from even acquiring such information which has been gathered by other companies? If they have a warrant to collect information on certain people, then they only need that information about those specific people - they do not need to collect everyone else's information as well, in order to get the specific information that they need. That's just a case of over-kill.
    1
  1002. nachoman147:If you actually watch the whole ad, the sign at the start of the ad says "cricket survival guide". The scene of the ad is therefore a cricket match, not a soccer game - and KFC sponsor the cricket (not the soccer).
    1
  1003. Sebro28:Australia doesn't claim to be a racially perfect society, though it doesn't go around advertising its shortcomings, and automatically expect the rest of the world to know about them, and be sensitive to them. I'm sure Redfern is probably not much different to similar areas in America which are predominantly inhabited by poor black African American people. However there probably aren't as many of these sorts of areas in Australia, as there are in America.
    1
  1004. PollockQT: I think it's wrong to assume that KFC made an ad for Australian TV that deliberately portrayed what they knew to be an American racial stereotype, when they knew their intended audience would not understand it. Although KFC is an American company, the ad was designed by people working in an Australian ad agency, who would have had no knowledge of the American racial stereotype...
    1
  1005. Then why is it so widely recognised as one of the largest religions in the world - larger than Judaism or Islam?
    1
  1006. Not everyone who contracts the virus though, is quite so fortunate.
    1
  1007. Obviously they won't be buying them from Woolworths! Thank goodness - because many people will now be boycotting Woolworths.
    1
  1008. Douglas1102: Yes, I can well imagine how they might ridicule or denigrate Canadians, as their neighbours. In fact, they probably do it to the whole world - anyone who is not American. But we do get back at them in our own way. In Australia, we have shows like "The Chaser's War On Everything", which has segments actually proving how silly/stupid some Americans are. And I understand Canadians did have a show called "Talking To Americans", which did a similar sort of thing...
    1
  1009. Harry's comment is totally racist - in essence, what he was saying, is "my wife deserves to be treated differently & better than everyone else, because she is bi-racial". He therefore believes she should not have to go through the same kinds of experiences as other new & high-profile members of the royal family went through with the media - purely because of her racial status. Such a comment is racist at its very heart, & does undermine the "genuine" racism experienced by other people - such as people not being able to get a job solely on the basis of their race, or the apartheid system that existing in South Africa. And Meghan seems to have experienced no such genuine racism at all.
    1
  1010. It certainly is atrocious, what happened to Lady Hussey, & I think that if Prince William had been much wiser, he should have waited a while & looked into the matter further, before making any public comment on it. And the resignation of Lady Hussey should not have been so readily accepted, until the matter had been investigated more thoroughly. When someone is of a non-indigenous British ethnicity & dresses up in the native dress of the country of their heritage - then of course it would be natural for others to be curious about their background/heritage & to ask appropriate questions about their background. That's simply being curious & inquisitive - not racist. To call such things "racist", in reality only diminishes TRULY racist experiences that those of past generations have endured - like racial segregation & discrimination, & not being able to attend the same schools as other people, not being allowed to attend universities, or not getting a job because of their race/ethnicity. A lot of the "racism" that people these days are claiming to experience, is not really racism at all - but simply a case of others being inquisitive as to their background. Part of the problem these days is that people like Ngozi are often just way too stupid or way too lazy to look up the correct definition of the terms "racist" & "racism" in a good dictionary - & when we see & hear these words used these days, they are more often that not being used incorrectly. It now seems that any time someone makes a comment about, or asks a question about, a person of another ethnicity, it is branded as "racism". But that's an incorrect us of the term, because it's not racism. Racism is actually believing &/or stating that a person is inferior to others, based solely on their ethnicity/race, & regardless of what skills/qualifications they may have. Racism is actually treating someone in an inferior manner to others, based solely on their race/ethnicity. Racism may be reflected for example, in not giving someone a job based solely on their race/ethnicity - despite them being better qualified & better experienced for that job. Many people these days, it seems, want their 15 minutes of fame, &/or to get rich quick overnight. By publicly accusing someone of racism (even where there may be none), people like Ngozi can often get that 15 minutes of fame in the public spotlight - & possibly make a bit of money out of it as well. There can be exclusive media/TV interviews etc, & books written about it as well. No doubt Ngozi wants to get as much publicity & money out of this as she possibly can - whether for her charity, or herself personally. But while Ngozi may be able to fool many of the gullible people out there - those of us who tend to give such matters more serious consideration, will never be able to be roped into her nonsensical accusations of racism. I, for one, will now never even donate s much as a penny to her & her charity, with all its false claims of racism. There are plenty of other similar organisations out there that will render assistance to ANY woman who is affected by domestic violence. I would rather give any donations to those organisations.
    1
  1011. I always say "I'm AWAKE NOT WOKE" - there's a HUGE difference. People who are awake are against "hokery pokery wokery nonsense".
    1
  1012. Interesting to see all the publicity & fanfare surrounding the grand opening of the Rostic's store.
    1
  1013. It's more like Jihad = Mein Kampf...
    1
  1014.  @paulinefleming6259  It would not surprise me if he DID have help - & maybe that is part of the problem. Perhaps those who helped him misled him into thinking that the book proceeds (or at least a part of them) WERE going towards the charitable foundation.
    1
  1015. Are the prices in the Russian-owned supermarkets generally less expensive than in the foreign-owned supermarkets? You mentioned about people doing "small shops" so they can cart things home with them on public transport there. Which makes me wonder - can you order your groceries on-line from the large Russian supermarkets (as in Australia) & have them home-delivered for a nominal fee? If that were the case, people would be able to do a "large shop", & shop less frequently, & not have to worry about having to carry things home with them on public transport. It's also very handy for elderly people who may have difficulty getting out to do the shopping themselves.
    1
  1016.  @lanabanana4577  Thanks for that response to my query about grocery ordering on-line & grocery home delivery in Russia. Even though grocery shops/supermarkets may be within walking distance - I still think it's something that is handy for a really large grocery order - as obviously a very large order may be difficult to carry home - even within walking distance. And some people may not want to have to go to the grocery store almost every day for just a few items which they may be able to comfortably carry home with them on foot.
    1
  1017. That would be all those Google & Facebook fans...
    1
  1018. The child cannot always have what she wants, unfortunately. If there is a court order for the child custody arrangement, she may have to go to the father whether she or either of the parents likes it or not - or the mother may have to go to gaol for breaching the court order. And the mother is not the same woman we saw go to the marriage broker in this documentary - that was a completely different woman - a young single Jewish woman, who had not previously been married.
    1
  1019. The indication in the above video, that "contempt of court" might possibly also apply to "pending" cases - by "pending" - do you mean, possible future court cases (where there might be an investigation currently underway), but where no charges have yet been laid & no court date set - or does it mean cases where charges have been laid, & there will be a court case at some date in the future?
    1
  1020. Maybe someone could post one of The Chaser's Youtube "stupid Americans" video clips as a "video response" here.
    1
  1021.  @alexbaralt9300  Perhaps the crash did not actually happen in the back yard, but a little further away, & those strange beings somehow found their way into the back yard after that. One of the reports seemed to indicate that.
    1
  1022.  @NorthernChimp  I guess it's in case you need to make phone call/send a text message, or use an app - you can still use the phone by taking it out of the Faraday bag, but generally, others cannot contact you on the phone while it's in a Faraday bag.
    1
  1023.  @NorthernChimp  You obviously take it out of the bag, if/when you need to record something.
    1
  1024. While those companies tracking your phone may know its precise location & co-ordinates, they won't necessarily know that those co-ordinates are actually the toilet inside the house (it's highly unlikely they'll have access to the latest house plans of all houses) - so they won't necessarily automatically believe you've been in the toilet with severe digestions problems, or diarrhoea, for all of that time. And even though people may have a constitutional right to privacy - that "right" is only as good as the ability of the people & the government to uphold & enforce that right to privacy. And so often these days, we find that those rights to privacy are not being enforced by anyone, & no-one can really do anything about it - especially if people are happy to agree to allow themselves to be "tracked" by the likes of Google & Apple - by having location tracking turned on, on their phone apps. That's simply telling the big tech companies that those people are fine with being tracked - thus negating their ability to subsequently claim a right to privacy on that occasion.
    1
  1025.  @valeriehancotte-galan4790  "Water Closet" - an old-fashioned word for "toilet".
    1
  1026.  @xyyx1091  Yes - I assumed you being somewhat "tongue in cheek" about placing the phone in the Water Closet. And some of those big tech tracking companies can be rather "on the nose".
    1
  1027. Of course, all hell has not broken loose yet - & it will never do so. Despite all the allegations of racism etc made by Meghan & Harry, none of it will stick to the royal family, because everyone knows ever since their Oprah interview, that Meghan & Harry don't always tell the truth & they never provide any hard evidence or name names, to back up their claims. There's absolutely nothing they've said to date that would stand up in any court of law. And eventually, after telling all their stories of how they were treated in the UK up to the time they left for California, they will have nothing new to tell & they will just fade into the obscurity they claim to want. Because the media & the likes of Netflix just won't want to keep going over old news. And it's not as though Harry & Meghan are even very popular in either the UK or the USA. They certainly do not have a very big fan base at all.
    1
  1028. Carpets are not popular in some countries/areas, because they can be unhygienic & difficult to clean - especially with lots of young children around, which is usually the case with orthodox Jewish families. Also, tiled & wooden floors can sometimes be cooler in warmer climates. Some Scandinavian countries also prefer wood panelled flooring, because as previously mentioned, it is more hygienic & much easier to clean.
    1
  1029. bvwcad:I'm not going to say who my employer is - it's enough to say that I don't work for KFC or any other chicken or fast food company. Believe me, I have already written to KFC on this matter, and received their standard response. Petitions are nice, but they're not always effective because there's no real impact on the company. If a boycott is effective, it will hit KFC where it really hurts - in their hip pocket, and they're more likely to take notice.
    1
  1030. Maybe Tommy needs to get himself the same barrister/solicitor as Prince Harry. No-one has yet arrested &/or charged Prince Harry with "immigration offences" despite his claims to have been a drug user prior to entering the US to live there.
    1
  1031. writergrrl92:...Companies around the world making TV ads for their own local audience should not be forced to confer with every other country in the world just to ensure their ads won't offend anyone. I'm sure companies making ads in America don't do this, and neither should any other country be expected to do it. I'm sure if I looked closely at every ad on TV in America, I would no doubt find some that would be offensive (including racially) to Australians, according to Australian culture...
    1
  1032. It's usually the people who shout the loudest that they want tolerance, diversity, & inclusiveness, who are the least tolerant of all - like those in the audience who had him arrested & the police who put him in a gaol cell. Now that he has been exonerated for all of those arrests, he needs to have all his equipment returned by the police & charges pressed against those in the audience who were stealing his equipment. He also needs to have his fines refunded & be fully financially compensated for all the other penalties that were previously imposed on him - such as all the hours of community service he did & all the hours that he spent locked up in police cells & the authorities need to reimburse him fully for all of his legal costs. And maybe some additional compensation for any damage this process may have caused to his personal reputation. It seems the UK is fast becoming one of the most intolerant countries in the world, when it comes to people publicly expressing their faith-based views. Genuine tolerance applies to ALL views - not just those we happen to agree with. On that basis, Christians would have to be some of the most tolerant people in the world - at least Christians are not the ones going around getting people thrown in gaol & dragged before the courts for holding different views. No - it's only the intolerant masses who are doing that - while at the same time claiming to want tolerance & diversity. It seems that Christians are required to be tolerant of everyone else - but people are not required to tolerate Christians - so it's a very one-sided & intolerant kind of "tolerance" that is presently being promoted by the ignorant masses in our present day society.
    1
  1033.  @hxhdfjifzirstc894  But if you're going to be travelling to another town/city that day - & want to know what the weather is going to be like there, before you arrive (so you can go there "prepared" for the weather) - that's the sort of thing you simply can't find out by looking out your own window. Or also if you want to know what kind of whether is expected tomorrow or the day after - again that's not something you can ascertain simply by looking out your own window today.
    1
  1034. ​ @hxhdfjifzirstc894  Yes, of course, anyone could also probably access the weather details using the internet/web browser (instead of an app) on their mobile phone - though it would probably just take a little longer. But as long as they're still accessing it on their mobile phone, without taking precautions against tracking - then their location details could still be traced/tracked anyway. And some web sites might still ask for your location. So I'm not sure there'd be any major advantage to accessing the weather details via the internet/web browser - if you're doing it on a mobile phone.
    1
  1035. I agree with JakeRaven1970 - the only thing that's "too easy", is the way these two have labelled another country's TV ad as racist, without even attempting to understand it within its originally intended context. Yes, it's all "too easy" for you people to do absolutely no research whatsoever. The rest of the world is laughing at you!
    1
  1036. PollockQT: KFC probably only withdrew the ad because they are an American company and that is where their biggest market is. But if you think that such unwarranted allegations of racism will prevent Australian TV from portraying similar scenes in the future, you are mistaken. Australians really don't care about these so-called American racial stereotypes. And future such portrayals on Australian TV probably won't have benefit of American company behind them, to warrant withdrawing the show.
    1
  1037. They may have been living in a "cottage" in the palace grounds - but as a young couple with no children at that time, a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom cottage should have been more than adequate for them both. It certainly would have been more than adequate for most young couples without children. And if they were planning on standing down from being working members of the royal family, & moving overseas to live - why should they not have ALL their royal & non-royal titles removed? After all, it does not make any sense at all being Duke & Duchess of Sussex even, if they are not going to be living in the UK, let alone in Sussex. And they have done absolutely nothing at all for the people of Sussex. All they have done is use those Duke & Duchess titles for their own financial gain & put that money straight into their own pockets. None of it has gone to the people of Sussex.
    1
  1038. danglestars:...As a result of the American furore, KFC withdrew this ad from Australian TV. If KFC are no longer allowed to show ads in Australia which cater to Australia tastes, they have no business trying to sell their product there and should leave Australia. There is already a "boycott KFC Australia" movement happening in Australia as a direct result of KFC caving in to American pressure and withdrawing the ad.If KFC won't stand up for Australia, then Australians won't buy KFC.
    1
  1039. Jemini29944:...So KFC in America ultimately had the ad withdrawn for financial reasons, and that might be understandable. But if the claim is that America has that right because it's an American company, then if it were any other non-American company, there would not be that same right, and Australian TV could not be forced to withdraw the ad...
    1
  1040. Yet Harry so often behaves like a petulant little 2 year old - so I would probably refer to him as a "boy" as well - unless he can consistently actually behave like an adult.
    1
  1041. When I was growing up, top-loading clothes washing machines were the norm - front-loaders started to become more popular within say the last 30 - 40 years, & are generally also more expensive. However, some of the advantages with front loaders, it is claimed, is that they wash/clean the clothes much better, they use much less water than a top-loader (good if you live in an area where water shortages may be experienced) & are much more energy efficient - so the trend in more recent times has been towards front-loaders for this reason. However, as was mentioned, they are not necessarily as convenient to use, because one must usually squat down to put the clothes in & take them out etc. Hanging out one's clothes on a clothes line in the back yard, in order to dry them was also the norm - as in most parts of my country, we usually have a plentiful supply of sunshine, & relatively pollution-free air. However, even so, over the last 30 - 40 years, tumble dryers have for some reason also become more popular in my country as a means of drying clothes - perhaps for reasons of pure convenience, because there's then no need to take them outside & hang them on the clothes line, & because they'll also dry your clothes, even when it' raining outside. But clothes (tumble) dryers do use a lot of energy, & are not particularly environmentally friendly - so my preference is still to allow clothes to dry naturally whenever possible - & that still makes a lot of sense, given that we usually have ideal conditions in my country, to allow that to happen. And if you dry your clothes in a shady area, not in direct sunlight, the colours will not fade either. Clothes dryers can also be very "harsh" on one's clothes, causing them not to last as long, & in some cases maybe even damaging them.
    1
  1042.  @Isabel-jb7vd  As I previously stated - I am not blaming the people/citizens of France, I am blaming the government of France & anyone else who was involved the creation of that opening ceremony on behalf of the French government. And I do understand that such a terrible opening ceremony must be quite an embarrassment to the people/citizens of France.
    1
  1043. Well of course the palace should release a statement to counteract any false claims being made in the Harry & Meghan Netflix documentary series. From the sounds of comments made by Harry in the trailer, about the "hierarchy", plus the title of his book "Spare" - it does seem like he feels a bit left out - & probably now even more so, since he made his decision to move to California. But everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the monarchy is a "hierarchy" - that's just the way monarchies work - the way they've always been & the way they always will be - you can't do anything about that. The Queen/King is always at the head, with their first born son (if there is one) being the heir apparent & any children of the heir apparent being next in line to the throne. Now that William has had children, Harry has been pushed down to 6th or 7th in line to the throne - definitely not very high up in the hierarchy, & not a very important person in the grander scheme of things. So Harry will never be as important or as popular as the King, or William & his family, & he & Meghan just have to learn to accept that, & should have tried to find their own particular "niche" within that monarchy. You don't hear any of Charles' brothers & sisters or their spouses, complaining about the "hierarchy" of the monarchy - they just all accept that that's the way things are, & continue to carry out their royal duties.
    1
  1044. I've never owned an iPhone & certainly never intend to. The problem with much technology is that it can be misused, & although the manufacturers may claim they will not use a particular technology for certain things, which may further invade one's privacy, you have to really be able to trust them, if you are going to use devices which have that particular technology. Personally, I find it hard to take those manufacturers at their word, because I believe that if something is able to be used for an evil purpose - then eventually it WILL be used for an evil purpose, despite any manufacturer's best intentions - & the public won't always be told about that when it happens. That's because the manufacturer will obviously be afraid of losing customers, if it became known to the public what they were really using that technology for. And for the manufacturers, the bottom line is always the financial incentive. Let's face it, these days many big tech companies simply do not believe that members of the general public have any right to privacy at all. All we are to them, are sources of income - not human beings with an inherent right to privacy if we are law-abiding citizens.
    1
  1045. It's not always the case that they are being neglected - but often that they just don't have any family members or relatives who are themselves capable of looking after them. The Israeli lady featured in this documentary was a spinster (never married) - so she had no children or husband who could have looked after her. All she had was 1 brother who was also quite elderly & probably not in a position to care for her.
    1
  1046. Hamas are the ones responsible for those deaths of civilian women & children in Gaza. They are using their own civilians as human shields & not allowing them to evacuate areas, after they have all been forewarned by the IDF that those areas will be targeted. Hamas alone are to blame for those deaths - but of course, they will want to blame it on the IDF. And when Hamas deliberately targeted Israeli civilians on 7 October, 2023 - that was one of the most barbaric attacks seen in recent times. Where were the world-wide calls for Hamas to stop those attacks? We did not hear any.
    1
  1047. Honestly - the loss of the Google search engine in Australia would be no big deal for Australia really - as there are plenty of much better search engines out there in the market that all Australians can use. I've never really used Google as my main search engine in any case - because I was using the internet & other search engines long before Google became a very popular search engine in Australia, & have continued using those same search engines. So I would say to people, that in preparation for Google withdrawing its search engine from Australia - switch over right now to a much better search engine - as there are plenty of them on the market. By now we all know that the Google search engine is designed to produce very biased search results - biased in favour of their own businesses like YouTube, or in favour of other businesses that advertise with Google. That automatically means that it's not the best search engine - even though 95% of searches may be conducted using Google. Just because it's the most popular search engine, does not mean that it's the best - & it's clearly not the best at all. And while you're switching to a non-Google search engine, why not take it even further & give Google a real "poke in the eye with a sharp pointy stick", by changing to a different web browser from Google's "Chrome"?. Again, I've never really used Google Chrome as my main web browser - as there are plenty of other much better browsers out there where you don't also get lumbered with that awful Google search engine. And maybe if you've got a Google gmail email account - consider changing that over to another email service provider - though I realise that may not be quite so easy to do as changing one's web browser & search engine. Let's send Google a very clear message that Australia can very easily do without them. Thank goodness that our PM Scott Morrison is standing up to the likes of Google & I hope he continues to do that & does not cave in to them. In fact I would have thought that Australia was very "small fry" as far as Google is concerned - having a relatively small population of just 25 million people, compared with most other countries in the world. Which makes me wonder why they are so keen to avoid paying the proposed fees to show our Australian news links. Maybe they are worried that if they do agree to pay a fee for showing our news - it may set a precedent so that all the larger countries will want to do likewise & it will obviously affect Google's financial bottom line. Although it may affect Google's financial bottom line - I'm sure such an impost would not bankrupt them. And although the US government has also criticised Australia for taking this stance - they're also only interested in Google's financial bottom line because they are a US-based company. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Google were an Australian company trying to avoid having to pay money to US news media sites - we would be shown no mercy by the US government if we appealed to them for assistance. In fact the US government would probably wash their hands of the entire matter - claiming it was just between the news sites & Google & nothing to do with the US government at all. So I certainly would not be worrying about what the US has to say about this matter. From Australia's point of view, we do have other, better options - so why not just say to Google, it's our way, or the highway, Google! I for one certainly would not miss them at all.
    1
  1048. MilitantPeaceist:... But most of the black Africans I spoke to at the time were encouraging the boycott saying that the black people couldn't possibly be hurt any more than they are already hurting. I don't expect that people boycotting Israel will have a drastic effect on that country, because America will probably just help them even more - my boycott is simply a token gesture.
    1
  1049. Yes of course - our digital devices are certainly listening to us, whether we like it or not. The very fact that one needs to "log in" to the phone via Apple or Google, for it to be fully functional (using one's iPhone log-in or one's Google log-in) means that the likes of Apple or Google will be somehow always be listening from the very outset. An iPhone will also "track" its owner, even when it is tuned off (it then behaves like an air-tag) & there are no setting adjustments one can make to turn this off at all. A Google Android mobile phone will also track a its owner - but not when it's turned off. Personally, I prefer to use a non-Google Android phone (a specialised mobile phone handset which is not sold in normal retail outlets) which has no links to either Apple or Google, so one does not need to be logged in to either one to be able to use the phone. So Apple & Google can no longer identify the user of the phone - the phone basically has "no identity" as far as Apple & Google are concerned.
    1
  1050. You say you don't blame Australia, because the ad was not made by Australians. You say the fault lies with KFC, an American company,and their advertising agency. I disagree - you cannot lay the blame with KFC as an American company, or their agency. Regardless of which company, or agency made the ad, it was surely made in Australia, by Australians, for Australians, and designed to be shown on Australian TV...
    1
  1051. Mankind, left to its own devices, has an even worse reputation.
    1
  1052.  @conah9440  I believe that some religions (including Christianity), can be an integral part of human behaviour, & have the potential to improve human behaviour, based on their teachings & beliefs. Religions can not only be a belief system, but a whole way of life - living according to one's religious beliefs, as laid down in the religious scriptures in which one believes. Nevertheless, no-one is perfect & sometimes people who are trying to live according to their religious beliefs, may at times fail to live up to those standards.
    1
  1053. Wong is an absolute drongo dog of a woman & the worst Minister for Foreign Affairs in Australia's history. Hamas started the present war in the middle east - so they should be the ones people are demanding to free the remaining hostages & ceasefire. Israel needs to totally destroy Hamas, or Hamas will continue to wage war against Israel, with the aim of destroying Israel, as per its manifesto. Wong is hopeless & clueless.
    1
  1054.  @dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593  And that person/face on the sticker might be your most hated politician!
    1
  1055. It is indeed very annoying when businesses try to pass off their warranty responsibilities for the products they sell - to the manufacturers - when a customer complains that a product still under warranty is broken, or no longer works. I've certainly had this happen to me occasionally in the past. However, in more recent times, it's generally not been a problem & most of the retailers to whom I've had to return faulty items, have complied with their responsibilities without complaint - which is certainly an improvement. Obviously, if one needs to post an item back to the manufacturer - you will generally end up being out of pocket for the postage costs of the item at the very least - & that could be a substantial amount if the item is large & heavy. For example, if the item happened to be a washing machine - you would probably end up having to pay a courier to ship it back to the manufacturer for fixing & that could be a significant amount of money. So it's obviously going to be easier & less expensive, just to have to take it back to the local shop from which it was purchased.
    1
  1056.  @robbraxmantech  That's wonderful news! It will probably take a little while to reach me through the post - even with international priority shipping. It's certainly something to look forward to!
    1
  1057.  @Mr3X7R3M3  Thanks for the recommendation!
    1
  1058. Please wait for future episodes to discuss that. Rob Braxman did make it clear at the start of the above video, that this video would just be talking about Tik Tok from the technology aspect & what information it may be able to gather & what it may be able to do.
    1
  1059. abcdsean: I don't agree - it KFC expects to market and sell their chicken in Australia, then they have to cater to Australian values, tastes, and culture. Putting an American spin on everything won't help them to sell more chicken in Australia. If KFC can't cater to Australian values, then they should not try to sell their chicken there, and leave the country.
    1
  1060. A considerable proportion of Palestinians are also ethnic Arabs. The Arabs did not always stay in Arabia - some moved elsewhere. But they can still be described as ethnic Arabs - in fact many Palestinians will refer to themselves as Arabs - so that's good enough for me. Palestine is just the land in which some of the Arabs now live..
    1
  1061. AwholeCanOfCranky:Yes - this is the first TYT programme I have ever seen, and this certainly does not make me want to see any more of their programmes. Their view is obviously uninformed, and they did no research at all. If they were not going to do their own research, surely they could have brought in some qualified experts from outside, to present an informed opinion. That would have at least given the programme some credibility. I won't be watching any more of their uninformed rubbish!
    1
  1062. Plasma is one of the components which makes up the blood. In the plasma donation process, the plasma is separated from the rest of the blood at the very time of donation. Most of the rest of the blood is then fed back into the donor while they are actually making the donation - so that the donor only ends up donating the plasma part of the blood & not the rest of the blood. This is why plasma donors are able to donate more frequently than whole blood donors - because effectively they are only donating the plasma component of the blood, & not whole blood. Plasma donors can donate fortnightly, whereas whole blood donors can only donate once every 3 months. The plasma donation process takes longer than for whole blood, because they need to use special machines which operate in cycles, & remove the plasma component from the rest of the blood, which is then returned to the donor during the donation process. That is why, for many years now, there have been separate plasma donor centres equipped with these special machines which can extract the plasma at the time of donation.
    1
  1063.  @ekishou5535  Actually, Asian people generally (including Chinese & Japanese) are well known as being some of the most racist & discriminating people in the world - because for the most part their society is racially & ethnically homogenous - so anyone who looks or seems "different" sticks out like a sore thumb & it is easy for everyone then to treat them differently, solely because of their racial origins. Some Chinese people say that Winston will never be "Chinese" - no matter how much he likes that country, how long he lives there, how well he speaks the language, or how many times he applies for Chinese citizenship. The Chinese government certainly appears to make it very difficult for the vast majority of "foreigners" to become Chinese citizens. On the other hand, "the west" seems to make it much easier for racially & ethnically Chinese people who are able to legally migrate to western countries & become permanent residents there - to then become a citizen of that western country. If one has been a permanent resident of that western country for around 5 years at least, has no criminal record in that country, has a basic understanding of that country's language, & can pass any citizenship test that the country may require - one can usually successfully apply for citizenship in that western country. Nevertheless, although ethnically Chinese people can legally become citizens of western countries like the USA, Canada, & the UK, Australia etc, they will still never be ethnically American, British etc, because their racial ethnicity was bestowed on them at birth by their parents. So, for example, if an ethnically Chinese person takes out US citizenship - they are technically "US Citizens" but they will never really be "Americans" in the same way as the vast majority of US citizens are "Americans" - they will always be regarded as "Chinese Americans" because of their racial origins. So, in the same way that Chinese people say that Winston can never be "Chinese" (even if he does eventually manage to take out Chinese citizenship) - an ethnically Chinese person will never be simply "American" or "British" - they will be "Chinese American" or "Chinese British". It is impossible to change one's ethnicity or racial origins - therefore an ethnically Chinese person will never be just "European" or "Caucasian" etc & likewise a white westerner/Caucasian cannot become ethnically/racially Chinese. But none of those things need prevent a person from taking out the citizenship of another country. However the Chinese government does appear to make it quite difficult for foreigners to take out Chinese citizenship. It is probably much easier for a Chinese person to gain US citizenship, than it is for someone from the US to be granted Chinese citizenship. Personally, I have always believed in & advocated for "reciprocal rights" between countries when it comes to visas & citizenship - & that would usually mean that different rules & regulations regarding visas & citizenship will apply to people, depending on which country they are from. This would mean that, for example, the US would apply the same rules & regulations to Chinese people applying for US visas & citizenship, as the Chinese government applies to US citizens applying for Chinese visas & citizenship. This would appear to be a much fairer system than the one which presently exists - where it seems it is easier for Chinese people to become US citizens, than it is for people from the US to become Chinese citizens. No doubt, the Chinese government would not like such a system based on "reciprocal" arrangements & claim that it discriminates against Chinese people wishing to go to the US - but the solution is within it's own control & all it would need to do to fix the problem is to change its own rules & regulations about people from the US & other countries, becoming Chinese citizens. The Chinese government would have absolutely no right to complain, if it was responsible for creating that problem in the first place.
    1
  1064.  @ekishou5535  I would probably agree with you that certain types of violent crimes are much more prevalent in the USA than China - such as the drug crimes & gun violence you have mentioned. In terms of people's personal & physical security, people can probably feel quite safe in China. But China also seems to have developed its own reputation for other types of crimes which may almost be non-existent in the US & other western countries. It seems that things such as petty crime (pick-pocketing, & other types of theft, & many different types of "scams" etc) right up to much more serious crimes such as adulterating some types of pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, & infant formula (all of which have caused deaths & serious injuries to people) are not exactly unheard of in China. Unfortunately, it seems that China has become somewhat renowned for these sorts of crime, with people there wishing to profit from these sorts of crimes. Obviously I am not in a position to say whether the US Government spies on its ethnically Chinese citizens & residents. I expect it may well "observe" those whom it believes might be a threat to the country's national security - but that is to be expected. However, I would also hope that the general population in the US would not seek to publicly humiliate, or discriminate against any migrants to the US - no matter what background they are from - whether from a European country, or an Asian country. I have not heard of this kind of thing happening as a common occurrence in the US - & I know a number of families from India who have been living in the US for many years, who have never complained to me of this kind of thing happening to them in the US. I am also not from the US & do not live there, & would not wish to live there.
    1
  1065. Rob Braxman mentioned in a recent previous video, that AOSP is being updated constantly.
    1
  1066. So very true...
    1
  1067. Maybe even YouTube users need to be inforned about this - & there are a lot of them. And it's a good thing to be critical of social media & big tech - using their very own platforms.
    1
  1068. NzerinOz:...I'm sure no-one would deny that KFC is ultimately an American company. But at the end of the day, if they expect to sell their product in Australia, they have to make it appealing to Australians, and within the context of Australian culture and values. If they can't do that, then they should withdraw from the Australian market.
    1
  1069. People being killed in a war is not "genocide" - it is just death & casualties during times of war. It is unlikely that Australia could be charged with any war crimes, as the IDF follows the rules of war - but Hamas breaches the Geneva Convention by basing their operations in civilian areas such as schools, hospitals, mosques etc. The IDF also gives forewarnings to those in such areas which they may be targeting, advising them to evacuate those areas. Unfortunately though, Hamas will usually not let the civilians in such areas evacuate, because they want to continue to use them as human shields. If anything, Hamas are the ones committing war crimes.
    1
  1070.  @Useful_Idoits  The UN is not the same as an international court of law though & just because the UN votes on something claiming/alleging that a country is breaking international law, does not mean that that country has actually broken international law. Whether the law has been broken or not will need to be determined by an actual court of law - if & when such matters are ultimately pursued in an international court of law (which I would doubt they will be, in any case). The actual court will make its own determinations quite independently of any UN vote & may well come to a different decision than the UN. The UN does not really have much power when it comes to actually enforcing its own decisions/votes on member countries. Many countries have gone against decisions made & votes taken by the UN & in the end nothing really comes of it. People being killed in war is not the same as genocide & history actually shows that far more Palestinians have been killed in their conflicts with other middle-Eastern countries, than have been killed as collateral damage in this latest conflict with Israel - but we did not hear too many people claiming all those other deaths were genocide & no-one was punished or taken to court for those deaths. So it's unlikely that Israel or Australia will be pursued in a court of law for what is happening in this latest conflict - especially when Israel has followed the rules of war - but Hamas have certainly contravened the Geneva Convention by using their own civilians as human shields & not allowing them to evacuate (when the IDF warned them to), then claiming that Israel killed them. In most cases, Hamas are actually responsible for those deaths. Hamas have also contravened the Geneva Convention by using civilian installations such as schools, hospitals & mosques as "covers" for their military operations & bases. It's certainly not a good look for Hamas.
    1
  1071. Oh what a "loverly" bunch of idiots these pro-Hamas protesters are! Not a single brain amongst the lot of them...
    1
  1072. No - Calvin won't be in big trouble at all - because he was ordained in a branch of the Anglican church, which is separate from the established Church of England, & as such, believes in genuine "tolerance & diversity", which the mainstream Church of England obviously does not. The "Free Church of England" into which Calvin was ordained, is a more orthodox/traditional branch of the Anglican Church, which separated from the established Church of England in 1844, & in more recent years, has joined the GAFCON movement - which is an international group of more traditional Anglican churches. The Free Church of England is not a member of the Anglican Communion, but their ordinations/holy orders are still recognised as valid, by the established Church of England.
    1
  1073. If many people feel that the celebration of Christmas needs to be cancelled or toned down in some way - then perhaps people should consider the following. The sole reason for the public holidays of Christmas Day & St Stephen's Day/Boxing Day are for the celebration of Christmas - which is the celebration of the birth of Christ. If, as is being claimed, many people find that offensive, or they feel "left out" of that Christmas celebration, then perhaps those public holidays also need to be cancelled. Cancelling these holidays may well be a way to tone down the celebration, without cancelling the celebration altogether. I'm sure that those people who are offended by, or feel "left out" of Christmas, or who are not Christian, would have absolutely no objection to that. After all, if they don't believe in the very reason for Christmas & the holidays, it would seem hypocritical to have those days off. So often, Christians are accused of hypocrisy & people say that Christianity should be done away with. But isn't it also hypocritical to enjoy those public holidays if one does not believe in the very reason for it? Cancelling the public holidays at Christmas would allow those people who do wish to still celebrate the Christmas season in some way, to celebrate it as they wish - just without the related public holidays. For those genuine practising Christians, to whom the celebration of Christmas & the birth of Christ is extremely important - they can apply to their employers to have those days off work as paid religious/holy days of obligation, if they provide a supporting letter from their church priest/minister confirming they are a practising Christian & are therefore obligated to observe those holy days. For people claiming to be Christian, who are not a member of a church &/or do not attend church regularly, they may not be serious enough about their beliefs to warrant having those days off.
    1
  1074. My Oxford English Dictionary defines a "misogynist" as "one who hates all women" - therefore Kevin Keegan is not a "misogynist" because he does not hate all women. He has spoken highly of women's football, & he is, after all, married to a woman - so he does not hate all women & cannot be correctly called a "misogynist". People who use that term incorrectly - & there are way to many of them these days - are quite simply, stupid. Stupid - because they are using the word without understanding its correct dictionary meaning & stupid because they are either too stupid or too lazy to be able to look up the word in a good quality English language dictionary. I would strongly suggest that such people do not use words like that, without firstly looking up their correct meaning in the dictionary, to ensue they will be using them correctly. But they will probably need to first of all go out & buy themselves a dictionary - as they clearly don't already own one - or if they do, why are they not already putting it to good use?
    1
  1075. I do think that the newly enacted legislation around text messages & encryption etc is indeed endangering our present level of freedoms & in this regard, the UK has been on a slippery slope for a while now. Prior to this legislation, a search warrant would have been required if the police wanted to examine/search any of a person's property or personal possessions. And in order to obtain that search warrant they would have had to demonstrate to a judge that they had good reason to suspect you of some type of illegal activity. But now the authorities just want to make things a lot easier for themselves, by enacting legislation which makes it possible just to electronically search/scan everyone's mobile phones - with no search warrant required & no reason given. In fact, you probably won't even know that your phone is being searched at that time. Slowly, the authorities are doing away with more & more of the freedoms that we once had, claiming it is all in the name of "safety & security", or for "catching child abusers". In the meantime, while they may be searching our phones for illegal activity & find nothing of that - but do happen to come across some messages relating to your views on a certain issue (which, as it turns out, they do not agree with) - they might then start discriminating against you in various ways, on the basis of those views. So in my view, the government is definitely already part way down the very slippery slope it is on. We've already had at least 2 people arrested by the British thought police for "praying silently in their head" at a particular location. Which makes me wonder - how can anyone possibly prove in a court of law, what someone may have been doing/thinking in their head at any given time? The "thought police" are alive & well in the UK!
    1
  1076. It seems that Prince William may either be trying to compete with Harry & Meghan suddenly through his new political commentary, or he's now taking over that role from his father Prince Charles, after some tutoring from him. I would say that none of the royals should be lecturing anyone about climate change - because they themselves are some of the very worst offenders. Maybe they're just trying to show us all that they're keeping up with the latest issues - but it's totally inappropriate for them to be lecturing us about it.
    1
  1077. If you watch the above video again - you'll see that Rob Braxman mentioned there are other security concerns with the Huawei phones - even though they don't have Google.
    1
  1078. It doesn't matter how many times our politicians & others tell people not to panic-buy or stockpile food & grocery items at home - people will continue to do this - because in a crisis, they are always only looking out for their own selfish interests - & it becomes a "dog eat dog" world. Even the supermarkets imposing limits on some basic food & grocery items that everyone will need, will not work at all, because there are always plenty of ways around those item limit restrictions - such as visiting the supermarket more than once per day, or going around to a number of different supermarkets in one day. At the end of the day (or sometimes even within the first half hour after the store's opening), the supermarket shelves will still be empty of certain items like toilet paper - even with just a one pack limit per transaction. The only way for the government to avoid such product shortages on the shelves, is to introduce strict rationing of basic items - similar to the government rationing that many countries introduced around the time of World War II. The ration e-vouchers/coupons could be attached to people's social security cards/numbers, or some other suitable card which includes a ration allowance for each individual family member. That way, people would not be allowed to purchase items unless they also had a coupon/voucher permitting them to purchase it. At the end of each day, for those "rationed items", the stores would then be required to reconcile their stock of those items, with the number of ration vouchers received that day from shoppers - to ensure that supplies were not being pilfered. Government inspectors could then conduct random checks of supermarkets to ensure that their stocks of those items were as they should be, & correctly reconciled to the number of ration vouchers held by the supermarket. Another possibility is for certain essential services people - such as health care professionals who may be working extra-long hours during the crisis & unable to get to the supermarket while there is still stock on the shelves - is for the government to allocate them a sort of "priority code" to enable them to order their groceries on-line, & their orders will receive priority when being filled by the supermarkets very early in the morning, when stocks are still available. The panic-buying of toilet paper in the area where I live, started on 4 March - & ever since that time, the supermarket shelves have been completely empty of all toilet paper by the time I get around to doing my shopping after work in the early evening. And that is despite most of the major supermarkets having first introduced a 2 pack purchase limit a few days after the panic started, then reduced it to a one pack purchase limit. Apparently the shelves are re-stocked overnight & are full again by opening time the following morning - but within half an hour of opening, the toilet paper stock is already entirely depleted for the day & there is nothing left for anyone else to purchase. One supermarket manager I saw being interviewed on TV told the reporter his store had sold 18 (normal) months worth of toilet paper just within the last 2 weeks. If anyone has difficulty purchasing toilet paper, after having already running out of it - I would suggest purchasing one of those plastic water spray bottles to use instead (but sometimes the stores in my area run out of those as well, now!) - or use an old spray bottle that previously contained some kind of product (wash it thoroughly before use, though). Another option, if one can afford it - is to purchase a Japanese-style toilet seat that "washes & dries". I understand they are not difficult to install - but they do cost about 100 pounds or so. Another even more expensive option (& requires a lot more plumbing to install - so may require the services of a plumber) - is to install a bidet. The good thing about any of the above alternatives to toilet paper, is that they are probably much more environmentally friendly than using toilet paper. The plastic water spray bottle option comes at almost no cost - while each of the other options is a once-only up-front cost, that will eventually generate savings in the long run, over the cost of buying toilet paper. All of these options will also be much more hygienic to use, than using toilet paper. With any of these 3 options - one will probably never need toilet paper at home ever again. In fact, if enough people choose one of these 3 toilet paper alternatives - it may even eventually send the toilet paper companies out of business - because there will be no further demand for their product. I would not necessarily be trusting any information which comes out of China, about them now having no new cases of the virus. I understand that China has recently changed the way they record their figures of Coronavirus cases. The reality is that they DO have new cases of the virus in China - they are just classifying these as "imported" (from overseas) cases of the virus, rather than "locally/home grown" cases - even though many of these cases are actually in Chinese nationals who are now starting to return to China, after having been in overseas countries at the time of China's earlier lockdown.
    1
  1079. No matter what these two think, at the end of the day, the bottom line is that it isn't racist according to the strict definition and interpretation of the word - because if it were, surely someone (especially in America) would have taken KFC to court over the matter, and sued the pants of them. The fact that no-one has done that indicates that such accustions of racism simply would not stand up in any court of law. And the court's decision would be final - end of story!
    1
  1080. Yes - that truly was a blessing in disguise...
    1
  1081. NzerinOz: Should have also said I thought they were absolutely hilarious. It takes a bit of guts for people to get up there like that and make absolute fools of themselves!
    1
  1082. @S J Yes - but there are other (older) cultures that also eat with their hands, that are not Muslim cultures.
    1
  1083. @S J Your response alone supports my case that eating with one's hands is not because people are Muslim (which was exactly my point) - but it's because of their own ethnicity & culture - nothing to do with them being Muslim or because of their religion. Indians still existed long before Islam came into their country - & they were eating with their hands before that happened.
    1
  1084. @S J It certainly might be the case that some Muslims do eat that way because it was what their prophet used to to do - but certainly in India, before the arrival of Islam, & also in some other (non-Muslim) countries in the world, it was already the custom to eat with one's hands/fingers in any case.So at least where India was concerned, the eating with the hands/fingers did not change as a result of the arrival of Islam - because it was already the practice for most people there.
    1
  1085. Definitely these people claiming to promote tolerance, diversity, & inclusivity are some of the most vicious & physically violent people anyone will come across. They're not interested in simply being vocal & debating the issues. If anyone disagrees with them, they will become physically violent. And if the police do nothing about it - then policing in the UK would have be one of the easiest jobs in the world!
    1
  1086. DoctorRosenRosen: I refuse to eat KFC now, because they succumbed to America by withdrawing the ad from Australian TV. I now eat other brands of fried chicken instead.
    1
  1087.  @_charon6448  In some other cities within my country - & a number of years ago too - I know that some supermarkets used to heavily discount their fresh bread & bakery products towards the end of the day, If you went there towards closing time you could buy bread at really cheap prices - especially if you bought say - 4 or 5 loaves of bread together I guess they were trying to sell all their bakery products before the store closed for the day But now that supermarkets are open much longer hours - it's been very long time since I've seen such heavily discounted bread. But the shelves certainly do look quite empty of many bakery products, if one goes there just before closing time. These days I understand that whatever bakery products the supermarkets have left over at the end of the day - they are often donated to charitable organisations that run food banks & free meal kitchens around the city..
    1
  1088.  goodcat1519  The empty shelves that I see in the supermarket when I go there in the evenings, are usually because all the stock that was on the shelves that morning has been sold & the shelves have just not been re-stocked during the day. When I'm here in the evening, there are always plenty of staff in the grocery aisles, re-stocking the shelves. But sometimes the shelves cannot be re-stocked with certain items, because the store has no more stock of that item - even out the back in their storage area. So they have to wait until more stock of that item arrives from their suppliers. These days, many supermarkets here, operate on the "just in time" principle for their stock/supply of goods. In other words, to save themselves money & avoid storage costs for their stocked items, they have daily supplier deliveries to their stores & only order sufficient stock to last them for one or two days at most. So if they run out of any item on the shelf, the shelf then remains empty of that item, until more stock is delivered to the store - which is usually in the next day or two.
    1
  1089. That's exactly why I have always made a point of referring to the virus, in any posts/comments that I make anywhere, as the "Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus". There are certainly plenty of other "catchy names" one can call it though. In one post, I even encouraged people to enter into a little competition, to think up the best "catchy name" for the virus - like "the red plague" etc.
    1
  1090. Following the report in the media, the police issued a statement, asking for anyone to come forward, who may have had a similar experience to those in the media documentary. Some people came forward - & now the police are investigating the matter.
    1
  1091. The police appear to be investigating now, after having seen a number of days ago, that documentary on TV. But from what I understand, at least one of the accusers did report her incident to the police at the time that it happened - though the case was not taken any further by the police at that time. I therefore believe that this is not the first time police have received such reports about Brand.
    1
  1092. The police appear to be investigating now, after having seen a number of days ago, that documentary on TV. But from what I understand, at least one of the accusers did report her incident to the police at the time that it happened - though the case was not taken any further by the police at that time. I therefore believe that this is not the first time police have received such reports about Brand.
    1
  1093.  @isaiah30v8  It may be strange - yet there may still be valid reasons why they have done it that way. It could be part of an overall strategy to have all of their claims taken more seriously & properly investigated by the police - by putting them all together in a TV programme/documentary. It then draws it to the attention of the public, which may in turn exert some public pressure on the police, to have the claims investigated properly by them. Had they just been individual people taking their individual claims to the police, & spread out over a such a long period of 10 - 20 years - their claims may have been more likely not to have been the subject of a proper police investigation. It's sad that people think it has to be done that way to get an adequate police response - but when I think of all those poor child grooming gang victims whose claims to the police fell on deaf ears over so many years - it does not surprise me at all that people think they need to develop a good "strategy", in order for the police to properly investigate their claims.
    1
  1094. So - the way the "woke" crowd preach their message of "tolerance & diversity" these days, is by singling out certain categories/races/religions of people & humiliating them, making them feel ashamed of themselves, telling them they are guilty of something & need to apologise to everyone for it, vilifying them, & discriminating against them in front of everyone else! Mind you, if they'd done that to a non-Caucasian/non-white person - the whole world would be up in arms & want to severely punish the perpetrator, to the point of depriving them of their entire livelihood! But because "white people" are the "victims" in this case - it's all perfectly okay & no-one deems it necessary to take any action. And if one of those students were to feel so bad about having been shamed in front of everyone, that as a direct result they went out & committed suicide - I wonder who would take the blame for that? Surely the classroom teacher ought to have been present there supervising the "outsider" as they were talking to the students, to make sure they were not saying or doing anything that was not appropriate - & should have called a halt to that talk, once they saw what complete nonsense the person was talking. And why did the Principal even allow that person to talk to students at the school, without knowing first, what they were going to say & do? In the first instance, I think the school Principal is at fault for allowing someone to give a talk like that at the school. Then as a back-up, the classroom teacher should have stopped it, the minute that outsider started saying & doing their nonsense. And yes, even as a further "back-up", the students themselves could have called it out for the "nonsense" that it was, as soon as the outsider started talking rubbish. When called upon to stand up - all the students should have remained seated & told the outsider that what they were saying was nonsense. So, possibly there were failures all round - but in the first instance, someone like that who was going to make that kind of a nonsensical presentation to the students, never should have been allowed on the school grounds in the first instance. And that is the fault of the school Principal - who should have asked the outsider for a copy of what they were going to present to the students, & simply refused them access to the students if they were going to do a presentation which was so inappropriate. Alternatively, if there were aspects of the "advance copy" of the presentation which the Principal believed were not appropriate - the Principal could have "vetted" & "censored" the presentation beforehand. They could have told the outsider that certain aspects of the presentation were not appropriate for the students, & unless the outsider deleted those inappropriate aspects of their presentation, they would not be allowed to talk to the students. If this sort of nonsense is going to be forced upon our school students, then maybe it's an excellent reason to send students to private schools, where they're not likely to have this kind of nonsense forced upon them. Another option would be for home schooling to become the norm.
    1
  1095. Great series - & just like a good book, I could not put it down, & watched most of the episodes back to back. I particularly enjoyed the scenes of night life & what happens in the very early hours of the morning, when most of us are still in bed asleep. I also enjoyed the explanations of the situation between the Israeli government & the arab population & the fence. There were so many different characters interviewed - from all walks of life in Israel. And I could not help thinking that that orthodox Jewish girl/young woman who, it was revealed in the early episodes, was searching for a Jewish husband, probably should have investigated the couple of young Jewish men who were evealed in subsequent episodes as searching for Jewish wives.
    1
  1096. The ad is not racist, though I'll agree that KFC might have thought best to withdraw it, to save losing business in the US, due to the inability of most Americans to understand it as it was intended. But these two seem to want to keep insisting that it was racist. All of this has got to make one wonder what kind of uninformed and unresearched rubbish they feed their listeners and viewers on a regular daily basis...
    1
  1097. The IDF has already been doing that ever since the start of this conflict - there's nothing more they can do to protect Palestinian civilians - especially when Hamas insist on using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Any further deaths of Palestinian civilians are the fault of Hamas.
    1
  1098. PollockQT: Well, I still don't believe that it was intentional on the part of KFC, and it certainly won't stop Australian TV showing similar things in the future.
    1
  1099. Why is Mo H-Job's mind always down in the gutter when it comes to matters to do with sex? Or is he just typical of most Muslims & Muslim men in particular? Honestly, I'm sure that most non-Muslim people could not possibly have thought up half of the sex-related slanders, slurs & insults that his feeble mind seems to come up with (he should put them all in a book!) - it must be almost the only thing on his mind! So it's not at all surprising that he's still bachelor - as no woman would want to be married to something like that. Or if he does by some extremely remote possibility happen to be already married - then I do feel so very sorry for his poor wife.
    1
  1100. @Max - And how does Mo H-Job even know about the existence of such a sex shop? Probably because he goes there 7 times a day to pray...
    1
  1101. The little girl stated the reason was due to the schedule changes. Sometimes if there is a court order for child custody arrangements, the parents & children are obliged to adhere to it regardless of their personal preferences.
    1
  1102. philochs: With regard to Australian rock music - Americans probably have not heard of of Johnny O'Keefe (otherwise known as J - Okay) who was very popular in the 1960's. Johhny (now just John) Farnham is well know throughout Europe and the UK, as is AC-DC. But I know a lot of Americans don't even realise that AC-DC is Australian ( just shows how little they know!). They've been around for a very long time. By the way, shows like Rage and MTV are just plain boring.
    1
  1103. Maybe such sleep deprivation & working much longer hours will lead to our bodies wearing out much more quickly, which in turn leads to shorter life expectancies rather than longer life expectancy. It would probably be the first time in known history that scientific developments have led to shorter lifespans rather than longer lifespans. It might also have unknown effects on our personalities & how we treat others - for example, will we feel perpetually tired & short-tempered, because we are just forever sleep-deprived?
    1
  1104. Maxwell & Williams is actually a very well-known brand of Australian crockery/homeware/kitchenware - I'm surprised that you had not heard of it before. The prices of some items in these Russian stores may seem cheap if you're a foreigner - but you do need to bear in mind that everything is relative to the wages/income of the average Russian person who earns Russian income at the average Russian rates.
    1
  1105. If one wants to know what the religion of Islam truly believes & teaches - all one needs to do is to read the Quran & at least some of the hadiths oneself. You won't necessarily get the full story about what Islam actually teaches, from just speaking with Muslims - because there are plenty of Muslims that have not actually read all of the Quran/hadiths for themselves. So if one wants to know what Islam really teaches - just read their scriptures (Quran & hadiths) oneself. The Quran is not even as big as the Bible - so it's not difficult to read it all. If you read the Quran for yourself, some of the teachings in that book, may actually surprise you.
    1
  1106.  @braddouglas7839  There are those who would argue that it is child abuse not to perform such surgery when the child identifies as a different gender to the one they were born as. Hence the courts will often approve such surgery against the wishes of the parents, & doctors are then expected to carry it out. Though I do say well done to any doctor who is able to stand against such a court order.
    1
  1107. ...People outside the US who view the ad without understanding the reasons behind the racist allegations may just look at the ad and decide that America thinks it's racist because the white guy is sharing food with black people. Or they might decide America thinks it's racist because there is a white guy sitting in the midst of a lot of black people, when America thinks the two races should be separated...
    1
  1108. It may be that groceries are less expensive in Germany than the US, because in many European countries - especially those in the EU, a lot of farm produce is subsidised by the government.
    1
  1109. Jemini29944: It's awkward in the sense that it's embarrassing because he's in the midst of the opposition supporters when it looks like his team is losing, and the opposition supporters are probably rubbing salt into his would with all their celebrations and partying. If the match happens to be an "away" match held in the West Indies, then it is quite possible there may not be too many other like-minded supporters for him to sit with.
    1
  1110. In the UK there's apparently no statute of limitations on pursuing these kinds of offences - so people are free to pursue them many years later, if they wish. As to the reason for why they are now pursuing these allegations many years later in this particular case - we do not know that yet.
    1
  1111. ​ @cookielicious82  It could be for a reason as simple as - they thought the police would take no action if they reported it - in the same manner as they also for many years took no action against the child grooming gangs that were operating all over the UK - even though they had been reported to the police many times before & over many years. And maybe they still felt that way to a certain extent & that is why they took their story to the media first - so they would investigate & maybe get as much evidence as thy could, before going public with their story. And if the media did a good job with that story - then just maybe the police would sit up & take some notice instead of more of just taking no action - as they did in the case of the child grooming gangs.
    1
  1112. I certainly understand some of the arguments put forward in the above video. But if the government now considers people to be legally an adult at age 18 years - then I don't know how they could possibly restrict the age of marriage to those who are several years older. If you say someone is an adult at 18 - then they are legally accountable for all of their own actions, all of their own decisions, & can legally enter into binding contracts on their own. So how can we then exclude marriage from the list of things people are able to do, once they are legally an adult? But I certainly support the age of marriage being raised to 18 years - to at least match the age of legal adulthood. If you don't want people to be able to marry at age 18 - then the only real solution I see to that, is to also raise the age of legal adulthood back to what it previously was - 21 years, & state that people can only marry once they have reached the age of legal adulthood. And there's some good arguments for that - after all, many people are still in their final years of university studies & may not have much experience of the real working world, & may still even be reliant on their parents, to a certain extent, for financial support.
    1
  1113. philochs: Even some polls done in America did not indicate that the majority of Americans found the ad racist. At least two American polls that I have heard about indicated that a small majority of Americans found the ad not racist. I have NEVER said that TYT claimed Australians were racist. What I have ALWAYS said was that TYT claimed "THE AD is racist". And that seems to be what the rest of America is saying as well. All Australians are doing is disputing their claim that "the ad is racist"...
    1
  1114. MilitantPeaceist:I'm afraid I have no desire to watch anything else produced by these silly people. I want to see informed opinion from experts who know their stuff, and that's clearly the sort of thing these people don't do.
    1
  1115. Anyone who has an interest in Islam & has read the Quran & hadiths will tell you honestly that when when Islamic acts of terrorism are inflicted upon the world, they accord precisely with the teachings, practices, & commandments anyone can read about in the Quran & hadiths (Islamic scriptures). Unfortunately many people in the media get caught up with promoting the false notion that "Islam is a religion of peace" - because they do not know any better, & simply could not be bothered reading the Islamic scriptures for themselves to find out first hand whether Islam really is peaceful or not. Instead, they very lazily rely upon Muslim clerics & preachers simply telling them that Islam is peaceful, or maybe the Muslims quote them a couple of peaceful-sounding verses from their scriptures which are either taken out of context or simply do not give the "complete" picture. If you looked up those verses in the Islamic scriptures yourself, you would probably find the "peaceful bits" only applied to Muslims & not people of other religions, or that there were "exceptions" to that peaceful rule - when it simply did not apply - mostly concerning people who criticise Islam, or maybe do other "bad" things. For many years the British police simply ignored allegations of Pakistani Muslim gangs of young men grooming young (non-Muslim) girls for sex-trafficking & abuse. They apparently feared that prosecuting such cases would promote racism against ethnic & religious minority groups. Fortunately, some years ago now, the police finally were forced to come to their senses after many of these cases were publicised in the media - forcing the police to actually act & do something about it. As a result several of these Muslim gang members were found guilty & gaoled. But in the case of Hatun Tash - the police seem to think it's her fault for "causing trouble". It seems the right to freedom of speech & freedom of religion has been well & truly lost in the UK. One is no longer allowed to criticise any religion - unless of course, it happens to be Christianity. But all that means is that there is a gross double standard & hypocrisy amongst the authorities in Britain - & perhaps even amongst the general public. Why should people be allowed to criticise Christianity - but not other religions? Muslims certainly make the most of that & regularly exploit it to behave in unacceptably violent ways. And they'll continue to do that unless people take a stand against it & say they won't stand for that kind of violent Islamic abuse. If Islam is such a wonderful religion, why do they need to so violently silence people who constructively criticise it? If it's so wonderful, why do they need to threaten with death, people who want to leave the religion? Many Muslims are "seeing the light" & leaving Islam these days - even though that death threat still hangs over them. They claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world - but if that's the case, it's only because the majority of Muslims are less educated & tend to have larger families. It's not because people are converting to Islam in droves (which they would be, if it was such a fantastic religion). Some "forced conversions" to Islam still do take place in some developing countries where Islam is the dominant religion. But they would not need to force people to convert in the first place, if it was such a wonderful religion. Yes - some western people do convert to Islam - but it is usually only because they are either marrying a Muslim, or because they don't have a full & complete understanding of everything that Islam really teaches. Once they discover much more fully, what Islam really teaches, then they will usually de-convert from Islam. Make no mistake - Islam is a religion that preaches a lot of violence & hatred & its prophet Muhammad is certainly not someone who set a very good example for anyone to follow. No decent person should ever desire to be part of a religion like that. Of course, people cannot help it if they are born into the religion, & the religion itself makes it very difficult for people to leave it. I can only take my hat off to the likes of little Hatun Tash (all 5 feet 2 inches of her!) for being brave enough to speak out against such a religion. This is certainly not the first time she has been violently attacked by a mad moronic Muslim man, while speaking at Speaker's Corner in London. A number of months ago, another mad moronic Muslim man (or perhaps the same one as before?) went up to her & punched her in the face (I guess he'd probably already had plenty of practice at that at home - doing it to his mother/sister/wife). Now the violence has progressed to stabbing. What will it be next? The violence will only get worse - after all, this is Islam we are dealing with.
    1
  1116.  @Србомбоница86  It's not always a good idea to try & reason with a child - as sometimes they will not always understand, & the full circumstances may not always be able to be explained & understood. Sometimes it's just best to say "You have to go to see your Dad whether you like it or not, because the court order says you have to". No further discussion to be entered into.
    1
  1117.  @Србомбоница86  Still - there's no point trying to reason with a child of that age, because the child clearly has not yet developed the power to reason & think things through rationally & logically. So the mother should more or less just be saying to the child "you need to do this because I tell you to & I know what's best for you right now - whether you like it or not".
    1
  1118. Actually in the above video, he was just being ordained as a "deacon" in the church (in the wording used by the bishop who is ordaining him). That is the first step towards becoming a priest, & in about 12 months time, he will probably be ordained as a "priest", which means he will then be able to be the "celebrant" at Holy Communion services (which he won't be able to do as a deacon in the church)..
    1
  1119. If you're going to prosecute someone for doing something silently in their head (like praying) - how is anyone going to be able prove that conclusively in a court of law & to the court's & legal system's satisfaction - apart from the person themselves actually admitting/confessing that that was what they were actually doing? And even if the person confessed to doing that said thing silently in their head - how would we know they were not lying? It seems to me that the court & legal system would need some sort of highly accurate "mind-reading" machine, to be able to read people's minds, to determine what they may have been doing "silently in their head". Or perhaps they would simply force such people to take a lie detector test, to determine whether they were telling the truth about "doing that thing silently in their head". It seems that these days, even our "private thoughts" are not actually "private" any more, & there are indeed such things in the UK as "the thought police" - & there have been, for a number of years now.
    1
  1120. Physical & chemical castration (both together) should also be an option under the principle of "misuse/abuse it, & you lose it".
    1
  1121. Isn't that meant to cover all the smoking-related medical/health costs of smokers? So that money is already accounted for. In any case, smokers should not be littering the country with their cigarette butts & they need to pay for cleaning up their own litter by paying any litter fines when they get caught littering. That's fair enough - to expect the people who make the litter, to clean up after themselves by paying the fine when caught.
    1
  1122. Douglas1102: I'm not trying to defend KFC on purpose, I'm just trying to look at the ad from a logical and legal point of view, to determine whether it is technically racist, regardless of what nationality the company may be.
    1
  1123. Yes - that's quite standard in many Jewish prayers. I like to think it's because they are grateful for not having to go through the pain of childbirth - since men are quite physically weak in that regard, when it comes to threshholds for pain etc.
    1
  1124. But that has always been the case - even when I was growing up in the sixties & seventies. Nothing has changed - our family was not able to go away somewhere during each school holiday period because my father could not always get the school holiday period as annual leave from his workplace. So when that happened, we just stayed at home & did other things during the school holidays. But occasionally we did get to go away when my father was able to get the school holidays period as annual leave. But there should not be an expectation that children have to go away somewhere on holiday, every school holiday they get - or take time away from school during term time, to go away on a holiday.
    1
  1125.  @syntaxerror8955  I don't necessarily believe that TV news programmes only show news items to make money. I think the primary drivers of income for TV stations is the other entertainment programmes they show on their stations & the viewer ratings those shows get. Whatever channel one watches, most of the news items are the same anyway, & the news broadcasts are on at around the same time on all the channels - so it doesn't really matter which channel people watch - the news will be more or less the same - so I don't think there's huge money to be made off the news programmes. I see the news programmes as more or less a public service which is provided for the benefit of the public & which is more or less expected by the public - or the public would see the TV stations as being remiss in their duty. I believe that where TV stations make most of their money is from advertising & the ratings from the entertainment programmes they show. So maybe the TV news programmes just "dropped the ball" when it came to remembering the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre & it didn't occur to them to give it any publicity. Or maybe they were coerced into not publicising it by the powers that be, for fear it might upset China.
    1
  1126.  @cooliipie  Maybe it was not a popular topic for people with any kind of Chinese background.
    1
  1127. With all this hokery pokery wokery nonsense being proclaimed by some in the community - I'm even more convinced than ever that these woke people are just a bunch of walking zombies - or people walking in their sleep, who just need to be "awoken from their wokeness", so they can "see the light". Or perhaps they just need to be put back to sleep, never to be "woke" again! Most "woke" people appear to be promoting or becoming racists themselves - just so they can then turn around & tell everyone that Britain is institutionally racist. But it's not possible for institutions or organisations as such to be "racist" - because they are not even human of themselves & don't have feelings - they are merely legal entities on paper. It is only people themselves as individuals, who are capable of racism - & the woke brigade appear to have more than their fair share of racists in their midst, standing ready to ban/block/cancel/condemn anyone of any ethnicity who disagrees with them. If they were decent human beings to start with, they would want to debate the matter - but they don't seem to want to do that - possibly because they would embarrass themselves by not winning the debate because they don't have any decent arguments in favour of their side of the debate - so their very first instinct is to cancel/destroy anyone who opposes them. The more non-white people who challenge the purely patronising & condescending nature of the woke brigade, the better off this world will be. I've no doubt that if non-white people rely on the woke brigade to try to improve their lot in the community - then 10 or 20 years down the track, the woke brigade will be reminding them of that - taking credit for what they have achieved & insisting they want a piece of whatever it is those non-white people have managed to achieve. Non-white people are more than capable of making their own way in life, & the laws of the land will now allow them the same opportunities as anyone else, thank goodness. They have no need for the woke brigade.
    1
  1128. It seems as though the police are just turning into a bunch of lazy sods. If they're not going to be investigating crimes anyway - I would not wish to give them any more funding - until they can give a genuine assurance that such additional funding would guarantee they would investigate reported crimes. Today it might be a burglary/theft which they refuse to investigate - but tomorrow they might refuse to investigate physical assaults & murders. It seems they're way too busy arresting people for praying silently in their heads - or dancing the macarena at street festivals, to investigate real crimes.
    1
  1129. There'd pobably be a lot more rocket attacks on Jerusalem by the Palestinians, & also more passenger bus bombings in Jerusalem - just as there were prior to the erection of the fence/wall. That was the reason the wall was erected in the first place (as a protective/safety measure for Jerusalem) & since then, those kinds of attacks have reduced significantly in Jerusalem.
    1
  1130. Jemini29944: In my view, ALL ads leave certain things to the imagination. They are quite short in duration, and it's simply not possible to convey every little thing to the audience in a short space of time.
    1
  1131. ...The racist allegations, if misinterpretted, could in fact backfire on America and open up a can of worms for them, as far as overseas perceptions of their racial views are concerned.
    1
  1132. I've noticed that already many people, solely on the basis of what Harry & Meghan alone have said in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, have started to condemn the actions of the royal family. I feel that's somewhat unfair to the royal family, given that so far we've only heard Harry & Meghan's side of the story & we don't know when, or even if, the royal family are likely to issue a public response of their own. And perhaps Harry & Meghan did the interview knowing full well that the royal family were unlikely to respond to it in any official capacity - which made them feel even more free to just say what they wanted. Let's face it, people don't generally regard Oprah & her show as a "reliable source" of information. She's more like just a well-known gossip columnist. I tend to take everything Harry & Meghan say with a grain salt - knowing full well we have only their word for it - & nothing has really been substantiated. When I think about everything they have said, logically & rationally, there are some things that certainly just don't "ring true" as it were - which makes me somewhat sceptical of those claims made by them. For example - I am sceptical of their claims of racism & that a prominent member of the royal family raised a query as to how dark their child's skin colour would be when he was born. Without knowing the real context in which it was said - it's hard to know whether it was intended in a truly derogatory & racist way - or whether, as with any pregnancy at all, people are quite naturally just speculating whether the child will look more like its mother or father. Further, as to the implication of whether the darkness of the child's skin would have an impact on the child having a "title" is quite nonsensical. Most people know that the children of those royals who are well down the line of succession - such as Harry & Meghan are now, do not automatically inherit any title - even though their father may be a prince. If Meghan & Oprah did not know that - then that is their own fault for not having "done their homework" well beforehand, to find out what the situation was, regarding Harry & Meghan's children having any sort of title. It also must be remembered that as head of the British Commonwealth, the Queen & the royal family meet & mix with all kinds of people of different races, nationalities, & ethnicities, & I think if they really were racist, then it would have been evident long before now. I think people also need to remember that when the public first became aware of Meghan & Harry's relationship, & then they got engaged & married - most of the publicity they received was extremely positive & almost no-one said anything negative at all about Meghan being of mixed race. There were almost no racist comments whatsoever about Meghan. It was only after Harry & Meghan started to get a little criticism in the press for some of the things they were doing which seemed to be a little hypocritical - that some of the claims of racism against Meghan emerged. I think that when negative publicity does emerge, it's very easy for some people to just "play the race card" & attribute it to racism, rather than looking for any other genuine cause there might be. So for the above reasons, I do have doubts about Meghan's claims of racism from members of the royal family. Another claim of Meghan's that I have some doubts about - is her claim not to have received assistance from the royal household, when she had mental health issues during her first pregnancy. I'm also wondering why she felt the need to approach the royal household at all about that particular issue - especially when she & Harry had for some time been patrons & supporters of organisations supporting people with mental health issues. For that reason alone, one would have thought that both of them would have been only too well aware of what to do & where to go for assistance with mental health issues. And why wasn't Harry doing more to support her in that regard? Why on earth would a member of the royal family approach the HR department of the royal household for such assistance with health issues, when they're not a paid staff member? The idea that a member of the royal family would approach the palace's HR department in the first instance, about personal health issues, sounds rather silly. I would have expected a mature woman like Meghan to know better than that. But if she did approach the HR section, even though they may not have been able to assist her directly, I would have expected them to point her in the right direction as to where she COULD get help. Let's face it - at the time of her marriage to Prince Harry - Meghan was a 36 year old divorcee & something of a TV celebrity in the US, as a result of which she was also a very independent & independently wealthy multi-millionaire in her own right. It was not as though she was an innocent young woman who had just left school a couple of years ago & still somewhat unaccustomed to the ways of the world (as Princess Diana had been at the time of her marriage). I would have expected an independent young woman like Meghan to have known a little better & behaved a little differently. Yet even Diana, while still married to Prince Charles, was able to go off on her own & seek "outside" assistance for her own mental health issues. So why did Meghan not do the same for her own health problems - it's not as though she's married to the immediate heir to the throne, as Diana was. And why be concerned about what anyone will think about that (either the royal family, or the public) - a person's own health comes first - especially if that person is pregnant! To me, it seems that Meghan just was not willing to do enough to help herself, & for some reason, was not getting as much assistance as she needed from Harry either. The very fact that she was pregnant at the time, should have afforded her additional opportunities to seek assistance for her mental health issues. I'm sure she would have been having regular pre-natal medical check-ups etc - so why did she not mention to the doctor/s at those check-ups, the suicidal thoughts that she was having? Those doctors should have been able to help her & it would have been very remiss of them not to have had concerns about her mental state - if she had informed them of that. As to the security issues & whether Harry & Meghan as a couple with their children should be entitled to some kind of security/protection - I would have thought that was a matter for the authorities to determine, together with the royal family. Harry is only about 4th or 5th in line to the throne - so he's not really that important in the line of succession anyway. But providing they are full-time working members of the royal family, it is understandable if the authorities & the royal family think their position warrants some sort of security/protection. However if Harry & Meghan decide to live independent lives apart from the royal family, in the USA, & not be full-time working members of the royal family, then it's reasonable to expect that the British tax-payer should not have to pay for the cost of their security/protection, & if they want security/protection they should pay for that themselves. I do understand they may have had death threats - but a lot of other people also have death threats against them - but don't expect someone else to pay for their security/protection....
    1
  1133. ...Generally speaking, if Harry & Meghan want to live in another country & not partake of royal duties - then they should be completely self-supporting in all respects, & not dependent on financial hand-outs from the tax payers & other members of the royal family. That certainly should not be very hard for them to do. Harry mentioned he is now living off the inheritance left to him by his mother, & Meghan was an independently wealthy woman from her acting career, even before marrying Harry. But if worse comes to worst & they manage to spend all the money they presently have between the 2 of them, then Meghan can return to her well-paid acting career, & Harry could also go out & get some sort of job (maybe he learnt a few handy skills during his time in the armed forces!). Despite the fact that Meghan was a mature, 36 year old, independent, woman of the world at the time of her marriage to Harry - she portrays herself here as having been incredibly naive about the ways, protocol, & etiquette etc associated with being a member of the royal family. It all goes to show that she did not really "do her homework" so to speak prior to marrying Harry - to educate herself about such matters - which would have been the "wise" thing to do. So she does not appear to be as "smart" as she was made out to be. She seemed to think she would just be able to "do her own thing" & indulge in supporting causes of her own choosing - when in reality, she would probably be "allocated" certain duties, as a member of the royal family/household, & be expected to dress & behave in a certain way. And she also might no longer be the centre of attention as she was used to being, as a US TV celebrity actress. In the above Oprah interview - Meghan seemed only too keen to portray herself as a poor, helpless woman, who was capable of doing nothing to help herself, & was someone for whom everyone else should feel sorry. And Harry assisted her in that portrayal. For Meghan - maybe it was just another "role" she was playing as an actress. Yet despite how badly she portrayed her own situation - I'm sure there would be thousands of people in the world who would be only too willing to swap their own lives for hers. The "Meghan" who was, in the lead up to her marriage to Harry, "sold" to the public as a strong, vibrant, independent woman of colour, to whom other young women might look up, as some sort of "role model", had almost overnight been reduced to the poor helpless creature we saw in the above video. And it's a bit of a mystery as to what might have caused this - since other "non-royals" have managed to adapt to life as a member of the royal family, without experiencing such mental health issues. Maybe Meghan just had weaknesses which were not evident to most people. In the case of Diana - it became evident that most of her own mental health issues had probably been caused by the fact that knew her own husband had been involved with another woman for most of their married life - which would probably be enough to cause any woman to experience mental health issues. But this does not appear to have been the case with Meghan, whose husband was even prepared to move with her to the other side of the world. And if Meghan's own mental health issues are so serious - it's quite possible that her recollections of things which may have happened to her, & how she may have been treated by members of the royal household, may well be quite flawed. So that's probably another reason why we should not simply assume that everything Meghan says is true - & automatically put the blame on others for Meghan's situation. I also wonder if it's possible that her own alleged mental health issues could merely be a facade for claiming that she can not be held accountable for any alleged "bullying" she did of her household staff in the UK - because she was experiencing mental health issues at the time. Often, people like that want to be able to explain away their poor behaviour, & claiming one was suffering "health issues" or some other extenuating circumstance at the time, is often a good, & apparently acceptable excuse.
    1
  1134. Actually - there are many people in Australia with chronic & ongoing conditions that require regular treatment with blood/blood products.
    1
  1135. ...But at the same time Americans probably wouldn't care if an American ad offended, say, eskimos, by hinting that all eskimos do is live in igloos, fish through holes in the ice, and maybe hunt polar bears. I think in many ways, this is what non-Americans really find offensive - Americans think they are superior, and want to impose their own culture on the rest on the world. But the rest of the world doesn't want it, and that's why they're objecting to the claims of racism.
    1
  1136. I recall watching a James Bond movie quite some years ago, where James Bond (played in that movie by Pierce Brosnan) & his female Chinese colleague at that time, were in a tight situation & being chased by bad guys. They were somewhere in China, I think, & ended up in a room where they needed to use a computer. James Bond noticed the computer first, & was about to use it, until he noticed that the buttons on the keyboard (which was a normal sized computer keyboard) all had Chinese characters on them. He was obviously still intending to use the computer (though it probably would have taken him a little while to work out the Chinese characters on the keyboard) - but fortunately his Chinese colleague came to the rescue & got the information they needed from the computer in no time flat. Ever since then, I assumed that the computer keyboards which Chinese people use, just have Chinese characters (or components of Chinese characters) on them - & that is how they type (on a computer) in Chinese. I know that Chinese & Korean characters are different (though much older & traditional Korean writing does also use some Chinese characters) - but am somewhat familiar with Korean characters which generally comprise up to 3 or 4 "components" within each character - where each component of the character represents a phonetic symbol. For this reason, it may not be impossible to have a Chinese keyboard where each button represents a character or "component" of a character. So I'd always imagined Chinese keyboards would consist of Chinese characters or their component parts. I'd certainly be very interested to know whether such Chinese keyboards, consisting of Chinese characters, do actually exist.
    1
  1137. LeonardoTheGreater:I definitely agree it's possible these two could simply be creating a controversy to improve their show's ratings, in which case, they may not truly believe what they are saying. But that would depend on whether these two started the whole racist controversy about the ad in the first place. To be honest, I don't actually know who started it.
    1
  1138. Of what a lovely bunch of idiots these pro-Hamas supporters are! Those gullible fools will believe anything & everything that Hamas propaganda tells them. The land of Israel does not belong to the people of Gaza or Palestians. It has legitimately belonged to Israel & the Jewish people for thousands of years - confirmed by archaeology & many historical sources, including the Bible. The many conflicts which have occured with Israel over the years have all, except for one, NOT been started by Israel. The present conflict/war would not have started, had it not been for Hamas terrorists illegally entering Israel on 7 October & mass murdering & butchering young Israeli civilians at an outdoor music festival & also taking around 1,200 Israelis as hostages, back to Gaza. So any loss of Gazan lives, while Israel tries to retrieve its hostages, can only be blamed on Hamas itself. The conflict would probably stop, the minute Hamas hands back all of the remaining hostages - but they are not doing that. So Hamas continues to place the lives of its Gaza civilians at risk, while Israel seeks to retrieve its hostages & destroy Hamas in that process as well.
    1
  1139. It was mentioned in the above video that the former wife of Karl Stefanovic, was only on "Dancing with the Stars" because she was Karl's ex-wife, & not a star/celebrity in her own right. That may well be - but I certainly don't think it's fair to criticise her for that - because she's certainly not the first such person to appear on "Dancing with the Stars". Several years ago when they announced who the "star" contestants on that show would be - I remember thinking that they must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel & desperate for contestants - because some of the contestants were not even "stars" in their own right - but rather, merely the spouses of people who were stars/celebrities. However, at that time, no-one made a big fuss about those contestants - claiming they should not have been on the show because they were not "stars" in their own right. Several years later, I also therefore believe it's not fair to lay such criticism on Karl's ex-wife, because she is not a celebrity in her own right.
    1
  1140. There's no excuse for physical violence - except when defending oneself from physical violence. These Nazi women are obviously vicious & physically violent, when they themselves were not being physically or violently attacked in any way.
    1
  1141. Jemini29944: I really don't think there was any ulterior motive in the ad with subliminal messages about American racial stereotyping. If there were, I think it simply would have gone over the head of most Australians who would have just seen the cricket match. Since the ad was made in Australia by Australians, I simply don't think the people who made the ad would have had any idea about the American racial stereotype.
    1
  1142. Perhaps what Tommy needs is a really high profile international celebrity barrister/solicitor - someone like Geoffrey Robertson from that TV show of many years ago - "Hypotheticals". Maybe someone like that might choose to represent Tommy pro bono & for the publicity, or a Go Fund Me page could help to fund Tommy's legal costs in this situation.
    1
  1143. I came across that mobile phone on-line some months ago - when an acquaintance drew my attention to it. I took a look at it myself & saw that it is much more expensive than the BraX2 phone, & there are also some on-going costs associated with its use, in addition to any carrier costs. I would be very interested to see how many people have actually purchased that phone. At an up-front purchase cost of close to $1,000, plus some on-going costs, I would not purchase such a phone - particularly as some of its software is proprietary & not open-source. But I'll admit that, on the surface, it may impress some people, who may be inclined to purchase it. It would indeed be interesting to know what Rob Braxman thinks of it - even though some people may claim he might be biased, as he offers a similar product/phone himself - the aim of which is privacy.
    1
  1144. philochs: Yes, Australia does have stereotypes, but it has enough of its own not to want any more from other countries - especially the USA. And most Australians don't go around proudly proclaiming their own stereotypes to the rest of the world. And modern day Australians who are genuine descendents of the original convict settlers are very few and far between. The vast majority of today's population came here as free settlers. KFC is nice, but there is nicer chicken available in Australia.
    1
  1145. I'm wondering why the college dormitory was not held accountable in some way, by allowing Larry to live in a college dormitory, with these young people, when he clearly was not a college student, had never been a college student, was not employed by the college, & also had a criminal record. The fact that his daughter also lived in that dormitory, should not have been an excuse to allow someone with a criminal record, to live amongst all those young college students, even though his daughter may have been one of them. Claiming to be a "life coach" is one of the few occupations that requires no qualifications or skills & it should have been a red flag, especially when combined with his very short term in the armed forces (only 19 days?) before being discharged, & his criminal record. Who on earth would want a convicted criminal as their life coach?
    1
  1146. If Chinese people were so weak & sensitive - surely they would not be able to walk past other members of the public in the street who are being robbed or assaulted etc. which happens a lot in China. If anything - that shows others that Chinese people are probably quite "insensitive" to others & what they do, say, or think etc. So the CCP saying that things which foreigners may have done, have offended the Chinese people, just seems like a load of rubbish to most people/foreigners. And let's face it - the CCP itself certainly does not care about the feelings of its own Chinese people - after all, it has certainly killed, or at least brought about the deaths of many of its own Chinese people - so why should any foreigners therefore be concerned about merely hurting the feelings of the CCP, or many of the Chinese people? After all, they could not possibly do any worse to the Chinese people than the CCP Chinese government has already done. When the CCP says that the feelings of the Chinese people have been hurt - it probably really only means that its own feelings have been hurt by what some foreigners have done or said. And no foreigner really cares anyway, about what the CCP feels or thinks - so no-one - especially any foreigner - is going to take any notice of what the CCP says. All this just goes to show that the CCP Chinese government has no hesitation whatsoever in portraying its own Chinese people as weak, insipid, easily offended people. Actually, if I were a Chinese person, I would be far more offended by what my own Chinese government was saying about me - than anything foreigners might have done or said.
    1
  1147. Yes it is China's fault for not letting it be known right from the outset, that there was a problem with the virus, & did nothing at all to stop its spread, even within China. When people started falling ill in early December, they did not realise what was actually causing the illness - except that it appeared to be something similar to the earlier SARS virus - which should have been in itself, sufficient cause for concern. A little later, it was identified as the coronavirus - which I now always refer to as the Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus. It was the worst possible time for this virus to strike in China - because it was around the time of their spring festival & Chinese New Year, when there is a huge mass migration of Chinese people, both within China (back to their home towns), also from China to join family members overseas, & from overseas countries into China. But don't forget that the WHO also played a role in this, when it came to passing information on to the rest of the world, about the virus & the state of things in China. When the WHO made their first public statement about the virus as late as 22 January - even though by then there were already reports of the virus in at least one other country apart from China - the WHO was praising the actions thus far of the Chinese government, in identifying & dealing with the virus. Even at that time the WHO said there was NO reason for any countries to implement travel or trade restrictions - they just recommended that people should take extra personal precautions such as hand-washing etc, & recommended that countries do exit checks on travellers at airports (anyone can read these public statements on the WHO's web site). It should never be forgotten that the WHO was fully supportive of China & mentioned that one of the reasons they did not recommend any further restrictions, was due to the impact it would have had on China's economy. Even well after the technical requirements for a "pandemic" had been met (by the WHO's own definition on its web site), the WHO still failed to declare a pandemic. They claimed the reason for this was that they did not want people to panic - but many people were already panicking, because by then the virus had spread to many other countries as well. Fortunately, many countries ignored the WHO's advice of 22 January, & took their own much more strict precautions at that time - but by then it was already way too late for some of those precautions to stop the spread of the virus internationally, because many Chinese people had already travelled outside China & spread the virus. I think this whole fiasco has made people realise that the WHO definitely showed its bias & favouritism towards China, by aligning its advice to the rest of the world, so as not to impact China's economy. As a result, I think many people & countries have completely lost faith in the advice of the WHO & probably won't be following their advice ever again. Whatever the WHO says in future will be taken with a grain of salt, & people will automatically assume the situation is much more dire than the WHO claims. Many countries rely on the advice of the WHO - particularly those developing countries which may not have access to expert medical advice within their own countries. As for the more developed countries which DO have access to expert medical advice within their own countries - they will in future probably ignore the WHO's advice & just rely on their own internal medical experts for advice on what to do & what precautions to take. Also, don't forget that China spread its own propaganda in the west - which many media outlets fell for, & actually published - that the virus wasn't nearly as bad as the influenza virus, which kills way more people every year. I think that was a rather nonsensical & foolish claim to be making - at a time when the coronavirus was still in its relatively early stages & had not yet run its course. None of us knew what the final outcome would be - how many people would contract the virus, how many would die from it & how many would recover etc. We also knew relatively little about the virus itself - how it works, how infectious it is, what are the best precautions to take against it, & how to adequately treat it. There was no "cure" for it & no vaccine against it. On the other hand, we already know a lot more about the influenza virus - that it will more than likely strike every year, & we have a rough idea of what the figures/statistics are going to be. We can prepare for it as best we can, & there is usually a vaccine for it. We also know who the most vulnerable/susceptible people in the community are likely to be. So - claiming that the coronavirus is not as bad as the influenza virus simply does not make sense, to anyone who is capable of thinking rationally. Due to the lack of good basic public hygiene practices in China, combined with the huge population & population density - it is certainly no surprise that these kinds of viruses easily take a hold in China, from where they then spread to the rest of the world. The wet markets in China, where the virus is believed to have originated - exhibit very little basic hygiene. They often sell live wild & exotic animals for slaughter & domestic consumption. Many people in China can be seen spitting & blowing their noses publicly into the streets. Parents & grandparents often allow their very young children to simply urinate & defecate publicly in the streets. The older generation in particular is often unaware of good basic hygiene - such as hand-washing with warm soapy water. Many of the large public hospitals in China do not even have soap or similar liquids readily available for hand-washing - either by medical staff or visitors. At the peak of the virus outbreak in China there were chronic shortages of protective equipment for medical staff in the hospitals. Protective masks, glasses/goggles, gloves, caps, protective suits, were often in short supply. Some medical staff could be seen wearing makeshift goggles made from glass or plastic. Some were literally wearing "shower caps" on their heads instead of proper caps. Some also wore makeshift face masks, & some had no suits whatsoever - yet they were still expected to see & treat patients, many of whom had the virus - thus placing themselves at risk. This is one of the reasons why I have serious doubts about China's recent claims of victory over the virus. The above reasons are why I will always refer to this virus as the Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus. The virus originated in China - & China quite deliberately did absolutely nothing to stop its spread in the very early stages - either within China or internationally. China deserves ALL the credit for the spread of this virus - so I am going to give it that credit by always referring to it as the Wuhan Chinese Coronavirus. But let's not forget the huge part that the WHO also played in this scenario - by not giving correct & timely advice, because they did not want to damage China's reputation, or its economy.
    1
  1148. You are wrongly blaming people working in advertising companies around the world for spreading the American racial stereotype about black people and chicken. How can people outside the US be accused of spreading obscure American racial stereotypes, of which they have never even heard? This claim is totally unjustified. The stereotypes may be well known to Americans, but they are certainly not well known outside the US (even though you might think they are)...
    1
  1149.  @diannawright2188  Yes - Meghan will do anything if someone offers her enough money - even divorce her husband. But if that happened - I still don't think the British public would want Harry back - so he would be left figuring out what to do with himself & where to go. He apparently spent most of his mother's inheritance money on their almost 20 million pound home in California - which would probably go to Meghan & the kids in any divorce settlement. He would have had a little bit of money left over from that, plus the small inheritance he got from the Queen mother's estate - but he probably would not be left with a lot of money to live on & would need to find himself a new place to live & work out another means of generating income for himself. I don't know how much of the money he would get from their latest docuseries & how much would go to Meghan. I suspect he would probably get most of the money from the book that he wrote - so at least that might be something.
    1
  1150. But if he's doing the speaking tour voluntarily & is receiving no payment for it - then it is not really "work" is it? The speaking tour's sponsors may just be covering & paying for his travel & accommodation on this tour & Tommy may not actually be pocketing any money from it.
    1
  1151. sidittygal: I wasn't indicating that America thought the races should be separated - just saying that some people outside the US, and not understanding the reasons behind America saying the ad was racist, could in fact misunderstand why America thinks the ad is racist. One of those such misinterpretations might possibly be that America thinks the races should be separated...
    1
  1152. In my country, it is an offence for organisations (including religious organisations & churches) not to report incidents of child sexual abuse & substantial financial penalties also apply if such abuse is not reported by the responsible institutions, when known. So, I'm wondering why the authorities in the UK have not pressed charges against the C of E for not having previously reported that child sexual abuse. Does the UK not have similar laws & penalties around the obligatory reporting of child sexual abuse within institutions?
    1
  1153. If I received good service from a waiter/waitress in restaurant - I would much rather pay a tip in cash directly to the person who had served me at my table. I don't believe it's fair to give that tip to anyone else, or to have it placed into a pool & have it evenly divided amongst the waiting staff at the restaurant - some of whom may not be providing very good service. I've always suspected that if I add a tip on to my credit card payment at a restaurant, then the restaurant may just keep that amount themselves & not necessarily pass that tip on to the staff member who served me. Hence my decision to tip the staff in cash directly to them. Also, where the restaurant charges a fixed service charge or gratuity amount, on top of the meal cost - I would expect not to have to pay a tip on top of that, but that the service charge amount should be passed on to the staff member who served my table. But again I suspect it might be difficult for the restaurant to keep track of the staff member who served my table & pass that amount on to them specifically - & it might just get automatically divided equally amongst the staff, which I think is a shame - because some staff may not provide as good a service as other staff - yet are benefitting from the service charge anyway.
    1
  1154. Douglas1102:Australians really like this particular KFC ad (as they do all 4 or 5 of the similar ads in the series) because it does speak to the heart of the country's traditions and cricket culture. That's why they are so upset about the ad's withdrawal. It also means the West Indian cricket team is now the only team NOT represented in that ad series, which seems discriminatory. It's like saying Australians can't have their culture.
    1
  1155. To clear this matter up, surely all the Dutch translator would need to do, is provide a copy of the manuscript she was given, to translate the book - if the publisher will allow them to do that, that is. I certainly agree that it's no fault of Piers Morgan at all, to simply repeat something that was stated in a translated copy of a book, which was readily available for sale in another country. He is not to blame at all. The only ones at fault were the author & possibly the publisher, who may have provided the translator with the wrong copy of the manuscript, to be translated. The other option is that the author &/or publisher may have done that deliberately - in order to "leak" the names of the imaginary racists in the British royal family.
    1
  1156. If the officer was a "stupid white bastard" in the eyes of Sam Kerr, & she refused to apologise, then the rest of us should call her a "stupid black bitch" & also refuse to apologise to her - & see what she says & does, & how she feels!
    1
  1157. That just goes to show how very stupid most "lefties" are...
    1
  1158.  @СветланаКовальская-и5б  In some countries of which I have had personal experience in the workforce - namely the UK & Australia, when people talk about their salaries/wages - they usually do refer to the amount of salary "before tax" etc. This is despite the fact that the employer IS actually obligated to take out money for income tax, medical/health tax & pension fund contributions before giving the employee whatever remains. So the amount of money people actually receive, is only after all those amounts have already been taken out/removed. Both the UK & Australia also have free medical/health services for all conditions & for all citizens/residents, & those services have been in place for many years now. In order to have their own house in which to live though - most people in the UK/Australia would. borrow money by way of a "home loan" which would be secured by a mortgage over that home. Otherwise, few people would have enough money to be able to purchase a home with their own money. When children go to school their parents are expected to send them to school with a "packed lunch" or provide money for the child to purchase lunch at school. The children are expected to eat breakfast & dinner at home, before & after school respectively. In the UK & Australia, women in the workplace are usually provided with up to 12 months "maternity leave" on the birth of a child, following which she can return to the job she had prior to taking that leave. But they usually must have worked for their particular employer for at least 12 months to be entitled to that. And usually only a portion of that maternity leave (about 3 months I think) is provided on their normal full rate of pay, in some workplaces. Beyond that, the government in some cases, can provide a "maternity allowance" to women who may not be entitled to "maternity leave" from their employer.(eg if they have not worked for their employer for at least 12 months prior to needing maternity leave).
    1
  1159.  @СтудияПозитивчик  Where I'm from (not the USA), we also have free medical/health care - but one can also pay separately for private health insurance if one wants to - & it's not too expensive (not as expensive as the USA). Having private health insurance can sometimes help a person to be treated more quickly in hospital for some operations, for which there may be a "waiting list" with the free health service. In my country, people usually need to borrow money to be able to buy a house - but the maximum length of time for a home loan/mortgage is usually 25 years. We also don't have various sales taxes added on to the purchase price (unlike the USA) - so the price on the shelf is also the same as the price one pays at the checkout. It's great to hear that the cost of living in Russia is relatively small, compared with the amounts of money that people earn in their jobs - enabling many people not to have to borrow money to purchase a home or apartment in which to live. I did think that Russell was showing the prices of the supermarket items (in addition to the variety of items), so people watching could compare it with what they would normally pay for similar items, when they themselves go shopping. But I think the prices need to be compared with what people earn. Even so, it seems, from what people are saying in the comments here, that the cost of living in Russia, is quite low, compared with what people earn.
    1
  1160.  @VovaSidorOff  That's interesting & one would think that should not be the case. Maybe the Russian government is providing some kind of subsidy for such food products in Russia.
    1
  1161.  @VovaSidorOff  Sorry - I did not mean that they (the Russian government) were subsidising foreign/Israeli farmers - rather, I meant that after the goods have already been imported into Russia, the Russian government may then provide a subsidy to the importer, so those items can then be sold at cheaper prices in Russia, to the Russian people. But as you also indicated, there may also be some "cunning" schemes at work, which reduces the cost of those items in Russia.
    1
  1162. Let's face it - the only think that Meghan Markle will ever be good for is one heck of a jolly good laugh! Then maybe everyone should just turn their backs on her & ignore her - like she is a complete "nobody" & as though she simply does not exist. She needs to be dumped on the rubbish tip of life, so to speak..
    1
  1163.  @nickypiccallo  I agree that fathers should be equally responsible. But most of the babies/infants we see in the audience at these "sex shows for children" - are seen there with their mothers or some female person. So we assume these women have been able to determine for themselves what "entertainment" their children see, when the fathers are not around/at work. These children are therefore being exposed to sexualised content at a very young age - being groomed as future subjects for child sexual abuse.
    1
  1164. It's an immense shame on the religion of Islam & the Islamic community that they seek to deny history & destroy possible archaeological artefacts pertaining to Jews & Christians. They probably do it because their religion is inferior to Judaism & Christianity & they want to destroy any historic evidence of those religions. As far as world religions go - Islam is really the "Johnny come lately" of them all - being the most recent of the 3 religions - having come along about 600 years after Christianity. So that probably makes them feel inferior & they are trying to do something about it by destroying Jewish & Christian history. On the other hand, Muslims may be doing these atrocious things, merely because they are extremely ignorant people who are very poorly educated on historical matters.
    1
  1165. There will always be such a thing as the "court of public opinion" - & there's no way to get around that. Individuals are still free to discuss the matter privately amongst themselves & they will make up their own minds about what they will believe about the case, based on the information that they know. The media is usually only prevented from publicly discussing the case, once the court proceedings are actually underway, & this is obviously not the case at the moment - so they may be free to speculate. But as was mentioned in the above video - on this particular occasion, there have been warnings that "contempt of court" "may" still apply, even while the police are still investigating the matter & no charges have yet been laid. But despite media outlets being under such restriction, private conversations amongst individuals could still be had, even at this stage.
    1
  1166.  @johng.1703  Freedom of speech/expression, means being free to say what one wishes to say, as long as it's not libel/slander/contempt of court etc or anything else that may be illegal. I do of course realise that I am publicly discussing the issue on this site right now - but am trying to be careful not to say anything that might be considered contempt of court - such as passing a judgement on the issue one way or the other - or introducing/providing specific & detailed information in relation to the allegations or the investigation/case in question.
    1
  1167.  @rayDJ.AbdNas The laws for e- scooters do vary between different jurisdictions & it IS certainly an obligation in my city. An e-scooter rider can be fined almost $200 for not wearing the provided helmet while riding an e-scooter. That means it's an obligation in my city.
    1
  1168. Jemini29944: I have to admit there are some TV ads that I simply "don't get", or they seem to go way over my head, because I don't understand what they are about, or how the scenario relates to the product being advertised. But in the case of the Australian KFC ad, I did understand what it was about, as did most Australians, and it certainly was not about racism.
    1
  1169. ...My first impression when I saw this show was that these guys look very amateur. They appear to be speaking off the top of their heads, saying anything that sounds like a good idea at the time, and agreeing with each other on almost everything. They clearly haven't done any research, and they haven't brought in any appropriately qualified "experts", to give their "informed" opinion on the matter. If they had done that, at least it would have given the show some credibility...
    1
  1170. TonyCheekyful: I wasn't aware that Johnny O'Keefe was so well-known in America. He was certainly very popular in Australia during his time.
    1
  1171. ​ @robertjames4908 The sequel should be "The Life of Muhammad" - showing their 50 year old prophet marrying a 6 year old girl & consummating that marriage when she was 9. Also showing their prophet sucking on the fingers of little boys.
    1
  1172. Well, if my country had a stereotype that its own people thought was offensive, I wouldn't want to go around shouting about it from the rooftops. I think I'd feel ashamed and want to keep it myself. It's almost as though these two are proud of their stereortype.
    1
  1173.  Jason McElholum  You've actually made a couple of invalid assumptions there. A lot of people like yourself bandy around the term "hate speech" without having an understanding of its true meaning. People often think it just means saying negative things about other people or groups/categories of people - but that's simply not true. It actually has a very specific meaning both legally & technically & speech can only be "hate speech" if it actually incites other people to hatred of something or someone, or incites people to physical violence against others. Since the Bible verses that Folau posted were not inciting other people to hatred or violence, they cannot legally be hate speech - neither do they legally qualify as discrimination as some others have claimed - because once again the term "discrimination" has a very specific legal meaning. You also appear to be claiming that Folau is a wealthy man & I wonder on basis you make that claim, without probably ever having seen Folau's tax returns or financial statements. Many people like yourself make the grave mistake of assuming celebrities are wealthy people, without being able to prove it by any acceptable means. Some people have claimed that Folau owns properties & that may be - but it does not mean he is necessarily wealthy. For all we know, all of his properties may be mortgaged to the hilt & negatively geared - in which case the properties may be "costing" him. Whatever settlement monies he may have gotten from RA - I certainly do not begrudge him. He will need whatever monies he now has, to support himself perhaps for the rest of his life - given that he has not only been sacked but banned from playing the sport for life, & may not have much in the way of other qualifications which would be likely to get him a good job somewhere else. I believe the settlement monies were likely to have been substantial - as RA obviously wanted to prevent Folau from pursuing them through the courts for unfair dismissal - which would most likely have ruled in favour of Folau - & that would have been very embarrassing indeed for RA because they then may have been forced to reinstate him. Personally I think Folau should write a book about everything that happened to him - I think it would make fascinating reading & probably be a best-seller - but unfortunately he may have signed some sort of agreement with RA which prevents him from doing that. RA have really brought about their own downfall & brought the game into disrepute themselves with this whole Folau fiasco.
    1
  1174.  @LMatters1  And it's precisely those "consequences" which actually in turn, prevent people from having true freedom of speech & freedom of religion, if the consequences are too severe. For example, if someone said "you can say & believe anything you want, but the law says we must kill you for it if what you say & believe is different from what we think you should say & believe", then freedom of speech & religion are meaningless & do not exist. Presently the consequences of freedom of speech & religion (as exhibited in the Folau case) are way too severe to claim that those things truly exist. The terms "hate speech" & "discrimination" are bandied about by people who simply do not understand the true legal meaning of those words & only cause confusion amongst members of the general public. The Bible verses Folau posted on his social media are not legally hate speech or discrimination - as both of those terms have very specific legal meanings - but that did not stop the more ignorant people referring to Folau's post as both of those things. People should simply keep quiet & not use those terms unless they are capable of using them correctly.
    1
  1175.  Jason McElholum  I'm not sure that quoting Bible verses could qualify as "abuse" - after all, Folau was only quoting what someone else had said, but indicating that he agreed with it. Everyone should be entitled to their own views & opinions & to freely express those views. The problem is that these days for some reason people seem to think that everyone in the world should be nice & only say nice/not bad things about anyone else. That's simply never going to happen - after all there are all kinds of people in this world & if everyone were "nice" - we'd be living in perfect world/Utopia/La La land. It's living in dream land. I just wish people would wake up to themselves & have a bit of common sense. It's not illegal to offend people - but people these days seem to act as if it were.
    1
  1176.  Jason McElholum  On the contrary - I would say that you are one of the "dumber" people in this discussion. You obviously just do not understand that there are things written in the Bible which are recording (in writing) what people have said. The Bible is full of phrases starting with "I say unto you" or "I tell you now" or other similar things which indicate that people may have spoken those words, before someone then wrote them down. Folau then quoted/posted some of those Bible verses, containing what people had said. At the end of the day it is immaterial whether we claim that someone said something in the Bible, or whether they wrote something in the Bible - it can be either or both - if you're capable of understanding it properly. I never said in my original post that books talk to me - that just came from the smallness of your mind, because you could not comprehend what I wrote, or understand how the Bible is written. You seem to think that just because some books &/or their contents (depending on whether one is accessing a reprint/replication of an original book or document from many years ago) are very old - they are automatically inaccurate & untrue. That's not a wise assumption to make, unless one can conclusively prove the entire contents of the book to be untrue. We may never know for certain how true or otherwise is the content of some very old & perhaps rare books. But to dismiss all old books as untrue based purely on their age is unwise. I guess you don't believe the Doomsday Book is true either - but you're entitled to that view. What do you think about the Quran & hadiths (the Islamic holy scriptures)? On the other hand, maybe it's just the Bible that you're discriminating against, because you appear to have some sort of aversion to religions - so you believe all the other old books from around the same time/age - but reject the Bible & its contents - which just does not make any sense & is not rational. You obviously have no idea that there are many well known & famous people who are practising Christians - people like scientists, medical doctors, philosopher etc. I guess as far as you're concerned these people are dangerous & far gone & you wouldn't use a medical doctor who was a practising Christian - you'd rather die before resorting to that. Folau's post did not chastise anyone - it just mentioned that a number of different categories of people (homosexuals amongst them) would go to hell if they did not repent. He did not single out any particular group for special treatment - he treated them all equally. Rather it was another poster by the name of Mike Sephton who did single out gays/homosexuals by asking Folau what would happen to them. Folau's response was the same - that they would go to hell if they did not repent. I really don't think it's the practising Christians in our community, or even the likes of me, whom you need to watch out for as "deranged elements of society" - there are way more sinister things afoot than either of us & although those things are at work even right now - you will start to notice them even more over the next few years. So...beware...be very aware...be afraid...be very afraid...
    1
  1177.  Jason McElholum  Honestly, I just have to have a jolly good laugh at you. And I wonder how many others here are having a jolly good laugh at your expense as well. The "Be afraid...be very afraid" which I wrote at the end of my previous post was meant to be a joke, which you obviously "did not get". It's actually a well-known & well-quoted line from quite a famous 1986 movie called "The Fly" with Jeff Goldblum & Geena Davis. I confess though, the addition of "Beware...be very aware" at the start, was my own personal addition to the quote. The film is actually a horror movie of sorts. Maybe you should educate yourself & find out a bit more about the movie - just look it up right here on YouTube - you're bound to find some clips from the film. Funnily enough - I'm not sure if you're even aware that the term "clear & present danger" which you used in your last post, is actually the title of a 1994 movie starring Harrison Ford. Maybe you were using the term, without realising that. Perhaps I should suggest that you "look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls" - but since you probably don't even have any "Funk & Wagnalls", maybe you'll have to use other sources. Indeed, maybe you'll have trouble even understanding what all that means. Of course, if you don't believe in life after death, the Biblical account of creation, & other things in the Bible - that's perfectly fine by me. Equally, if Folau decides he wants to believe in the Bible, & is a practising Christian - that's also perfectly fine by me. I believe people should be entitled to believe as they wish & express those views - even if I might disagree with what they actually believe. I don't see that there's anything irrational or illogical in thinking that way (ie letting others believe as they wish) - after all, plenty of people have thought that very same way for years. In fact you yourself have demonstrated a certain level of intolerance towards people who don't see things the way you do - so I & many others would probably say that it is you who are the irrational or illogical one here. I'm certainly no "brainwashed fool/imbecile", nor a member of any kind of cult. The fact that in your last post, you found it necessary to resort to personal attacks & denigrating others who may not believe in the same things as you - simply means that you have nothing left of value to say, on the Folau issue. In fact, it sounds like you yourself may well be a part of the brainwashed & indoctrinated "politically correct brigade" - one of those "tolerant & inclusive" people who will only "tolerate" those who believe exactly as they do & are so "inclusive" that they will "exclude" anyone they cannot tolerate. But where I believe there's a wrong being committed against someone, I will stand up & let my views be known. You certainly you won't get any "peace & quiet" from me until I've said my piece! Many years spent as an activist in the national trade union movement has taught me that much. I can certainly see a VERY "Clear & Present Danger" in the way our society is becoming so intolerant of people with opposing views. So yes...be afraid...be VERY afraid...
    1
  1178.  Jason McElholum  You really are quite amusing! Do you not even realise that many movies from past years have a reputation such that many people will have heard about them long before they ever get to watch them? "The Fly" is a movie of such renown that many people will have heard of it, even if they have not seen it. Believe it or not, I've actually heard about quite a few movies from years gone by, that I've never seen, & I'm sure a lot of other people will have as well. You do say some rather silly things. One thing I have never defended is vilification - & that's why I have said what I did in relation to Folau. For quoting a few Bible verses as a practising Christian - something which is not even illegal to do - he has been vilified & punished by some sectors of society in ways that far exceed anything that he himself ever did. And therein lies the injustice. The people in those sectors of society are so intent on vindictiveness, that they will almost go to any lengths to punish a person who says, writes, or does something in their personal time, that they don't agree with. But responding in kind (ie putting their own arguments forward, or writing an article in response etc) to those with whom they may disagree is never enough for those people. They want to let the person's employer know so that their employer then disciplines them or sacks them for something they did in their personal time. In the minds of most rational people, that is far worse than anything the employee/victim may have done in the first instance. Folau's case is just the tip of the iceberg - there were many before him who have found themselves in similar situations for expressing their personal views in their personal time - something that some people obviously did not like & made the person's employer aware of - with the aim of having them disciplined, sacked, or at the very least told to keep their mouths shut, even in their own private lives. The only difference is that these people were not as famous as Folau - so their cases did not grab as many headlines. The reason I mentioned my union background is that unionists have a reputation for standing against injustice, & that is what I am doing, by speaking out in Folau's case, for the injustice he has experienced. Unionists are usually the kinds of people who are not going to just lay down & die, or keep quiet about such matters - neither will I. I will speak out whenever I see people being treated unfairly, as I believe Folau has been treated, for expressing his personal religious faith, in his own personal time. It's very interesting to note that Australia actually has some of the worst religious freedom laws in the western democratic world. It's very much behind the 8-ball in that regard, compared with many European countries that do have laws protecting religious freedoms. If there had been such religious freedoms in Australia, Folau may not have found himself in the situation that he did. You may rest assured that I already have a very good level of education - combined with quite a few years of life experience, with some extended periods of time spent living overseas, including in non-English speaking countries. I think I'm generally a fairly well-rounded person, & have had some interesting experiences. I'm by no means a narrow-minded person who has lived their life in a cocoon. I've seen enough bad things happen in other countries, which have in turn enabled me to recognise that in the last few years, Australia too has put itself on a very steep & slippery slope to a rather bad place. There is a profound lack of diversity, because the people who claim to be "tolerant", will only tolerate the views of those who see things the same way that they do - & that is not tolerance at all. It kind of reminds me of an ad that used to be on TV a number of years ago, for a non-alcoholic beverage called "Claytons". The drink was promoted by a well-known & rather macho actor - who proudly proclaimed Claytons was "the drink I have, when I'm not having a drink!". The word "tolerance" these days is a bit like "Claytons". Nowadays, it seems, "tolerance" is what people have, when they don't have any tolerance!
    1
  1179. If Muslims marry in the UK & it is only an Islamic/religious marriage ceremony, which is not legally recognised in the UK & not able to be registered in the UK, then as far as UK law is concerned, they are not married at all, & if they wanted to, the couple could each just go their own way, & a legal divorce in the UK would not be required at all. However if the parties then wanted to enter into a subsequent Islamic religious marriage, they may need to satisfy the religious authorities that they were Islamicly divorced - which is why some of them may choose to go through the Islamic form of divorce via a shariah council. On the other hand, if the couple were already married before they came to the UK as a married couple, then as long as their marriage was recognised as legal in the country where they were married, that marriage is still considered legal when they arrive in the UK - as long as it is not a form of marriage that would be considered illegal in the UK, such as a polygamous marriage where the person is not the first wife. In such cases, the UK would only recognise the first marriage & not the subsequent polygamous marriages.
    1
  1180. Things like organ & tissue donation are quite separate from blood/plasma donations, & can usually/often only be made after one dies. They also require quite a separate authorisation from either the individual or their next of kin/relatives. Blood/plasma donations need to be made by living people, who can cease donating at any time, if they wish.
    1
  1181. You'd think some of the larger & better-known retail outlets may have security cameras showing the people/fraudsters who actually "opened" the accounts - so they might be able at least to see who the person was & eventually know that it was not the same as the person, in whose name the account was opened. The retailers might also be able to pass that photo/video footage on to the police, to see if they could be identified from photos/mug shots of criminals which the police already have in their possession. But admittedly, sometimes those kinds of photos are not the best quality - so might not end up being very helpful in that regard.
    1
  1182. Regardless of whether the victim was an autistic person or not, I still think it is extremely high-handed of the police to have acted in this way towards anyone at all - just because one of them may have taken offence at what the person said, which, who knows - may have been genuinely what the "victim" thought. I don't think it bodes well for anyone in the community to be treated that way by the police, just because of something they said. These days, it seems that the word "phobic" is being used by way too many ignorant & stupid people, who do not know the correct meaning of the word, & bandy it around incorrectly, using it to refer to anyone that is perceived as saying something negative, about the LGBTIQ+ community. In reality, the dictionary defines a "phobia" as someone who has an irrational & unfounded fear of something. Maybe the police & anyone else who uses the term "phobic" incorrectly, should be instructed to go out & purchase for themselves a good quality dictionary, to learn the correct meaning of the word. Otherwise, we are going to be allowing the ignorant & stupid people of the world to re-define the meaning of the words in the English language.
    1
  1183. AussieBrock:... I'm afraid baseball analogies don't work with me because I know nothing about that game, and am not American.
    1
  1184. Sharia "councils" are not recognised by the UK legal system as having authority under British law to make legally valid & binding decisions in the UK. However, Muslims may resort to, or refer themselves to these Sharia "councils", for decisions on certain types of matters, which are compliant with Islamic religious law, & to which Muslims may voluntarily agree to be bound. In the UK though, British law is the only legally recognised law, & it supersedes any other form of law which individuals may recognise & choose to comply with. If people choose to make themselves subject to other laws in addition to the British law, which applies to everyone in the UK, then that is their own business.
    1
  1185. Every law will have some type of "victim", which is not always an individual person or human being. A victim could be any recognised legal entity - including an individual person or group of people, a registered company, or the Crown/government/state.
    1
  1186. Indeed these 2 "supposed" nurses need to be sacked & their licences to work as nurses in Australia totally revoked. Then if they are now Australian citizens, they need to have their citizenships revoked & they then need to be deported back to their countries of origin.
    1
  1187. Douglas1102:...Yes, millions of people in America who have misinterpretted the ad have found it offensive, and they certainly don't need anyone's permission to be offended. But there are also millions of people in the rest of the world who haven't found it offensive, because if they had, we'd certainly be hearing a lot more from them, instead of mainly from America. I am unaware of any official complaints of racism being lodged by other countries with substantial populations...
    1
  1188. In reality, I think many churches these days are just allowing themselves to be led by the popular societal & politically correct beliefs of the time & just "going with the flow" as it were - rather than sticking with their genuine Bible-based beliefs & setting an example for the rest of society. So instead of Christians leading the society & setting the example - they are allowing themselves to be led by the rest of society.
    1
  1189. Yes it's true that Muhammad was a great war lord in his time & looked to kill, & capture, so Islam could be the dominant religion & force in that region. There was certainly nothing "peaceful" at all, about Muhammad & his practices. He may have occasionally "preached" peace - but he certainly did not set an example by actually practising it.
    1
  1190. Yes - I believe it was the Free Church of England - & the officiant looks like it was the bishop (most ordinations need to be performed by a bishop). I think they said his name was Gavin Ashenden.
    1
  1191. NikJnr:The reason the guy gives them chicken is because KFC are major sponsors of the cricket, and therefore KFC is probably the only food for sale at the cricket match. The reason he is a lone Aussie supporter amongst the opposition fans is because the match might be in the West Indies, where the West Indians are the majority in the crowd. If the match is in Australia - maybe the only ticket he could get was one in the opposition's stand/area.
    1
  1192. therepublicanknight:...And the black people in the ad are not even black African American people - they are West Indian, and in the ad they are supporting their West Indian cricket team.
    1
  1193. Jemini29944: The reverse could also be said. Many Australians just think that some Americans are being overly sensitive about the ad and trying to read too much into it - things that were never intention of the ad.
    1
  1194. No they do not.
    1
  1195.  @Deltasource  I believe Pinhead's reference to the SSM debate was in relation to the actions of the LGBT community who claimed that the SSM vote was only about that & nothing else would change. Instead, ever since then, the LGBT community & its supporters has had quite an aggressive agenda in pushing for further rights & entitlements, to the point where they now seem to be able to exert a level of power & influence which is way beyond their relatively small size in the overall community. If people don't believe that it's acceptable to be LGBT (due to their religious beliefs), they now often seem to be castigated for those beliefs by the LGBT community & its supporters. Even way before Folau there were quite a number of Christian people (not as famous as Folau) who were targeted by the LGBT community & its supporters for things they may have said or done in their private life, which might have been interpreted as indicating they did not support the LGBT community. The LGBT community made their employers aware of what they had said/done, & some of them were then disciplined by their employers & came very close to losing their jobs. The LGBT community can be very vindictive in this regard. For example, one middle-aged Christian woman of Sri-Lankan background, who is also a well-known sexologist in Australia, was invited in her personal time (not as part of her job), to address a group of students at a Christian school about general matters pertaining to sexuality. As a Christian, & since she was addressing students at a Christian school, in her address to the students, she spoke about the Biblical teaching of remaining celibate until one marries. A week or so after she had given that address she was called in by her employer, who had received a complaint about the address she had given at that school. The complaint had been lodged by the parent of one of the students, who was an LGBT community supporter, & it was a complaint about the fact that the woman had informed the students of the Biblical teaching about abstention from sexual relationships prior to marriage, because the parent felt that this teaching was biased against homosexuals. The woman's employer told her that she should not have spoken about the Biblical teaching on abstention from sexual relationships prior to marriage & should have addressed the students in a purely secular manner. This was despite the fact that the woman had not given the address as a part of her job - but purely as a private citizen & as a Christian sexologist. She had been asked by a Christian school to address their students. Nevertheless the woman was severely censured by her employer & was at risk of losing her job. For the same reason, that parent "reported" the woman to the professional association of which she was a member, & she almost lost her membership of that organisation, which would have meant that she could no longer work as a sexologist in Australia. Had it not been for the fact that a Christian lobbying organisation stepped in to assist this woman in her legal case against her employer & her professional association - she may well have lost her job. There are a number of other cases like this one, of which I am aware, where such unwarranted actions by members of the LGBT community have caused the lives & livelihoods of Christians to be severely disrupted to the point where they have almost lost their jobs or businesses. The LGBT community can certainly be very aggressive & vindictive when it wants to - even with members within its own community who may not always see eye to eye with the actions of the LGBT community. I don't believe religious communities expect any special rights over & above anyone else - but they certainly would not expect to be discriminated against in the way that Folau has been discriminated against in the Rugby Australia fiasco. He has done nothing illegal or criminal - yet he was sacked & banned for life by RA for simply posting some Bible verses as a practising Christian. There are plenty of other rugby players who have done far worse things - illegal & even criminal things - yet they are still playing rugby & RA says that it's all fine & dandy for them to do that with impunity & apply to them minimal or no punishment. However, the minute a rugby player who is also a practising Christian posts some Bible verses on their social media which happens to mention homosexuality amongst other things - that suddenly becomes worthy of sacking & banning for life, due to the now huge influence of the LGBT community & their aggressive push to punish anyone who does not support their community & views. What Folau did was neither illegal nor criminal, nor did he even breach his personal rugby contract. Ultimately RA claimed they were sacking him for breaching the player's code of conduct (& "bringing the game into disrepute"), which was a very generalised code that supposedly applies to all the players - yet failed to punish those players who had previously committed illegal & even criminal acts. According to RA - those players did not even breach the players code of conduct! It's obvious from this that RA & many of the players & rugby supporters have a clear double standard & demonstrate hypocrisy in all of their actions. Because of this, it's clear that Folau has been discriminated against purely because of his religious beliefs & the immense pressure brought to bear on RA by the LGBT community. The Bible verses that Folau posted, whilst indicating that practising homosexuals (amongst many other categories of people) will go to hell unless they repent, do not meet the legal definition of either "hate speech" or "discrimination" - so Folau could not possibly be legally charged with either of these things. Although a lot of people who did not know any better, accused Folau of things like hate speech & discrimination - this was simply not true & the people who made those accusations simply had no idea of what those words really meant. The verses that Folau quoted did not incite/encourage people to hatred of others, or incite people to commit acts of violence against others - therefore they were not hate speech. Discrimination involves actual actions taken against individual people. Thus Bible verses (the written word) which only make reference to certain groups or categories of people is not legally discrimination. By any definition - RA has discriminated against Folau for his religious beliefs, & they will ultimately pay the penalty for this & have no-one to blame but themselves. As for the rest of us - we'll just be laughing at that silly little bunch of idiots...
    1
  1196. TonyCheekyful:...I think everyone realises by now how much censorship there must be in American TV programmes and ads. Much of the stuff on Australian TV simply would not be allowed in America, I think.
    1
  1197. And hopefully neither you nor any of your family members will ever need a blood transfusion or other blood products. I was prohibited for about 20 years or so from donating blood in Australia because I had lived in the UK for more than 6 months when mad cow disease was prevalent over there. I accepted that restriction, because I knew that it was in the interests of safety of the blood supply. But as soon as they announced (on 25 July, 2022) that people like me could re-commence donating blood/plasma - I started donating again.
    1
  1198.  @chairmandan1794  I'll agree to disagree with you on that point.
    1
  1199.  @chairmandan1794  I also speak from my experience of the blood bank - since I started donating as a university student in the 1970's/1980's.
    1
  1200. Those women were behaving like a real bunch of Nazi's - Hitler would have recruited them for his SS!
    1
  1201. Perhaps G is not "misguided" - just ignorant, confused, & not intelligent enough to be able to understand the difference between guidance & legislation. Even if a person does not like or understand the law, they are still required to obey the law, or face the consequences. I suspect that G could find themselves in a lot of trouble with the law if they are not careful. Perhaps they should consult & pay a barrister for legal advice if they are not sure about the meaning of the legislation. Based on the content of their message - G is definitely NOT a person who has any kind of faith, or they would not resort to personal attacks & name calling of someone they do not know. Certainly no blessings from God would be coming their way for that behaviour. In any kind of competitive debate/discussion with trained adjudicators - a person who simply resorted to personal attacks & name calling of the opposition, may well be disqualified for going "off-topic", or at the very least would definitely not score any points at all - because points are usually only awarded for putting forward a valid argument for/against the topic, not for personal abuse of the other team. In addition, if anyone resorts to personal attacks in a debate it is seen to be a sign of great weakness because it means they just could not come up with any decent arguments for their own side of the debate - & that is probably a reflection of their level of intelligence. Perhaps G should open up their own advice business called "Tuppenny-halfpennyBackYardBarista" with the slogan - "everything just tuppence-halfpenny - & worth every penny of it!"
    1
  1202. Markle certainly makes up a lot of things - including her own definitions of words. Or maybe it's just a sign of her own stupidity - that she neither knows nor understands the correct dictionary definitions of the words that she so badly uses.
    1
  1203. Well, in addition to cancelling my monthly donation to World Vision (because as a result of TYT, I now realise that giving food to black people - especially if it's chicken - is racist), I have now decided that I won't help send food to the black people of Haiti. Racism must be avoided, no matter what the cost - that's why I won't help send chicken to Haiti!
    1
  1204. Even before religion, the world was not a perfect place - & it won't be a perfect place even if you ban all religion now. There are still too many evil forces at play in the world - like all the "woke" people who want to cancel/ban everyone who does not hold the same opinion as they do. There are corrupt Marxist organisations like Black Lives Matter - whose aim is to destroy the world system as we now know it & re-build everything in an image of their own creation. Then there are groups like the World Economic Forum, who insist on telling us that we'll all be happy when we own nothing. How would they know? Goodness only knows - they apparently think they have the ability to see into the future.
    1
  1205. I wonder why there are no other predominantly black countries jumping up and down waving the racism banner? Could it be that none of those other countries think the ad is racist? It's probably because none of them have even heard about that "American racial stereotype" of associating black people with chicken. That is purely an American racist invention,existing only in America. I'm sure the rest of the world would be most grateful if America just kept their stereotypes to themselves!
    1
  1206. These students seem like an absolute pack of drongos & morons that should never have even been allowed to attend university in the first place. If the campus police were unable to act - the regular police just should have been called in, & the students dragged away, & charges pressed against them. How did such stupid people ever come to be allowed to attend university anyway? All of them should have just been expelled from the university & charges pressed against them for threatening violence like that.
    1
  1207. "Acts are not law" - if this were the case - what would be the point in the government/Parliament making them in the first place? Just to give themselves something to do & make them feel important? Even my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary defines an "act" as a "decree passed by a legislative body etc., statute, verificatory legal document" - so clearly these people are not smart enough to be able to look up the correct meaning of the words in good quality dictionary of the English language. "Parliament" is defined as "Council forming with the Sovereign the supreme legislature of the United Kingdom". "Legislature" is defined as the "legislative body of a State". "Legislate" means to "Enact laws; make provision by laws". "Legislation" is "(Enacting of) laws". So, with all those dictionary definitions of the words, I don't understand how someone could possibly claim that "Acts are not laws" or "legislation is not law", once it has gone through the normal parliamentary process to become law. Perhaps the people making such claims, do not have a sufficient understanding of the English language - even if they had the ability to look things up in dictionary. Or perhaps they cannot read - so are unable to look thing up in a dictionary.
    1
  1208. This is not the first time that a government has demanded that Apple hand over information from its customers' iPhones. It has previously happened in the US as well. In the US case, Apple refused to hand over that information to the government. The secrecy effect of end to end encryption, however, can usually be done away with, by something like "client side scanning" - which scans the message the phone is going to send, before the message actually gets encrypted & sent. This is possible because the encryption usually only happens immediately prior to any message being sent. It was not that long ago that Apple was planning to activate this client side scanning on its customers' phones, but decided against doing that when there was a huge outcry about it.
    1
  1209. gcmc2: Yes, I think TYT have certainly embarrassed not only themselves, but their country as well, by advertising their own racial stereotypes to the rest of the world. It's not exactly the sort of thing most people would want to boast about, or have widely known. But TYT seem to want to do that.
    1
  1210.  @MinisterRedPill  It does not matter what type of mobile phone one has (& whether it is a de-Googled phone or not) - the carrier will always know what IMEI number is being used to connect to their network, because an IMEI number is a necessary requirement to connect to any phone network. However this information (ie what IMEI number is being used to connect a particular phone number to their network) is confidential to the phone carrier & in theory at least, cannot be released to any third parties such as law enforcement, without a warrant. The information that your mobile phone carrier holds about you & your phone account with them is also confidential - except where law enforcement has a warrant for the release of that information. The accuracy of location information on the basis of an IMEI alone, is not that great.
    1
  1211. All authorities need to be held to account & that does not mean that they then don't help you when you need help yourself. The police should be impartial - but they have now become just a bunch of impotent wusses not capable of doing anything except dance the macarena.
    1
  1212. Yes, the lack of public hygiene - with people spitting a lot in public, & allowing their children to urinate in public is certainly very unhealthy - so it's no wonder, whenever there is disease going around, it often takes hold very strongly throughout China. Maybe they need to follow the example set by Singapore & introduce very hefty fines for doing things like those in public. I think that would soon put a stop to those unhealthy public practices, as well as in the meantime creating a lot of revenue for the government that could be put into Chinese healthcare facilities. It certainly seems to have worked well for Singapore, which has a reputation for being probably the cleanest country in Asia.
    1
  1213.  @bukanbuta7401  In his videos, Winston has pointed out the bad things about both his home country of South Africa, & his adopted country of China. Let's face it - if no-one points out the bad things other people & countries do - they are never likely to stop doing those bad things. It's a form of "customer feedback". In the same way, if no-one complains about shops or other businesses that engage in bad practices, like defrauding their customers - those same shops & businesses will never stop doing that & improve their level of service. Unfortunately Chinese people often have to "learn the hard way" that forms of behaviour which appear to be acceptable in their own country, are often considered rude, & just unacceptable in western countries.
    1
  1214. Even though Jews, Christians, & Muslims are all said to follow "Abrahamic" religions, the "Gods" that they follow are all very different, as described in the scriptures of each of those religions.
    1
  1215. Very well said indeed - just dig that knife into them all as hard & as far as it will possibly go, & then give it a good old twist every which way but loose - figuratively speaking, of course...
    1
  1216. Yes - it's possible that even if you've never had a Facebook account or any of Facebook's associated apps & sites - they may still have built a dossier/profile of you using information posted on Facebook about you by your friends who may have Facebook accounts. For example, if your friends posted a group photo including you, on their Facebook page, then "tagged" you in that photo using your real name - Facebook would have a record of your name & matching photo. Then if those same friends had uploaded their contacts list to Facebook when they joined, & your name, address, date of birth & phone numbers were in that contact list, Facebook would then also have all those details in their records for you, & would be able to match it up with your photo & name which your friend had "tagged" in that group photo they uploaded. So now they have a dossier of information on you - even though you yourself have never had a Facebook account.
    1
  1217. Actually, that's quite surprising, as I would have thought they don't normally reject potential new donors - unless their blood is not suitable for donation, or they are beyond the acceptable age limit, or they simply don't have any vacant appointment time slots at that particular donor centre at that time.
    1
  1218. While their titles may be the Duke & Duchess of Sussex, they certainly do not appear to have done anything at all for the people or the region of Sussex - in fact neither Harry nor Meghan even want to live in the same country where Sussex is located. All they are doing is using those titles to make an awful lot of money for themselves - & none of that money is going back to the people of Sussex.
    1
  1219. This video channel has not thrown anything to the wind - it is just trying to explain the legal process & how things might happen & what certain actions might mean or indicate - especially if they are things which might be happening which are rather unusual. No official view has been expressed by the channel's creator, as to Brand's guilt or innocence.
    1
  1220. I most definitely agree with the Home Secretary & I think most British people do - the London Police are VERY biased in the way they are policing these street protests/demonstrations & everything seems to be very much in favour of pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian, pro-terrorist demonstrations - no matter what violence & hatred inciting chants/slogans they shout out. The police claim they are powerless to do anything! The last time I looked at the laws in the UK - it WAS against the law to incite hatred & violence - & no matter how often it happens in these protests, the police do nothing at all. They really do need to grow themselves a pair of "balls"! But I guess they're just way too busy arresting people for silently praying in their heads outside medical clinics & arresting autistic young women for saying that a female police officer resembles her lesbian grandmother! They're far too busy arresting individuals who have said a few words that have allegedly offended someone else - even though what they said was not illegal, nor was it inciting violence or hatred But anything that looks like it might be "too much hard work", or require a bit more effort on their part - just gets put into their "way too hard" basket! They don't want to strain themselves - all they want is a nice cushy job. Some things are just too difficult for them - like enforcing the law by also arresting shoplifters, thieves & pursuing burglars etc. Unfortunately, the pro-Israeli supporters & demonstrators during this conflict are getting a really raw deal here & just do not stand a chance & are not allowed to demonstrate in the streets - unlike the pro-Hamas terrorist supporters. The Home Secretary has way more "balls" than the entire police force! She says it like it is - she says what most of us are being prevented from saying or doing. Long live the Home Secretary! But it's not just the police who are biased & in favour of the pro-Hamas terrorist supporters - it is for the most part, a majority of the mainstream media - including the on-line media. Unfortunately, most of the media has simply "gone Nazi" on the UK. These people are absolutely unbelievable - they are so dedicated to the pro-Hamas cause that they would still be shouting their violent pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian slogans as they watch Hamas butcher their entire families & then butcher them!. And that's without even truly understanding what the issues in the middle-East are really all about!
    1
  1221. I must say that from the outset, when I heard that Prince Harry had become engaged to a divorced American actress in the form of Meghan Markle - I did not hold out much hope for the marriage. The fact that Meghan was not a British citizen, or even a British subject, or a citizen of a British Commonwealth country - was likely to be a problem - in addition to the fact that she was a divorcee. As a non British citizen or British subject - she would have no real allegiance to Great Britain, & as a divorcee, I really doubted her whole of life commitment to the marriage with Prince Harry - when her own previous marriage had been extremely short-lived (even though she had been in a relationship with her previous husband for quite a number of years prior to them getting married - the actual marriage itself was very short-lived). The fact that scarcely one year after her marriage to Harry, they are now disappearing from Great Britain to live in Canada - comes as no surprise. Since she is not British - she has no ties to the UK apart from Harry - & since Harry is also going to Canada, there are no further ties to the UK for her.
    1
  1222.  Nick Bauer  That may be. They may also be settling in Canada right now - because that is what Meghan is familiar with more recently - since she probably would have lived there when she was filming that TV series "Suits". But since she still has family members in the US (even though she no longer appears to have a good relationship with her father & some of her siblings), she may eventually want to move back to the US, with Prince Harry. And her mother (with whom she apparently still has a good relationship) is apparently still living in the USA.
    1
  1223. Just thought of another one - "The Yankee Twits". Anyone else got any good suggestions?
    1
  1224. The police have already declared this an act of terrorism. Unfortunately, the followers of the so-called "religion of peace" are not always peaceful, & follow the teachings of its scriptures, which in some parts encourage violence against other religions. Obviously someone from that religion of peace, decided they did not like something the bishop said, & decided to follow those instructions in their religion's scriptures, to kill those who do not agree with the teachings in their scriptures. No doubt the attacker probably also haa some serious mental health issues, as do most of the followers of that "religion of peace".
    1
  1225. The Pegasus software/spyware is believed to have been responsible for the surveillance/spying on of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi (by the Saudi government), prior to his assassination at the Saudi embassy in Turkey. The Pegasus spyware is manufactured by the Israeli company NSO Group, who claim only to sell it to governments that need to be able to spy on people. Funnily enough, when I mentioned on another channel, the dangers of spyware operating through messaging apps like "WhatsApp" - I was made fun of by one commenter who said that these messaging companies only sell their customer information for the purposes of advertising & selling people products - not so that anyone can get a hold of your messaging app ID & send you messages which include spyware like Pegasus. I responded to this person quoting the very real revelations about the Pegasus spyware & suggested that perhaps they might not have read all the latest news about this type of spyware. Once messaging companies have sold a user's details - including their messaging name/user ID - there's no way to prevent its misuse, unfortunately. Ironically, Apple iPhones tend to have been more frequently affected by this type of spyware, despite iPhone's claims to be more private & secure - which might lull its users into a false sense of security. This is more than likely because most iPhones are basically the same, having the same hardware, software & operating systems, within any single version of the phone. So it may be easier to create a single piece of spyware to more readily infiltrate such phones. Also, remember that iPhones in particular, can be tracked even when they are turned off, & it is not possible to adjust the phone's settings to get rid of this tracking. When switched off, an iPhone basically behaves like an air-tag & the only way it cannot be tracked, is to store it in a good quality Faraday bag. This is not usually the case with Google Android phones, which usually aren't tracked when switched off & the appropriate settings are on the phone. Google Android phones, have a great deal of variety - with a number of different makes & models of phones, all with different hardware, software, & different Google operating systems. This may work to its advantage, by making it more difficult for a single piece of spyware to be designed that could infiltrate all the different varieties of Google Android Phones. Also, "WhatsApp" has never enjoyed a reputation as being a particularly private or secure messaging app. I've never used it & would never use it, nor would I recommend it to anyone - despite its supposed popularity around the world in many different countries. But that's not to say that other messaging apps could not also be used to deliver spyware to someone's mobile phone. I think the best message here is, to keep a close eye on messages sent to your phone, & if you believe your phone may have been compromised by any message - cover your phone's camera & microphone immediately. Stop using your phone for messaging & if possible, use a temporary replacement phone. In some circumstances it may be necessary to get a new phone number, if your messaging app uses your phone number. or you may need to create a new user ID in your messaging app. Make sure you don't have any sensitive data or material on your mobile phone. That sort of information is usually more safely maintained on a computer with a separate hard drive. Take your phone to a specialist, to determine whether it really has been compromised & if so, & the spyware cannot be completely removed from the phone - you may be best advised just to get a new phone & phone number & change your messaging app user ID's. Also, consider using a more private & secure messaging app - such as "Session". Don't ever give your phone to anyone else & don't tell anyone else your phone's access code/log-in details - as it will be much easier for someone else to "hack" your phone when they have it in their possession.
    1
  1226. I'm fairly sure that in the UK, the accusers/complainants themselves would need to make the allegations & the decision to pursue the matter through the court, if there is enough evidence - though that's not always the case in other countries - & in some countries, I believe the police can still take the matter to court, if it is known that an offence has occurred. But if it's just a matter of someone doing an "investigation" - the police would obviously need to do an investigation themselves, if they are going to take the matter to court. But apart from that, I guess anyone would be able to do their own separate "private" investigation if they wished - just as Channel 4 & the Sunday Times have already done themselves. But these private investigations would have nothing to do with the court case - apart from maybe being able to pass on any information they gathered from their own investigations, for use by the police.
    1
  1227. GusPhillips:Actually, the scenario of the ad would have been suited to sharing any type of food or drink at all with the West Indies supporters. And I agree that KFC is not the best chicken product on the market. But KFC is the major sponsor of the cricket, and had exclusive advertising rights during the cricket telecasts, so the ad would not have been about any other kind of food. It was also probably the only food for sale at the cricket match.
    1
  1228. I wonder what "qualifications" these two have to pass comment on the issue. Are they experts in racism and discrimination? I somehow doubt it because they have revealed their ignorance by assuming the people in the ad are African American and applying their usual American stereotypes, when the people in the ad are not black Americans and the setting is not even America. Did these two even go to university I wonder? If they did, it couldn't have been a very good one!
    1
  1229. ... In the end, the Australian ad was withdrawn, not because it was racist (which it wasn't), but because KFC was an American company who might have lost some of their American market, as a result of Americans misinterpretting the ad. Money talks - and it's all about money, not racism.
    1
  1230. I always thought it was extremely strange in Islam how 4 witnesses were required to testify that an offence/crime had been committed - especially for the more serious crimes like adultery & murder, where the punishments were very severe. After all, who in their right mind would commit adultery in front of 4 witnesses, if they can be stoned to death for adultery? Any sane person would seek to commit such crimes when, as far as they were aware, there was no-one around to see them, so they did not get caught. And that probably explains why such crimes were rarely discovered & therefore rarely prosecuted. But even if there did happen to be a witness or witnesses hidden away somewhere, of which the perpetrators were unaware - is it likely that there would be 4 such witnesses? It just never made much sense at all to me.
    1
  1231. bvwcad: Well, I already know for a fact that based on the three episodes of TYT I have now seen - I certainly won't be watching any more of their shows. They simply don't present the in-depth high-level and objective coverage of the issues that I would like, and they obviously don't bring in any experts to cover the issues. TYT is not for me, I'm afraid - and probably also not for a lot of other Australians.
    1
  1232. dayal35: I certainly don't think it's fair to say that all 22 million of Australians are racist white skinned people. In fact a reasonable proportion of them are not even white skinned at all - but at least people in Australia seem to get along together somewhat better than in other countries like America. Australia certainly hasn't had as many racial "incidents" as America in modern times. Perhaps you should do a little research and maybe give yourself a better idea of Australia's ethnic mix.
    1
  1233. @-Justme123-  Absolutely - all women & their children deserve far better than to be just a 2nd wife to any man. Trouble is, so many people these days still do not know enough about Islam, to know what it truly represents. And the minute anyone tries to be constructively critical of it, they are howled down as being Islamophobic & told that Islam is a religion of peace. Those who have read the Quran & at least some of the more so-called "reliable" hadiths for themselves, will easily know that Islam is ANYTHING BUT a religion of peace. But most Muslims will try to put a positive spin on their religion when talking to non-Muslims, even going so far as to quote verses from the Quran out of context - & most non-Muslims will just accept what Muslims tell them about Islam, because they do not know any better, & have never read the Quran for themselves. Any non-Muslim who has read the Quran & some of the hadiths for themselves, will know that there are indeed some very strange & "not so peaceful" teachings in those Islamic scriptures. In fact, I find it rather ironic that the only "peaceful" Muslims, are those who do NOT follow the teachings of the Quran "to the letter". If all Muslims closely followed & practised the teachings of the Quran, they would all be regarded as "radical fundamentalist" Muslims. One also needs to realise that Islam did not exist as a religion till roughly 600 years after Christianity, & it takes a rather aggressive view of both Judaism & Christianity, because neither of those pre-existing religions at that time would recognise Muhammad as a prophet. So Muhammad's new religion of Islam eventually became quite hostile towards Jews & Christians, because they would not accept him. The Islamic prophet Muhammad also married a 6 year old girl (Ayesha - who was the daughter of one of his followers), & consummated the marriage with her when she was 9 years old. And most Muslims even these days do not have a problem with that sort of thing - often claiming it was just the custom during Muhammad's time. Yet one never reads in the Bible of men marrying 6 year old girls. And to this day, in many Muslim majority countries, child marriage is still very common, because they try to follow the example set by their prophet Muhammad. I am so glad you did not convert to Islam, & remained a Christian, throughout your ordeal with your former Muslim partner, & are now moving on with your life. I sincerely wish you & your daughter all the very best, both now, & into the future.
    1
  1234. I'm inclined to agree with maxine2win - they should really change their name to TWT - "The W---king Turks"
    1
  1235. Yes - the "thought police" are most definitely "alive & well" in the UK - & have been so for a number of years now - as experienced by a friend of mine almost 5 years ago. He had a visit from the police checking up on him at his home to make sure his "thinking is right" (the exact words of the police) - though I don't think they ended up actually charging him with anything at that time. But this more recent incident of the British "thought police" reading people's minds - is a timely reminder that in the UK, one can indeed be charged with what amounts to "thought crime" - because it relates to what one is doing & thinking in one's head. The lady that the police arrested for "silently praying in her head", did not apparently make an absolute confession of praying, but when asked by the police whether she was "praying", simply said that she "might have been". Often, when put on the spot by someone at a given time (when I'm not at work & not doing anything in particular) & asked "what are you thinking right at this vry instant?" - I'm not actually aware that I'm "thinking" about any one particular thing at all. Hence I can understand the lady's response when she only indicated she "might have been" praying - when asked by the police whether she was praying - so she was then arrested. But what I would be very interested to know, is that, short of the police & the legal system having some sort of magical mind-reading or lie-detector machine - how can the court actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt, what the lady may have been doing "silently in her head"? And even though she said she "might have been" praying - how can the court know that for certain - or indeed know for certain that she was not lying, & may have instead been doing something else in her head at that time? If she had not told the police, when questioned that she "might have been" praying - would the police still have arrested her? If she had denied to them outright that she was praying - would they have still arrested her? Is this a message that people should never admit to police that they are "praying" even silently in their head - or they could risk being arrested? It also strikes me that even though she said she "might have been" praying - no-one actually thought to ask her what she was actually praying "about" - they just arrested her. Normally, when one "prays" - one prays about specific things or requests. There's been no indication or admission as to what was being prayed "about" - so for all we know - it's quite possible she may have been praying about an entirely un-related matter which had nothing to do with the clinic so was not an "act of approval or disapproval". Simply the act of "praying", by itself, is not an indication of approval or disapproval, unless one knows for certain what the person is praying "about". If the lady had responded to the police by saying she was just "thinking" - which is not a specifically banned activity according to the regulations, & is also not necessarily an "act of approval or disapproval" - unless you happen to be a mind reader & know what the person is actually thinking "about" - would she still have been arrested? For this lady then to have been prohibited from praying anywhere at all - does sound very restrictive to me, in relation to a person's religious freedom. Perhaps she could now go around standing silently on street corners in public places, & when asked by the police whether she was praying, simply claim to be "thinking" about the clinic - since she does not appear to have been specifically prohibited from "thinking" - at least not just yet! Almost 5 years ago now, a friend of mine received a visit from the police in their home one day. After some discussion, the police eventually mentioned that the purpose of their visit was to "make sure your thinking is right". My friend had, a short while prior to that, been involved in an on-line discussion/debate on a social media web site. My friend had responded to a comment someone else had made, but expressing a different point of view. The discussion had been conducted in a fairly pleasant & orderly manner - there was no written swearing or abuse - although a number of different views had been expressed about the topic. A day or so later, & much to my friend's surprise, he received a visit at his home from a couple of police officers. The police indicated that one of the other people who had participated in that on-line discussion, had reported my friend to the police. This person had apparently claimed that they had been offended by the different view that my friend had expressed & may have also accused him of some sort of hate speech. The police were visiting my friend to interview him in relation to that complaint. It was clear to my friend that the police also did not agree with the view my friend had expressed in the on-line discussion which had taken place, & told my friend that he should not have been thinking that way - even though, during the course of the original on-line discussion, nor even subsequently, none of the participants had been sanctioned by the social media site for not complying with any if its terms of use. The police officers stated the purpose of their visit to my friend was to "make sure your thinking is right" (the police officer's exact words to him). To the best of my knowledge, no criminal charges were ever laid or pursued by the complainant, or the police. It seems the police were satisfied with just being able to correct my friend's thinking! So from that point on, almost 5 years ago, I became aware that the thought police were indeed alive & well in the UK. And it's nice to see that even to this very day, the British "thought police" are obviously still going strong - out & about, & continuing to correct people's thoughts! Are the government authorities so afraid of "the power of prayer" that they do not want this lady praying anywhere at all? Perhaps all the local churches in the area should get together & surround her so the police cannot see that she is in their midst - then all pray publicly together as close as they are all allowed to get, to that clinic. It seems that, instead of evolving & improving & becoming smarter as time passes, certain categories of people like the police & some government authorities, are actually "devolving" - going backwards & becoming more stupid with the passing of time. The proponents of "woke-ness" & "cancel culture" proudly go about preaching "tolerance, diversity & inclusiveness" - yet they will only "tolerate" those who agree with them & so often seek to cancel & destroy everyone else. And in order to be "inclusive" they have to "exclude" certain people they do not like. Ironically, it seems to be those who don't go about so loudly proclaiming their supposed "tolerance & diversity", who are far more tolerant, diverse & inclusive than anyone else - they just don't advertise it as much. It is indeed a very "slippery slope" to insist that people be arrested & criminally charged for praying silently in their heads, or indeed doing anything else in their heads, of which the authorities may not approve & have in fact legislated against. It seems like they've been listening to far too many "woke" & "cancel culture" proponents. Yes - 1984 has already arrived & has been with us for several years now.
    1
  1236. It is becoming a pretty pathetic situation, especially in the UK - where if a person says anything negatively critical at all about a person or group of people, one is almost immediately accused of racism, Islamophobia etc. The people using these terms are, more often than not, totally ignorant of the true dictionary definitions of these terms, & are using them incorrectly. And let's face it, these days there is a lot of criticism in the media, by various groups, of white British people - claiming they are white colonialists & racists etc., as well as criticisms of Christianity, & favouring Islam over & above Christianity etc. So in future, any time THAT happens, maybe we should also start calling that out & refering to it as racism & calling those people racists & "Christianophobes" etc.
    1
  1237. Tonycheeky: Agreed! After completing high school, it takes at least four years (or more, depending on the area of study) to get a bachelor's degree (with honours), - then about a further two years to get a masters degree. But if this TYT show is a true reflection of her ability to analyse all the issues, then I doubt she would have succeeded in her studies at an Australian university.
    1
  1238. PragnorVorn: Actually, it wasn't only the lead singer of the group who was Indian. The entire group was either Indian or Sri-Lankan, including the "back-up" singers. I didn't believe the sketch was racist.
    1
  1239. I'm sure there are some in this forum who would say we should not boycott anything, because of the potential effect it will have on the employees, or the people of the country concerned, etc. That is not my view. When people advocated boycotting South Africa long before Nelson Mandela's release, people said not to boycott the country because it was the blacks (the people we were trying to help) who would suffer the most...
    1
  1240. The apartment was quite nice & the price is not too bad (from a western viewpoint), considering it is mostly furnished. But I do wonder how affordable it would be for a Russian family, earning Russian wages. But to my way of thinking, there is a lot of wasted space - especially in that large foyer area, & in the bathroom & a bit in the main bedroom. Personally, I would make those areas somewhat smaller & rather have an extra bedroom instead, which to my way of thinking, would be more practical, especially for a family. I would also prefer a shower in the bathroom.
    1
  1241. Harry & Meghan are not even officially "royals" any more because they are no longer permitted to use the titles of His/Her Royal Highnesses - so William & Kate were actually the "only" royals there. An international correspondent should be expected to know better & this one was obviously no good at all.
    1
  1242. balancedss: Well, I was actually thinking of all predominantly black countries, not just the more developed ones - but you are probably right to limit it to developed countries, though admittedly there aren't too many of those. However, I haven't heard of any feedback from Bermuda on this issue.
    1
  1243. Jemini29944:...I think this is essentially what most Americans find hard to understand - that the rest of the world does not know of these stereotypes.
    1
  1244. Well, I think that if we wanted a "proper" opinion on this issue, we would seek out an expert, who at the very least had a few credentials in the area of racism and racial discrimination. It's clear these people did not want a proper opinion - just their own uninformed view.
    1
  1245. I think the Israeli government is just trying to protect the inhabitants of Israel & Jerusalem by erecting the wall & installing checkpoints. Prior to the wall, Israel had been the victim of rocket attacks from Palestine & also passenger bus bombings. Since the wall & the checkpoints have been there, these kinds of incidents have now been reduced.
    1
  1246. claniraq:The reason the ad wasn't meant to be shown in Australia is not because they knew it would be offensive there (only an American could possibly interpret it that way) - but because the ad is about cricket,- a game that Americans know nothing about. So the ad wouldn't have worked in the US.
    1
  1247. PragnorVorn: I think the original allegation was that "the ad is racist", not that "Australians are racist". However, there are some people who have raised the issue of Australian racism in subsequent discussions. When discussing the matter, I prefer to stick to the original allegations that "the ad is racist", because it's possible to do that more objectively. Once you start talking about Australians being racist, people getting offended, or cultural matters, it becomes less objective.
    1
  1248. DoctorRosenRosen: That's one thing I've also said about this whole issue. I'd really like to see a proper debate on the issue by credentialled and qualified experts who know their stuff - rather than a couple of young Americans who appear to be sprouting the first thing that appears to come into their heads, and just agreeing with one another and slapping each other on the back about it.. And PROPER debate is one thing we really have not seen on this issue.
    1
  1249. Scotland's politicians & law-makers are clearly just a pack of pathetically putrid people & nothing more
    1
  1250. I find it so annoying when YouTube channels get copyright strikes, when they have only ever used other people's material under the fair use provisions allowed for with copyright - meaning they are commenting on &/or analysing the copyright material which they have used. So often, it seems the owners of the material who are claiming copyright infringement have absolutely no idea that fair use is allowed for with copyright material. Logically, you'd think that before they even lodged a claim for copyright infringement, they'd check the law or seek legal advice, to see whether there really WAS a breach of copyright. But worse than that - you'd think that at least YouTube would know better as well! It seems that even YouTube itself is ignorant of the fair use copyright provisions, if all they do is take down a video as soon as someone claims copyright infringement - & they must have had an awful lot of those by now! Haven't they learnt anything at all, from all of that? Why do they just keep doing the same thing over & over again? Are they just a mob of mindless robots? Surely when there is a claim for copyright infringement YouTube could just take a good look at the video & see that the material is being used in accordance with fair use provisions & advise the copyright owner accordingly? That approach could certainly save all the parties a lot of wasted time & effort, when the material just ends up having to be re-instated anyway. Unfortunately, once they get such a copyright strike, it takes the creators a lot of time & effort to fight it & deal with YouTube &/or the creator - both of whom it seems are ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about fair use provisions in copyright. I know someone who operates a YouTube channel where they regularly provide commentary & analysis on the video material of a certain small organisation. At one stage, he was regularly getting copyright strikes from YouTube & having to defend them, until he decided to put a notice up at the start of each video - addressing both YouTube & the copyright owner - stating that he had sought legal advice - & he had been advised that he could legitimately use the copyright material under fair use provisions, as he was providing commentary & analysis on the material. He indicated he would continue to use the material under fair use provisions, & was prepared to defend his right to do so, if a copyright infringement claim was ever made. Since then, he has not had much trouble at all from either the copyright owner, or YouTube, thankfully. I really think that if a copyright owner lodges a bogus copyright claim when the material is only being correctly used under fair use provisions - then that copyright owner should get some sort of YouTube strike against them - & that could stop so many of these bogus claims of copyright infringement. Most of those people really have no idea what they are doing.
    1
  1251. ...Everyone has pre-existing values and prejudices, based on their own culture and upbringing, and it's really not fair to try to impose these on another country's culture.
    1
  1252. Yes - if they want to hang a pride flag in a church, how about the same people go & hang up a pride flag at mosque, or synagogue!
    1
  1253.  @Србомбоница86  Even if that were the case - it is the courts & legal system which will often decide the custody arangements for children - & the parents & children will often have little say in the matter - all parties are just required to abide by the terms of the court order, whether they like it or not. And more often that not, th courts will require the child to spend part of their time with each parent (whether they want to or not).
    1
  1254. Vilaba:The "black" people in the ad are not even African Australians - they are West Indians - natives of the West Indies (in the Caribbean) and the setting of the ad is a cricket match between the West Indies and Australia. Since the lone Australian guy is sitting amongst a large group of West Indies supporters, it could mean the match is actually in the West Indies rather than Australia. If it's in Australia,maybe the only ticket the guy could get happened to be amongst West Indies supporters.
    1
  1255. I don't think you would get any dispute at all from most Christians - that Jesus was most certainly born a Jew. But he did effectively start a new religion in the form of Christianity. He could not have been a Muslim, because Islam as a religion did not exist until several hundred years later. And contrary to what some Muslims claim - Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible at all - that claim was based on a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of some words in the Bible. Jesus did say according to the Bible "I & the Father are one" - meaning that not only did he claim to be the son of God - but that he WAS God. He also stated according to the Bible that after he left this earth, he would send the Spirit as a comforter to his disciples. According to the Bible, Jesus also said "No man comes to the Father, but by me". These things (along with other Bible passages) point to the trinitarian nature of God as claimed by Christians - Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
    1
  1256. Israel has been the subject of a number of non-peaceful attacks by Palestinians, who were largely Muslims. Rockets have been fired into Israel & a Jerusalem passenger bus was blown up by Palestinian Muslims.
    1
  1257.  @ehtashamhakeem4057  There's absolutely nothing shameful in not liking someone who is trying to kill you. The only shameful thing in that scenario is the evilness of those who are trying to kill you.
    1
  1258. Thanks very much for providing these lists - the "to have" & "to have not" lists, as I think of them. - although I would say that I'm not exactly a big user of tech gadgets other than a laptop computer & a mobile phone. But I would be happy to recommend the de-Googled/non-Google phones to people. I'm not even into things such as Fitbit-type devices - though I do have some friends whose son, after recently moving out of home, insisted that both of his parents wear "Apple" devices on their wrists, so he will know if they "have a fall" - which I found very amusing - given that his Mum & Dad are not that old & still very fit & healthy! At least his heart's in the right place, I suppose - though he might do well to watch the above video! And I've informed the parents of the privacy dangers/drawbacks of such Apple devices. Unfortunately, their son is very much into Apple devices! Personally, I'd much rather stick with my normal, analogue-style Seiko wrist-watch with its small round face, Roman numerals, slender styling, plain gold wrist-band, & no internet! It looks much nicer on my wrist than any thick, chunky, ugly, digital Fitbit-type device! Nevertheless, happy Christmas shopping to everyone!
    1
  1259. There's really nothing wrong with saying that a person is being investigated for assault/abuse, or that they are being charged with assault/abuse - though one should not yet claim that Brand "assaulted/abused" someone, unless he has already been found guilty by a court, or has admitted as much himself. A person should be careful with their wording. Just saying that someone has been charged with an "offence" does not really provide sufficient information about the type of offence allegedly committed. Although obviously if there is some kind of gag order in place, the type of offence could be withheld, I presume.
    1
  1260. PollockQT: Based on past experience, I don't think Australians would want to bother finding out about what other lame ideas Americans might have.
    1
  1261. gjrolfe1:There are plenty of good chicken alternatives to KFC - and some of them actually do taste better than KFC. You should try "Kingsley's Chicken" - though I think it's only available in limited parts of Australia.
    1
  1262. Yes indeed! When people claim "Islamaphobia" - I've always commented they are simply highly ignorant people who do not know the correct meaning of the word & are simply way too stupid & lazy to look up the correct meaning using a dictionary. Simply being critical or negative about the religion of Islam, is not Islamaphobia. In reality, there are actually very few cases of genuine Islamaphobia. And if people really do have a fear of Islam, it is likely that it is quite warranted, & due to all the Islamic terrorism & violence they have seen in the world. And if that fear is warranted - then it is not "Islamaphobia". Because a "phobia" is an unwarranted or unjustified/unreasonable fear of something.
    1
  1263. The police are way too busy these days, to follow up genuine criminal offences. They are way too busy arresting people for praying silently in their heads, or for having offended someone with something they said or did. Or they are way too busy visiting people in their homes, because they have posted something on-line that someone else complained about - so they have to visit that person, to make sure their "thinking" is correct. With all these things the police are doing, they are just way too busy to follow up or investigate things like thefts, physical assaults, murders etc.
    1
  1264. Generally speaking, orthodox Jewish people do not believe in proselytising & trying to convert others to their religion - unless people are doing it because they are marrying a Jewish person. If the non-Jewish person in the relationship is the woman, then often the woman might be encouraged to convert to Judaism, so that any children born of that marriage relationship will automatically be considered Jewish. Judaism is a matriarchal religion in as much as anyone born of a Jewish mother is automatically considered Jewish, in orthodox Judaism. If only the father in the relationship is Jewish, & the mother is not - then any children they have are not considered Jewish - unless the child, after birth, later undergoes a special sort of conversion ceremony. Often, when a practising Jewish couple adopt a child who is not Jewish, that child will undergo such a special conversion ceremony, in order for them to be considered Jewish, as part of their new adoptive family.
    1
  1265. bvwcad: Darwin may be my home town, but I don't actually live there at present. But by your own reasoning, it seeems no-one should ever boycott anything because of the effect it will have on employees. I'm sure Australian KFC employees probably feel a bit embarrassed about KFC Australia's back-down, and will understand about the boycott. I see it as a bit like a strike in some ways - shorter term sacrifice for a longer term gain.
    1
  1266. I think it's all down to how "religiously" some Mormons follow the official teachings of their religion in relation to the shunning of those who leave the religion. You may just happen to know Mormons who do not follow the teachings of the Mormon church in relation to the shunning of apostates & admittedly, not all Mormons follow this teaching of their church - nevertheless, it is still an official teaching of the church, whether church members actually choose to follow it or not.
    1
  1267.  @bernardedwards8461  And just because certain events may have taken place in history (or even in the Bible) - such as certain royal marriages, of which some people are critical, due to the age/s of the parties involved - it does not mean that those actions were condoned/commanded/encouraged by the teachings in the Bible. In fact, there were many events which took place in the Bible, which actually went directly against the teachings & commands of God/Jesus in the Bible. So there is a very clear difference between what the Bible actually teaches it's followers, & events which simply take place in the Bible & this is a very important & significant difference. Just because an event is noted in the Bible, does not necessarily mean that Christians should go out & do the same thing, unless it also happens to be stipulated as a command/teaching of the Bible, that everyone needs to follow. Not every event recorded in the Bible is intended to be an example that all Christians should follow. There are some "bad" events recorded in the Bible which can only be used as an example of "what NOT to do.
    1
  1268.  @CooperJames-b4x  Actually, the Old Testament of the Bible records that people in those days lived for hundreds of years - which is a much longer life span than an average adult lifespan today.
    1
  1269.  @1BeardyLad  Islam came along as a religion roughly 600 years after Christianity & the Bible is older than the Quran, & its actual content has remained unchanged almost from the beginning. It has not been changed/altered merry to conform with societal norms. The only thing which has changed about the Bible are the different & slightly more recent translations of the Bible, to enable everyone to understand it, even if their own language is not the original language of the Bible. But the actual content of the Bible has not changed & in fact it would be considered a sin & totally wrong by Christians to significantly alter the Bible in any way simply to conform to modern societal norms, because the Bible is considered by all Christians to be the Word of God - so unless someone is claiming to be God himself - they cannot alter his Words in the Bible. But that is no different to the Quran, of which there are slightly different versions of it, including translations of it into many different languages. And these days even well known Islamic scholars will admit that there are different versions & translations of the Quran. I should also point out that just because certain events may have taken place & were recorded in the Bible (some of which could be described as bad things which happened), does not mean that we should all follow suit & use all those things as an example of what we should also do. In the Bible there is a clear & significant difference between the mere description of historical events, & the actual "teachings" of the Bible from God/Jesus. The "teachings" & commands of God/Jesus are there for all Christians to follow - but a mere description of an event which may have taken place, is not a teaching or command, unless it is specifically stated to be such, & for everyone to follow.
    1
  1270.  @johnbower7452  I certainly do not doubt that most of the Jews you may have met "think all Arabs should die". But what I CAN say, is that such hatred is not actually what the Jewish scriptures (ie the Torah, Talmud etc.) teach. In fact, there is often a vast difference between what followers of some religions personally believe & practice, & what their religion actually teaches. This often happens because those people may only be very "nominal" followers of their religion, without really "practising" it at all, & have never studied it for themselves - perhaps only relying on what other supposed followers of that religion may have told them about it. So they don't really have much idea about what their religion truly teaches. And of course, this sort of thing not only happens in Judaism, but also in Christianity & Islam. There are also plenty of so-called Christians & Muslims, who are Christian or Muslim in name only - not knowing much at all about their own religion. I've always said that if one wants to learn about a religion, the best way to do that is NOT to ask a Jew/Christian/Muslim etc - but to go straight to the source & study their holy books/scriptures for oneself. That way you will find out for yourself what the religion truly teaches & what its beliefs truly are, without risking getting a biased or incorrect presentation of the religion from one of its supposed followers. Having said that, one of the crucial differences between Judaism/Christianity & Islam, is that Islam is the only one out of those 3 religions, where it's holy scriptures - the Quran & hadiths - specifically commands it's followers to kill the Jews & Christians (referred to as unbelievers/non-believers) wherever they may be found. Neither the Torah & Talmud (in Judaism) nor the Bible (in Christianity) mention anything about killing people belonging to other faiths. That remains purely in the realm of Islam. While Islam has traditionally shown such disdain for both Jews & Christians in its scriptures - its disdain for Jews is slightly greater than it is for Christians, because in the Bible, the Jews are said to be "God's chosen people". The traditional Islamic disdain for Jews & Christians originally dates back to Muhammad's time, even before the full establishment of Islam. Muhammad was travelling away from home when he had a very very strange dream which worried him a great deal, to the point where he thought he was going mad. But when he finally arrived home & told his then wife about his strange dream, & his concerns that he may have been going mad, his wife told him that he may not have been going mad at all, but the dream may simply have meant that Muhammad was a prophet. Muhammad liked this interpretation of his dream & decided to adopt it for himself. He proceeded to tell everyone he then met, that he was a prophet. This soon gathered him quite a few followers - except for the pre-existing Jews & Christians in the land,who insisted that Muhammad was not a prophet, & would not believe that he was a prophet. This eventually caused quite a bit of resentment on the part of Muhammad towards those existing Jews & Christians, because they refused to follow Muhammad & his teachings, whereas many others in the land who were previously polytheists, chose to believe Muhammad & follow him & his teachings. So this is where that traditional Islamic animosity towards Jews & Christians stems from. It was then eventually written into the Islamic holy scriptures, & therefore seen as something which should be taught, believed, & practised by all Muslims - because it is written in the Quran/hadiths.
    1
  1271.  @Itsafunnyoldworld1904  If you are referring to the Islamic prophet Muhammad being "murdered" - what I CAN say, is that Muhammad did die a rather slow & painful death, because he was poisoned. He was actually poisoned by the widow of a man he had just killed in one of the many battles he & his followers fought in. The widow then offered to cook Muhammad a meal (which he, perhaps rather foolishly accepted) & she made sure she poisoned that food. Muhammad became ill very shortly after eating that food, but never realised that he had been poisoned. The illness dragged on for a long time, until Muhammad eventually died, in quite a lot of pain. Muhammad's child bride, Aisha, whom Muhammad had married when she was 6 years old, was around 18 years old when Muhammad died - but she & Muhammad had never had any children together. Prior to his death, Muhammad had decreed that none of his followers could marry Aisha after his death, so Aisha had to remain a widow after Muhammad 's death, & never re-married.
    1
  1272.  @h9erbi9dog  Indeed - Muhammad's life & behaviour is seen as the best possible example for all Muslims to follow.
    1
  1273.  @farleymarly2575  The Bible actually does not state the age at which Rebecca was married to Isaac. You must have mis-read or mis-interpretted that part, when you read it.
    1
  1274. @1BeardyLad  The point I was making in my comment, was to refute your original point about the content of the Bible having been altered & changed to comply with societal norms. That is definitely not the case at all, as I previously stated. Christians would never accept such significant changes to the Bible. For Christians, the Bible is "the Word of God" & the only one who can change the Word of God, is God himself. No mere human being can change the Word of God, & its content is therefore unchangeable.
    1
  1275. @bernardedwards8461  I was not really objecting to your point at all - just adding a bit & making further comment, given some of the similar comments made by others re people marrying at such young ages. Some people clearly seemed to think it was a bad thing & held it up as an example comparable to Muhammad marrying a 6 year old. While the Bible itself does not necessarily specify a minimum age for marriage, there is no mention in the Bible of any girl/woman having married quite as young as 6 years old.
    1
  1276. @evelyncraig7243  King Richard may well have married a 7 year old & I certainly do not deny that. What I HAVE been saying though, is that such young marriages are not necessarily supported by the Christian scriptures - being the Bible. In the Bible, there is no evidence at all of people being married so young. So - while that event may indeed have happened in life - there is no religious support for marriage at that age in Christianity. Back in King Richard's time, it did happen that young royal family members were simply often married off to secure important political & military alliances. Depending on the ages of the parties, those marriages may not have actually been consummated until many years after the marriage took place.
    1
  1277. @KaytalHEL  I agree that as time passes, the moral values of societies do deteriorate. Many religions do try to prevent such deterioration, but are often not successful within society in general - though are often successful at preventing such deterioration within their own religions. But I obviously cannot speak for ALL religions.
    1
  1278. @misspurrr-fect3684  Happy to accept your figure of 56 years old...
    1
  1279.  @SkepticalTeacher  I'm not sure that the Islamic scriptures specify an exact age at which it is acceptable for a young female child to be married off to a much older man. But we do know that in practice, Muhammad did marry Aisha when she was 6 & consummated the marriage with her when she was 9. Although many Muslims these days will say that it's acceptable to marry any female child who has reached puberty - the Islamic scriptures DO nevertheless make provision for a man to divorce a female who has not yet reached puberty. So one can only presume that there were instances back in those Islamic times, when men DID marry females who had not yet reached puberty.
    1
  1280.  @SkepticalTeacher  At various times, it has been confirmed that Muhammad had anywhere between 11 to 13 wives, while only allowing his followers to have up to 4 wives themselves. At one stage, he even took his adopted son's wife as his own wife.
    1
  1281. Government authorities should have nipped this kind of unrest in the bud by laying down very strict rules & guidelines for such protests/rallies from the outset, when they first started, instead of letting them just fester like a gangrenous wound from the outset. And things are only continuing to get worse with these protests. The National Guard would have known what to do with them!
    1
  1282. Calvin Robinson is absolutely correct - it is most definitely the parent's responsibility to teach all of their children the basic life skills - including being potty-trained & being able to use a toilet properly before starting school. When I started primary school in the 1960's, all children started primary school (Grade 1) in the year they turned 6 years old (or 5 years old, if they had just turned 5 in the month before starting school). The official education system at that time did not include a kindergarten or pre-school year prior to Grade 1. Even then, I don't remember anyone in any of my classes from Grade 1 onwards, not being able to use the toilet properly. If children are starting Grade 1 & not being able to use the toilet properly, then that is well & truly the parent's fault & a case of gross parental negligence in raising their children. In order to avoid this sort of thing happening, perhaps all parents of prospective Grade 1 students need to be issued with a list of things their child needs to be able to do, before the state education system will allow them to start school - including things like being able to use the toilet. If their child cannot do all those things, then they should not be permitted to start school, until they can. In order to be sure that their child meets those standards, the parents may need to get a letter of certification from their doctor, certifying that the child meets those standards. Or they may need to pass a sort of "entrance" test, where, prior to school officially commencing, they attend a sort of "trial day" at school, where a teacher puts the children through their paces for the day & then determines whether the prospective student has all the necessary pre-requisite skills (eg toilet-trained) for commencing in Grade 1. If it's later discovered that the child does not have all the required skills, then the child may be sent home from school & not allowed to return to school until their parents have taught them the minimum skills required. It almost seems like the quality of parenting & parenting skills, has gone totally backwards since the 1950's & 1960's - or is it just that many parents are way too lazy now & are totally negligent when it comes to raising their own children? If they're going to be that lazy & negligent, they should not be allowed to have children, or their children should be placed into the care of far more responsible adults, who will raise them properly.
    1
  1283. Just because a person who dies with COVID may also have had pre-existing health conditions at the time, does not necessarily mean that they died of those pre-existing health conditions rather than COVID. To a certain extent I think we need to trust the determination of the healthcare providers (ie doctors), as to what a person's cause of death is, & what goes on a person's death certificate as their official cause of death. In people with pre-existing health conditions, COVID can cause a very serious & rapid deterioration in those conditions (resulting in their death), which might not otherwise have happened, had they not contracted COVID. Likewise, in such people, contracting COVID can cause them to develop additional serious health conditions they did not previously have, resulting in their death. So in those instances, even with their pre-existing health conditions, it might still be safe to say that their cause of death was still COVID. I personally know of 2 older people who have died from COVID, as well as 1 younger person who is now suffering the severe after-effects of "long COVID", well after recovering (ie now testing negative) from virus itself. While a majority of people who contract COVID may well only have minor symptoms, or even no symptoms at all - it's often very hard to predict who will suffer more seriously & die from COVID, or continue to suffer serious after-effects of COVID in the long term. And although there may be many people who have now developed a natural immunity to the virus, no-one (especially those who may be unvaccinated) is being tested for immunity, so we will never know for sure exactly who & how many people in the community may have that natural immunity. So I think it's a difficult balancing act to try to protect everyone in the community from the virus using a range of precautions (masks, social distancing, movement restrictions, vaccinations etc), without trying to restrict people's freedom too much. Different countries & even different states within countries have exercised different precautions from time to time, but many countries over the last few months have started to ease any restrictions they may have previously had. Fortunately, I have not yet been asked to prove my vaccination status, in order to dine at a restaurant. In some countries, those who are unvaccinated due to having a special medical exemption (due to having contra indicators), are provided with the same health certifications as those who have actually been vaccinated - so their documentation is no different, & no-one can tell from their documentation that they are not vaccinated. Those who do not have a medical exemption though, & just choose not to be vaccinated, are not provided with any such documentation. Fortunately, I don't think anyone is under the mistaken impression that just being fully vaccinated will automatically prevent them from contracting COVID, or from passing it on to others if they do get it. It's just one of a range of precautions/measures which can be taken against the virus.
    1
  1284. I wonder if, when joining social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp etc, you did not permit them to access your Contacts List - whether they would still allow you to join, or whether they would refuse your membership. If everyone who joined these sites suddenly stopped allowing them to access their Contacts, would that help to alleviate the problem, of these sites being able to develop profiles for non-users? I always assumed that sites like Facebook had the ability to develop such profiles of non-users, if the friends of those non-users who WERE Facebook users, started to "tag" their non-user friends by their names, in group photos which they posted on Facebook. So Facebook then had a non-user name matched with their face/photo. Then there was also the possibility of those non-user names & faces/photos being associated/linked with the same names from the user's Contact List, which had previously been downloaded to Facebook.
    1
  1285. Yet even some people who were fit & well contracted COVID-19 & died as a result. Which is why people should seek a personalised opinion from their own medical practitioner, as to their suitability for the vaccine & whether they should have it or not - then make their own decision. There are still many people who have had the vaccine, without any ill-effects at all.
    1
  1286.  @Bubblebang5  Any doctor worth their salt would not promote any vaccine to a patient whom they knew would very likely suffer a severe adverse reaction to that vaccine. And this is the case, no matter how many doctors may have been told that the vaccination was necessary for most people. Doctors are required to always recommend what is in the best interests of the health of their patients - & that may well be something different to the norm, for a lot of people.
    1
  1287.  @dragonprince8894  Sure - it may not be a very large number of healthy people at all, who died as a result of contracting the Coronavirus. But I suspect that if you just happened to be one of those highly unlucky ones who DID refuse the vaccination & then later contracted Covid & died as a result - you &/or your family, would probably not be very happy about that. There's always some kind of risk involved with such a decision & everyone involved needs to be able to accept that risk & the consequences of it - even if it means they may die, as result.
    1
  1288.  @noremac4807  Even during the times of maximum Covid restrictions - any doctor could be sued for malpractice if they did not advise their patients NOT to have the vaccine if their health was such that they had contra-indications for the vaccine. Even the health authorities were clearly indicating there were certain people who should NOT have the vaccine if they had certain medical/health conditions &/or suggested such people should first seek their doctor's medical advice . A doctor could be guilty of medical negligence if they did not advise such patients against having the vaccine.
    1
  1289.  @noremac4807  Even during the times of maximum Covid restrictions - any doctor could be sued for malpractice if they did not advise their patients NOT to have the vaccine if their health was such that they had contra-indications for the vaccine. Even the health authorities were clearly indicating there were certain people who should NOT have the vaccine if they had certain medical/health conditions &/or suggested such people should first seek their doctor's medical advice . A doctor could be guilty of medical negligence if they did not advise such patients against having the vaccine.
    1
  1290.  @aaronaaron6569  It's certainly likely that some shareholders may be the same - but the lists of shareholders will not be identical, nor will the numbers or value of shares that they hold. And the idea of a boycott is to financially penalise the business - which a boycott of Woolworths can still do - thus penalising the shareholders. And this will not necessarily be fully off-set by any gain in value of the competitors' shares, nor any increase in their dividends. So there will still be a net penalty to the business & shareholders.
    1
  1291. I seems to me that any honest person finding an animal/pet would take it to a vet to see if it had a microchip & if so, report the animal as found, to the microchip company so it could contact the owner & arrange for the owner to retrieve the animal from the vet. If the finder just takes the animal to a vet & seeks to transfer the ownership, it does make the finder sound rather dubious - as though they may just want to keep the animal for themselves, or may have even stolen the animal. So it should definitely be reported to the police. I wonder if there is some way, when an animal goes missing, that the legitimate owner can notify the microchip company that the animal has been lost or possibly stolen, & put a notation on the microchip record to that effect. That way, if it turns up somewhere or a finder takes it to a vet - it is already on the microchip record that the animal has been reported lost/stolen & appropriate action can be taken to return it to its rightful owner.
    1
  1292. Americans have taken this ad completely out of context. For a start, the ad was made by Australians, for Australians, with the intention of showing it on Australian TV. Australians have no knowledge of the American racial stereotype to which Americans are referring, when they talk about the link between black Americans and chicken. That is purely an American stereotype, and not a stereotype for black people in other parts of the world...
    1
  1293. And in the meantime - not just Catholic groups, but other university-based Christian & political groups inviting well-known guest speakers, have been prevented from holding their events & debates on various university campuses around the world, because the university claims that some people may find some of their content "offensive" due to their stands on a number of issues. It's becoming quite nonsensical of our universities - who are supposed to be bastions of free speech & thought - yet way too often they claim they want their campuses to be "safe spaces/places" for all their students - which means banning anyone with slightly different views, who may "cause offence". It seems that our universities are fast becoming members of the "cancel culture" brigade.
    1
  1294. It's a shame someone has to have cancer, before some people in the media will treat them with decency & respect. Who cares whether a family photo is photoshopped or not? Most photos we see in the media these days have probably been photoshopped in some small way at least. And in most cases, people are not very concerned about that & it is hardly noticeable. So why all the fuss about Kate's photo? If some people in the media as a result are now claiming they cannot trust anything coming out of the Palace - should the public now also proclaim that nothing in the media can be trusted because most of their own photos have also been photoshopped? What hypocrisy on the part of some people in the media. But if those media people claim they can no longer trust anything coming out of the Palace - will they even believe Kate's announcement that she has cancer? Surely those same people should probably be banned from covering news of the Royal Family - or simply stop covering it themselves, if they can no longer believe anything coming out of the Palace.
    1
  1295. The WHO & WEF are presently 2 of the most detested organisations in the world - the WHO for only making COVID worse throughout the world especially, when they should have done so much more to warn the world about it. The world will never again be so trusting of the WHO - & rightly so, since they were in China's pocket right from the very outset. The WHO needs one giant boot up the bum!
    1
  1296. E-scooters have been legal in my locality for a couple of years now at least - but they are not allowed to be ridden on the roads - only on the footpaths - though they may be ridden on the roads in emergencies, or where no footpath exists, or where there may be maintenance being done on the footpath. The e-scooters do carry insurance for the rider only - which is invalidated if the rider happens to be breaking the rules/laws - which many riders DO break. The scooters may only be ridden by one person who must be wearing a helmet & they must be adhering to the e-scooter speed limits & obeying all other e-scooter laws. Sadly, many riders do break these laws, which invalidates their insurance.
    1
  1297. Actually, a lot of rap music does not make much sense - it's basically a number of short separate statements that are just linked together to form a "song" - which is really not a "song" as such - but simply "talking" to a rhythm/beat. I guess it's just their own way of communicating, even though it does not make a lotof sense to many people.
    1
  1298. And what about the definition of a "man" - should it include people who were born as females? Should we not also be going around asking people "what is the definition of a "man""? If we apply the same logic to the definition of a "man" - we should also be going around asking people that question - after all, why should that question only be applied to the word "woman"? And just like some people have found the word "woman" hard to define - clearly the answer for the word "man", would also be that it is vey difficult to define what is a "man". A similar answer would naturally be applicable for the word "man" - & that answer would be - "a "man" cannot easily be defined - it is basically anything or anyone who "wants" to be identified as a "man" - regardless of whether they were born as a male or female". In reality, the new definitions for both "woman" & "man" would mean that there is essentially no difference at all between the 2 words (with anyone at all being able to define themselves as a "woman" or a "man") - such that there would be no point in having those 2 separate words even in a dictionary. And everyone could then just be described as a "human being", with people not being differentiated as either a "woman" or a "man". Being a man is so very easy that absolutely anyone at all can do it - even those who are born female!
    1
  1299. These people claim KFC said the version of their ad appearing on the internet was "leaked". I'm not sure KFC themselves ever used that word in their offical press releases on this matter. I do recall them saying the ad was never intended for an American audience, and that the version appearing on the internet was "unauthorised". Are these people people just putting words in KFC's mouth to make KFC look worse than it really is?...
    1
  1300. danglestars: Aussies love this ad precisely because it uniquely reflects their own culture and tastes. If KFC Australia ran all their Australian TV ads past a US censor before screening them in Australia, all the Aussies would end up with is "American" ads on Australian TV, which simply would not work as far as increasing sales is concerned. Aussies want ads that acknowledge their own culture.Their sense of humour is different and that is why most American sit-coms are not funny to Australians.
    1
  1301. Douglas1102:..In any case, this programme would certainly not encourage anyone with a bit of intelligence to watch further episodes.
    1
  1302. I honestly don't understand how Harry & Meghan can keep bad-mouthing the British royal family in everything they do - then expect to still be invited to the coronation & have a reserved place on the balcony! Are they complete imbeciles? No wonder none of the royals will talk to them now - whatever they say would just become fodder for Harry's next book which he will sell for mega millions & not give any of it to the royal family. Harry will keep all of the money for himself.
    1
  1303. urinalbushrat: Yes, that is what they appear to be saying - America is a superior country and more important than any other, and as such, they have the right to censor the rest of the world. It's very important that everyone doesn't offend America. And this is not the first time Australia has experienced this type of criticism coming from America.
    1
  1304. MilitantPeaceist:I think you probably mean "Queen's Counsel" rather than "Queens Councillor".
    1
  1305. That woman holding her "gay baby" is an absolute drongo dog of an idiot!
    1
  1306. I'm not even sure that the Muslim people in the above video - who are availing of the services of the Sharia courts in the UK, would want to see Sharia law implemented across the board in the UK. I think in many instances, they are just going through the Sharia courts in the UK, to get a "religious divorce" that is recognised in Islam, so that they can then show prospective future marriage partners that their previous divorce is recognised by Islam (whereas a mere secular/legal divorce may not have been), & they can therefore re-marry if need be, in an Islamic wedding ceremony - something which might be important to them, or their respective families. In many cases, I think, even before such people go to the UK Sharia courts for their "religious divorces" - they have already been granted a legal/secular divorce by the law courts of the land in which they actually live.
    1
  1307. Or maybe that little girl was meant to be the child bride of the Islamic prophet Muhammad - who married a 6 year old girl & consummated the marriage when she was 9?
    1
  1308. When I went to school - pre-made school uniforms for all the local schools, were available for purchase from local department stores - though there was generally only "one brand" which made the school uniform. In those days, our uniforms were quite specific to each school & their styles were all very different - & they were generally a "one-piece" dress, rather than a separate skirt & top/blouse. Nevertheless, students were not obliged to purchase the pre-made school uniforms from a store, & they or their parents could make their uniforms themselves, if they thought it would save them money. Or they could have them made to size by a local dress-maker (especially if the student did not readily fit into one of the "standard size" uniforms available at the store) if they wanted to, as long as they complied with the regulation school uniform standard in terms of the pattern/design/style & the regulation colours - which the school could provide to the parents upon request. There was no such thing then as an "official supplier" from whom all students were obliged to purchase their uniforms. So I find it hard to understand why a school would insist on a particular "brand" of uniform for all their students - especially when there is really no discernible difference between the 2 skirts shown in the photo. Our school also operated a second hand uniform shop, where parents could purchase second hand uniforms for their children, if they wanted to, & providing they could find one in the shop to fit their child. The second hand uniform shop obviously did not have a full range of sizes - as it relied on the donation/purchase of uniforms from former students of the school.
    1
  1309. I'm boycotting the Olympics - as many people of faith will be doing - after that atrocious opening ceremony. Instead of mocking Christianity, why didn't they mock Islam & do a re-enactment of their prophet Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl & consummating the marriage when she was 9? Or perhaps showing Muhammad throwing gays from rooftops? Or showing Muhammad in death throes after having been poisoned with a meal made for him by the widow of a man he had just killed??
    1
  1310. Jemini29944: Perhaps the majority of references to American racial stereotypes in American movies are simply not understood as such, or not interpretted that way in audiences outside the US. There's a lot of things in American shows that Australians don't understand - that's why a lot of American comedy shows are just not seen as funny by most Australians. Maybe the references to stereotypes are going over their heads - I certainly can't recall seeing such obvious references in American movies.
    1
  1311. In addition to apologising for their comments & stating they were not appropriate & incorrect, causing offence to many people, & resulting in their alienation from the business & boycott of the business - I think the only think they can really do is try to re-assure people that their business welcomes all customers - no matter what their personal beliefs may be. However, I don't know that this will necessarily change the boycott situation. I think that once the damage has been done - it is very hard to recover from a statement like that - when it was very clear what was meant by that statement.
    1
  1312. Perhaps these racial faux pas could be avoided in future by setting up an international committee for monitoring world advertising.The committee would have one representative on it from every country, and before showing an ad, each country (including the US) would have to run their ads past the committee to ensure there was nothing in it that any country would find offensive. If there was - that aspect of the ad would have to be removed prior to screening. That should keep everyone happy!
    1
  1313.  @uzumakiangelus  Certainly not. I'm basing it on reputable reports I've read that the IDF had intelligence & good reason to believe that that "ambulance convoy" was being used to transport Hamas fighters & weapons, rather than injured civilians. And although that sort of thing is against the Geneva Convention - as Hamas is just a terrorist organisation & not a legitimate army - they're not likely to comply with the Geneva Convention. Their use of Palestinian civilians as human shields & conducting Hamas operations out of civilian buildings like hospitals & schools etc, is also against the Geneva Convention - but Hamas still do it. A terrorist group like Hamas - which deliberately targets & brutally slaughters Israeli civilians in the most primitive & barbaric ways, will obviously stoop to any depths.
    1
  1314.  @ShsnsBsbdhs  It's common knowledge that terrorist organisations do not abide by the rules of war. So they hide themselves behind any civilian utilities they can find - including ambulances, schools, hospitals, mosques etc.
    1
  1315. The Oprah interview was extremely poor quality. Oprah was a very poor quality interviewer & just accepted everything Meghan said at face value. She never challenged any of the allegations made by Meghan, or the answers given by her, nor did she ask Meghan if she had any hard evidence for any of the allegations she was making. Some of the things Meghan said in that interview were simply not true at all - like when she said that she & Harry had actually been married in a back garden somewhere by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a private ceremony with just the 3 of them, a few days before the televised ceremony, which was "just for public show". That claim just made Meghan look truly stupid, when a copy of their marriage certificate was produced to the media & even the Archbishop of Canterbury had to come out himself & make an official statement saying that Meghan's claim was not true. Surely any woman who has been married & divorced at least once before, would know that in order for a marriage ceremony to be legal in most western democratic countries, it requires 2 witnesses besides the bridal couple & the marriage celebrant? But perhaps Meghan thought that because she was marrying a member of the British royal family, the usual British marriage laws did not apply to her. Whatever took place in that back yard was obviously not a legal wedding/marriage - perhaps it was just a private wedding rehearsal or private exchange of personal vows - but with only the 3 of them present, one thing is for sure - it was not a legal wedding/marriage as Meghan claimed - & that claim was later proven false by the marriage certificate & the Archbishop of Canterbury. And strangely enough, Oprah did not seem to know any better herself either - for she never challenged Meghan on that false claim. And that was only one of the many "wrong" things that Meghan claimed in that first Oprah interview.
    1
  1316. Harry & Meghan are only in love with themselves & they care about no-one else. Meghan ditched her own family long before she married Harry & she has been encouraging Harry to disparage his own family as well. So soon, the only "friends" they will have in this world will be themselves - because the public don't seem to like them at all. But I don't think their marriage will last terribly long - the loved-up images of themselves in the first 3 episodes of the documentary were all staged/posed anyway. And once their marriage breaks up - they won't be able to go back to their respective families - because they've already "burnt their bridges" so to speak, with both of their families. Neither family will want them back - & who could blame them for that, after the atrocious things they've both said & done to their families?
    1
  1317. And one of the very worst offenders for tracking people is the iPhone. Even when it is switched off, the iPhone is still tracking you, unless you are able to put it into a Faraday bag, which renders its tracking impossible. I've never even had anything like an Alexa or Google home - because I'm quite capable of doing things for myself. But besides monitoring just for key words & commands, it can record everything a person says. So it may get to know your preferences & political views etc, & relays all this information to a central repository, & can possibly bring it out at some later time, when those same views might be held against the person. So it's a "no thanks" from me, thank you very much! Already on my Google Android phone which I purchased 5 years ago now, over the last couple of years I have been frequently harassed the "Google Assistant" has been hassling me no end. The Google Assistant came pre-loaded on the phone & mixed in as part of the Google app itself - so it cannot be separated out & deleted on its own. At the very outset, I switched off the Google Assistant & "disconnected" it from my mobile phone in the handset's "settings" - yet still on a very regular basis when I am trying to do something else on my phone like watching a YouTube video while travelling on public transport - the Google Assistant will continually pop up on the screen & ask me to turn it on so I can start using it. And there's just no way this Google Assistant will go away - when it's already turned off & disconnected in the phone's settings. Even Google itself is not interested at all in finding a solution for this problem - & I'm not the only person who has had this problem. The only way to put a stop to it once & for all is apparently to get rid of the phone & buy an iPhone - which I don't want to do because there is even more tracking on an iPhone. Another option is to buy a non-Google or de-Googled mobile phone - but these are hard to come by & do not always have the good functionality of a standard off the shelf mobile phone - especially for a dual SIM phone, which is what I've normally used for many years now. So it looks like, for the time being, I'll have to be put up with being hassled on my mobile phone, by the Google Assistant, which I do not want. So, after this very bad experience just with the Google Assistant on my mobile phone - there is absolutely no way I would ever install an Alexa or Google Home device in my home - it would probably just hassle me even more!
    1
  1318. Actually, that is not quite true in the case of Islam. If you actually take some time to read the Quran, you will see there are many parts of the Quran that say that certain types of people must be killed.
    1
  1319. Maybe once they found out what the call was about - a supposed sighting of some alien looking beings - they did not take it too seriously & just took their time to get there. The report indicated they did call 911, but some of those calls might be assessed as an actual emergency, while others not as emergencies, but just where police attendance may be required etc.
    1
  1320.  @heroslippy6666  The government is not likely to prevent technology being used for "other" purposes, if it itself is actually benefiting in some way from using that technology for those "other" purposes. It could also seek to legitimise the use of the technology for those "other" purposes, if it sees a benefit in those other purposes for which the technology is being used. Also, needless to say, laws do vary from country to country & what may be considered illegal in one country, may not necessarily be illegal in other countries. And as long as the technology is being used for a legitimate purpose in whatever country it is being used - there may be nothing the manufacturer can do (or indeed, would want to do), to prevent that - as long as the purpose for which it is being used in the various countries, is helping to maximise sales of the technology. It would also depend, of course, on the country in which the manufacturer is based, & the country in which the technology is actually manufactured, & how prepared the government in those countries is, to clamp down on use of the technology for unauthorised purposes. I think in many cases such misuse might be hard to detect, let alone clamp down on.
    1
  1321.  @sillysad3198  My wording of "this sort of technology" applies to a wide range of things & not just client-side scanning.
    1
  1322. MilitantPeaceist: By the way, I already do boycott Israel and Israeli products.
    1
  1323. MilitantPeaceist: Well, I assume you noticed that my comment about South Africa WAS actually about the apartheid era, and I was trying to differentiate black South Africans from white South Africans (the Afrikaaners).
    1
  1324. With so many people owning a mobile phone these days & keen to take photos of anything & everything (including themselves) - why did no-one who saw those aliens have the presence of mind to pull out their mobile phone & take photo of them? At least if they had a good photo of them, that would have been much more convincing as evidence. And why did no-one keep watching them to see where they went? They had clearly left/disappeared, by the time the police arrived - but where did they go & what means of transport did they use? If there was more than one person there who saw the aliens (which it was stated there was), one could have taken photos, while one went to call 911 & another person just remained there to keep an eye on them & see where they went. But no-one thought to do all that, for some unknown reason. I think the reason they chose to arrive in someone's backyard, rather than a more populated, highly visible & well-lit area, is because they wished to visit in a more obscure & private manner, so as not to draw attention to themselves. They might have been afraid of being captured, killed & dissected, in the name of science. It might also be that they had somehow been "summoned" or attracted to that particular back yard for some reason. Obviously, if someone/something unknown is in your backyard, it's more concerning from a security aspect, than in the front yard, where the public & neighbours could see it from the street.
    1
  1325.  @crystallove4778  You're right of course - my comments were a little insulting to the wild dogs of this world - after all, their behaviour is somewhat better than those 2 feral women I had the misfortune to encounter...
    1
  1326. I use public transport very day - both light rail & buses - & cannot stand to watch people who put their feet up on the seats & no staff member reprimands them about this. And this is despite the buses & light rail having pictorial signage in them indicating "no smoking, no drinking, no loud speakers, no feet on seats". And there's a perfectly valid, logical & rational reason for this - namely that no-one likes to sit on a seat that someone else has put their dirty feet all over. It's the height of bad manners to say the least & I just don't think these people have sufficient intelligence to realise how they are inconveniencing other passengers who then have to sit on that dirty seat which they have created. They were obviously possibly blind &/or illiterate - blind if they did not see the signage, or illiterate if they saw the signage but were not intelligent enough to be able to read it.
    1
  1327.  @CecilDSouza  Some religious people believe that making pilgrimages to visit holy sites can bring them certain religious benefits. The Russian millionaire who is said to be occasionally sponsoring this Russian Orthodox religious man (who looks like he may be from one of the former Soviet "Asian" states like Mongolia or Chechnya) - may be sponsoring him to visit these religious/holy sites on his behalf, as his "proxy" - if he is unable to do it himself. I guess we're all entitled to spend our own mony as we see fit - even millionaires.
    1
  1328.  @blondecat666  He's actually a man of Asian appearance, whom we have been told in this series, belongs to the Russian Orthodox religion.
    1
  1329. Douglas1102: I watched the video, and it's quite hilarious. It's also very similar in style to a lot of the stuff The Chaser in Australia does about "stupid Americans".
    1
  1330. urinalbushrat:...At least Australia sought some qualified and credentialled opinion on the matter, which is more than TYT have done. However, I still would have liked to have seen a proper debate on the issue. But I don't think these two from TYT would be capable of that.
    1
  1331.  @jimkyle8008  It's interesting that they don't use the electoral roll - because if they did - it might make things just bit easier for them. And the electoral rolls are public records that any member of the public can access - providing you're not making bulk digital copies of them en masse . But the electoral roll is not their only option & even if they don't use it - there are still other records they can use - such as the property ownership records & rental records - as well as probably other sources of which I may not be aware.
    1
  1332.  trixiek942  Even if you're not obliged to give them your name - they can probably quite easily find that out from property ownership &/or rental records, or the electoral roll. And if you do give them reasonable assistance with their search warrant - that may mean you have not maintained your right to silence, due to the fact that providing reasonable assistance probably involved talking to them. If you ask them to leave before they've conducted their inspection, that would probably not be considered s providing reasonable assistance. And even though it may be a civil warrant, the inspector/officer might still be accompanied by a police officer, as mentioned in the above video.
    1
  1333.  trixiek942  The problem with removing your name from the electoral roll is that unless your name is on that roll, you cannot vote in any government elections (& in some other countries it's compulsory to register your name on the roll as soon as you are eligible to vote, & compulsory to vote in all elections - so you cannot just remove your name from the roll, like you can in the UK). And even if you do remove your name from the roll - they still have other ways to find out who you are, & where you can't just remove your name - like rental records & property ownership records etc.
    1
  1334.  @trolleriffic  Most of the searches that I've mentioned can be done on-line these days - so it does not require too much effort. And there certainly are instances where a warrant has been obtained to inspect peoples' residences for the need for a TV licence - though of course a warrant may not be obtained in all instances.
    1
  1335. I wonder what the school was proposing to do to deal with these kinds of fights, if no teacher is allowed to break up such a fight, without being dismissed? Would they have just been expected to call the police & ambulance & just wait for them to arrive, while the students could have been severely injured or killed in the meantime? If either of the students were severely injured or killed while they were waiting for the police & ambulance to arrive - would a teacher who did not act to break up such a fight be held liable for the students' injuries in some way as well? Do not teachers in schools have some type of duty of care for their students? It seems like a case of teachers being "damned if they do & damned if they don't". I do feel sorry for them in these situations. And I agree that both students & their parents these days can sometimes create a lot of problems for schools. Things have clearly changed a lot since I went to school.
    1
  1336. NzerinOz: Me too - I'm a huge Eurovision fan. I've been watching Eurovision since it first screened on Australian television back around 1980. Never missed a year!
    1
  1337. DoctorRosenRosen: I do acknowledge that KFC Australia may have been "forced" to withdraw the ad from Australian TV, by KFC head office in America. But I think it was done solely to financially protect KFC's US market. However, in my view KFC Australia still did not take a strong enough stance for Australian values and culture, against any US pressure. If they can't stand up for Australia, then they don't get my business, I'm afraid.
    1
  1338. balls248:The Japanese may not have "quite" invaded Australia in World War II - but they did actually bomb Darwin Harbour and Australian lives were lost. There is a memorial to this on the beachfront at Darwin, and the bombing is also depicted in the movie "Australia".
    1
  1339. @John Coinyer Believe it or not - some Christians in western countries have even been persecuted in their jobs for wearing a Christian cross around their neck (a sign of their Christianity) - yet they would not dare ask a Muslim woman to remove her hijab - which is a physical sign of her religion. Or they would not dare ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmalka, or a married Jewish woman to remove her own head covering. Yet they readily expect a Christian to remove any sign that they may be a Christian! I'm so glad to hear that you now want to be a more committed Christian - it's time to get out that big fat crucifix once again & place it around your neck! Then if anyone tells you you should not be wearing it - you can tell them you won't remove it until they get that Muslim woman next door, to remove her hijab. It'll be interesting to see the reaction you get! Of course - you may need to pursue the matter in court, to receive the same rights to wear your religious symbols as a Christian, as those of other religions readily receive - but it will be worth it!
    1
  1340. I am aware that the laws in some European countries can be quite different to the UK, & the legal systems themselves also operate differently. But one thing I did think about in relation to this video though, was that when the cyclist was sued for involuntary assault, he basically already got off very lightly with just a one Euro fine, due to all the trouble & hassle he had already been caused, because of the publication of the video. So he had already been compensated for that trouble. To my way of thinking, by later successfully suing the girl's father for a significant amount of money for defamation, he would basically have been compensated twice for all the problems he experienced as a result of that video being published about him. Despite the differences in the law in Europe, it does strike me as a bit unfair that the cyclist should be compensated twice for that matter.
    1
  1341. When people claim there is an "occupation" - most people forget that Jewish people have lived in that region since Biblical times - long before the religion of Islam even existed - which seems to be one of the reasons why Palestine seems to be intent on destroying Israel & the Jewish people. Islam came along roughly 600 years after Christianity, & of course the Jews lived in that region way before Christianity. Of course, there were also other people who inhabited the land at that time as well. At various times in history, many Jews were forced to leave that region & live elsewhere - nevertheless, there has always been a continuing Jewish presence in that region. So it's rather selfish for Palestinians to claim that all of that land is now theirs - because much of the land was also "bought" by the Jews who occupy it. Many Palestine supporters act like the history of that region started only around 1948 - but it goes back much further than that as well.
    1
  1342. Yes - it's possible to convert to Judaism - but not really actively encouraged by the religion itself, & unlike Christianity & Islam, Judaism does not actively proselytise or evangelise. But the process of conversion to Judaism can be a lengthy & expensive one - taking at least 1 to 2 years.
    1
  1343. The Muslims are not actually defaming the speaker -they are just stating standard Muslim beliefs & teachings, which are that in the religion of Islam, homosexuality is forbidden & there severe prescribed punishments for any Muslims found to be practising homosexuals.
    1
  1344.  @cleoldbagtraallsorts3380  That's the point I was trying to make. As I already stated - the penalties for homosexuality in Islam are very severe, & often involve a death sentence - & that is clearly why the death threats were made to that "gay Muslim" speaker at the school. If they were just "defaming" him - that would not have been so bad & he would have gotten off lightly in the eyes of Islam. But a death sentence in Islam is more the norm as the penalty for homosexuality & homosexual acts.
    1
  1345. There are lots of different phone models out there & because the de-Googling process is different for each make/model of phone - it would take a long time indeed for someone to work out how to de-Google each make/model of phone (& at the risk of "bricking" several (& possibly expensive) phone models along the way) just so they could pass that information on to others. And they might probably end up having to "sell" those de-Googling instructions to others, in order to recoup the cost of all the hours spent trying to work out that process for each phone make/model, as well as the cost of any "bricked" phones along the way. I also doubt that there would be a sufficient market for such de-Googling instructions - because people would need to have a certain level of technical ability to do it themselves - even if they are just following the instructions given to them. Yes - there are certainly people with those skills out there - but probably not enough to make providing such a service worthwhile & at the very least to recoup costs or make a small profit to give that service provider "money to live on". And there are some makes/models of phones that simply cannot be de-Googled for a range of different reasons. It' may well just be easier & less expensive (in terms of "bricked" phones created in the process) to create a new phone from scratch that does not have any Google at all. It should also be noted that it is not possible to de-Apple at iPhone.
    1
  1346. I wonder how the court managed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was actually "praying"in her head, rather than "doing something else" "in her head"? How did the court manage to "prove" what she was actually doing "in her head"? Or did she actually "confess" to it, so the court did not have to "prove" what she was doing in her head?
    1
  1347. philochs: No no - I insist - Americans have taught us a very valuable lesson! I will never again provide food to black people, least of all chicken - I promise! All Australians now realise how racist that is, and we truly want to mend our ways, and we are going to prove it to America by not sending any food to Haiti!
    1
  1348. It's usually the ultra-orthodox Jews who have such large families - rather than secular Jews - who would constitute the majority of the female Jews doing national military service.
    1
  1349. TonyCheekyful: Honestly, I am not Douglie. I am, and always will be, janburn007 (which I have been for quite a long time now). I have no intention of changing my name.
    1
  1350.  @raoulmoat6762  No-one's been "called out" other than yourself. You've simply drawn attention to yourself & made yourself look very silly indeed, by making totally irrelevant comments. I had already responded to your original comment - so your subsequent comment of "got nothing to say" looks very silly indeed. You might as well stop commenting now, before you make yourself look even more silly.
    1
  1351.  @raoulmoat6762  You would have no way of knowing whether I own an iPhone or not, or whether any of my friends happen to be overweight. You are plucking things out of thin air & completely off-topic. Your comments have nothing at all to do with the content of the above video, or my original comment about the video. If you don't want to make yourself appear even more silly - I suggest you stop your nonsense now.
    1
  1352.  @raoulmoat6762  I'm not getting angry at all - just being rational & logical in relation to what you have said. Me and my friends are all just having a jolly good laugh at you & your silliness/stupidity. You are completely off-topic, because what you have to say has nothing to do with the above video. I have posted all your responses on my social media, & we are all getting a jolly good laugh at your expense. We've even made up a song about your silliness/stupidity! My friends think you must either be drunk, or on some kind of drugs, to be so incapable of making any rational comment which actually pertains to the above video. No-one's taking you seriously at all - & how could they, after the silly comments you've been making. If you'd hoped to gather some kind of support for a cause, then you have not been successful - because you've probably just made people think that you're beserk/completely bonkers.
    1
  1353.  @nickieglazer33  Thanks for that information!
    1
  1354. This is absolutely hilarious - a Victorian Council youth worker who is totally inappropriate for youth!
    1
  1355.  @danmano478  All mobile phones have an IMEI. They require an IMEI number (or 2 IMEI numbers if it's a dual SIM mobile phone) in order to make phone calls & send SMS's using the SIM card's mobile phone network. Without the phone having an IMEI, the SIM card will not be able to connect to the mobile phone network. Each SIM card slot has its own IMEI (in the case of a dual SIM phone like the Brax2 phone). So it really does not matter which phone you use for 2FA. Your on-line mobile phone account record with your mobile phone provider will often show the IMEI of the mobile phone you used to make the last phone call using their SIM card. If you take the SIM card out of one phone & put it into a different mobile phone & then make a phone call from that new phone, the IMEI number in the phone company's records will then change. The SIM card links to the IMEI number when a phone call is made or an SMS is sent (so it can connect to the phone network) & that information is then automatically held in the phone company's records. Although the IMEI's of the Brax2 phones currently being sold are not "registered" -most other mobile phones on the market do have registered IMEI's, & it's somewhat unusual for a mobile phone to have an unregistered IMEI. Rob Braxman did indicate in one of his earlier videos about the Brax2 phone, that not registering the IMEI's of the Brax2 phones was probably a mistake & something that was overlooked, saying that the IMEI's of the Brax2 phones should have been registered. The IMEI's are usually registered in bulk, quoting the "range" of the IMEI's (the "from" & "to" numbers) for the particular make & model of the phone that is being produced/manufactured, together with the specifications for that particular phone. Having a registered IMEI will enable most mobile phone carriers to readily identify the make & model of phone that is being used with their SIM card, & helps them to know whether that particular phone will work successfully with their network, based on the phone's particular recorded/registered specifications. It also helps the phone carriers to assign the correct "settings" for the phone in terms APN's etc - so the phone will work with their network. If the IMEI is not registered, the phone carrier/SIM card provider may not be able to know what make/model of phone is being used with their network & therefore may not be able to correctly determine if the phone should work with their network, & may also not be able to provide the correct settings for the phone - as each make/model of phone may require slightly different settings, based on the phone's own specifications. The fact that the Brax2 phones' IMEI's are not registered already seems to have caused a few problems for some phone users (especially in the USA) with some mobile phone companies, while some other users have not experienced any problems at all, connecting their Brax2 phones to their mobile phone network. This is one of the reasons why Rob Braxman has said that the next lot of Brax2 phones to be produced (in July), will have registered IMEI's. Originally he advised that as the IMEI's could not be registered retrospectively, the current lot of Brax2 phones will continue to have unregistered IMEI's - however he did just recently mention on his web site/app that he is currently investigating a way to get the IMEI's of the present Brax2 phones registered retrospectively. Because of the unregistered IMEI's for the present Brax2 phones, when some people have had problems getting the phone to work with their SIM card/phone carrier, they have been told by their phone company that their phone is being detected as a "Z10" make/model of phone based on the IMEI number, & are therefore being told that the Z10 phone is not suitable for use on their network. Then, the Brax2 users have had to explain to their phone company that it is not a Z10 phone, but a new make/model of phone called a Brax2. They have also often had to provide the phone company with all the specifications for the Brax2 phone, to see if the phone company can determine whether their service is compatible with the Brax2 phone. So, a mobile phone not having a "registered" IMEI can cause problems for some phone users - & it would probably make things much easier for most users, if the IMEI's of the Brax2 phones were registered at the outset. For privacy purposes, it makes little difference whether the IMEI's are registered or not.
    1
  1356.  @danmano478  As I mentioned in my response - the IMEI is only used to connect the phone/SIM card to the phone network, for services provided by the phone carrier - such as phone calls, SMS's & internet use (if using the SIM card's cell data to connect to the internet, & not wifi). Only the phone carrier has access to the IMEI, through the SIM card. Other 3rd parties do not use, or have access to the IMEI or its details - such as when a wifi internet connection is made using the phone handset (the wifi connection cannot access the IMEI). So, for these things, it makes no difference whether the IMEI is registered or not, because such 3rd parties cannot access the IMEI in any case (only the phone carrier can access it). Rob Braxman has also mentioned this in a couple of his videos. So, when you are doing your on-line/internet banking on the phone, your bank (or its web site provider) does not have access to the phone's IMEI, even if you are using your SIM card's cell data for the internet connection. Rob Braxman has also mentioned in his videos that it's fine to use a single phone handset with a dual SIM facility for 2 factor authentication (2FA) where 2FA may be required. In general, Rob Braxman is not keen on using the 2FA process as a verification method with the big tech & social media companies like Google & Facebook - because by knowing your phone number through via 2FA, those companies also gather your personal data & information. But sometimes there's no alternative to using 2FA for other things as well. It's fine to use 2FA with things like on-line banking, & use your Brax2 dual SIM phone for that purpose - both for the on-line banking & the 2FA. But if you'd still prefer to use a separate phone for the 2FA side of things - that is your choice, of course. However, Rob Braxman has indicated in his videos that that's not necessary, & a single dual SIM phone will suffice. And your privacy will remain unaffected, because only the phone carrier itself has access to the IMEI, & not 3rd parties. I hope the above explains things a bit better for you. By the way, the IMEI's for the Brax2 phone are actually printed on the outside of the phone's box, as well as on stickers on the back of the phone handset, & can also be found in the phone's software itself.
    1
  1357.  @danmano478  There is no actual data or information in, or linked to the IMEI itself. Any information or data would only be in the SIM card itself, which is provided by the phone carrier. The IMEI alone is really of not much use, because a SIM card could be moved around from phone to phone & with each phone change, the SIM uses a different IMEI to connect to the phone network - perhaps even in the phone of a friend you may have borrowed the phone handset from. The IMEI is really only of any use to link the SIM card to the phone network & outside of that no-one will know who the Brax2 phone belongs to at all - because it does not require any kind of identifiable log in. As long as you have a SIM card/account with a phone company I guess there may be a risk the phone company might sell your account information - but that risk is not coming from the phone handset or the IMEI - the risk would be coming from the phone company & SIM card itself. It's nothing to do with the handset at all.
    1
  1358. Paying people for such donations in other countries has often resulted in poor quality supplies from people who may only be doing it for the money.
    1
  1359. Also - as I understand it, Red Cross Lifeblood in Australia provides blood & blood products free of charge to anyone who requires them. But when they are administered in a hospital situation - the hospital & the doctors will charge their usual fees for administering those blood products. But the actual blood products themselves are provided free of charge - even though the blood/plasma donation centres obviously need to employ paid staff in those centres to collect the blood/plasma - which is given freely by donors. So the collection process itself is not without cost - but even so, the blood/blood products are provided free of charge when needed.
    1
  1360. These guys claim to be anti-racism. Before they made the allegations of racism about this ad, most of the rest of the world would not have even heard of their racial stereotype. By even mentioning the stereotype in this forum, all they have actually done is perpetuate it throughout the world - quite the opposite of their intent. If my country had such racist stereotypes, I wouldn't want to draw people's attention to it by making it public knowledge on Youtube. I'd be too ashamed to do so.
    1
  1361. I'm sure that Trump must have had a jolly good laugh when he heard Starmer say that the UK has "free speech"....
    1
  1362. In his coronation ceremony, King Charles vowed to be the "Defender of the Faith" which means the Christian faith/Church of England in the UK. And he should take that vow seriously! As much as he may wish to consider himself defender of ALL faiths - his vow was actually to be the Defender of the Christian faith - & THAT is what he should be doing. And as the head of the Church of England & Defender of the Christian faith - what he SHOULD have been doing was attending Shrove Tuesday/Pancake Day events, then going to church on Ash Wednesday, having an Ash cross placed on his forehead, & telling us what sacrifices he intended making during the Christian penitential season of Lent. But as head of the Church of England & Defender of the Christian faith, we saw him doing none of that at all. Instead, he was way too busy hosting Ramadan events & packing dates for Ramadan/Iftar! What nonsense! Does he not realise how contradictory & incompatible the beliefs are between Christianity & Islam? Is Charles THAT stupid? As much as he may wish to be, he simply cannot possibly be the defender of all the faiths, when they all have contradictory beliefs. He really does need to wake up to himself & learn a bit more about what Islam really believes - because at the moment, he seems to know nothing at all about its beliefs. I think the Archbishop of Canterbury needs to give Charles a good talking to.
    1
  1363. This documentary was released in 2013 - WAY before anyone had even heard of the Coronavirus. Having said that though, simply for reasons of basic hygiene, I would not wish to kiss any religious relic if I knew it had been kissed by literally millions of other people before me.
    1
  1364.  @VelvetyMoon  Unfortunately, not even a normal working immune system can guarantee someone will not catch a disease or virus, or be able to overcome it if they do catch it, or that people won't end up with some very serious complications caused by the disease/virus, if they do manage to overcome it. Even a normal working immun system does have its limitations. Most people will naturally have a working immune system - unless it's been almost done away with by things like treatment for cancer etc, or some other unusual condition. But the whole reason that diseases & viruses still exist in this world, are because people's natural working immune systems are simply not enough to prevent/overcome some diseases/viruses. If that were always the case (ie a natural working immune system were capable of preventing/overcoming diseases/viruses) then the world would have become disease/virus free a very long time ago.
    1
  1365. I agree with much of what you say about technology invading our lives & continually surveilling us these days. Which is why I have opted for a de-Googled Android mobile phone that does not require me to log into Google first, so Google can track me. Apple's iPhones track people everywhere they go - even when you turn off the phone, Apple is still tracking you. The only solution there, being to put the phone into a Faraday bag when it's not in use. Apple also wants to scan all their customers' iPhones & cameras for any possible illegal material so they can then report their customers to the authorities. That's why I will never use an iPhone. Apple obviously assumes all their customers are guilty until proven innocent, by Apple not finding any illegal material on their iPhones. In a real life situation though, the authorities would need to actually obtain a search warrant if they wanted to actually search your house & its contents, including your mobile phone. And in order to obtain that search warrant in the first place, they have to be able to prove to a judge that they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is engaged in illegal activities. But Apple wants to search all their customers' iPhones without any search warrant whatsoever - just because they can do it using their technology. It's really quite an invasion of privacy that iPhone users have no say in whatsoever.
    1
  1366.  @danieldecides7894  I see Apple, with Google as the runner-up, being 2 of the main offenders when it comes to on-line privacy - mainly because all commercially available mobile phones are either iPhones, or Google Android phones. Both phones require a user's unique user ID & password to log in, before one is able to use the phone & all of its features. iPhones require the user's Apple ID details & Android phones require the user to log in using their Google ID & password. From that point on, whenever the user does something on their phone, it can be tracked by Apple/Google who are able to identify the user from the log-in details they used. As most people these days use commercially available mobile phones, it's hard to avoid the long arm of Apple & Google tracking - & mobile phones have many more facilities/options/ways to track people than standard computers. So using a computer to do something, instead of a mobile phone, is usually a much better & safer choice, if one does not wish Apple or Google to be tracking all one's activities. But there are also many people for whom their smartphone has in effect, replaced their computer as well. There are of course, other "big tech" & on-line companies that are not in the mobile phone business like Apple/Google - but I generally refer to all of them as MAGAFT - Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter. They are all in the business of personal data gathering to a certain extent, & some have a better capability for it than others. While many of the younger generation are happy to provide all their personal information & life stories to these organisations, obviously there are many older people, who would prefer to retain a degree of privacy. Apple itself has admitted that its iPhones will continue to track people even when turned off (the iPhones then act like an airtag). Apple has also admitted that it has the technology to perform "client side scanning" on all of its customers' iPhones, to search for illegal material. It was actually proposing to do this at one stage, but has put the idea on hold for the time being, due to concerns expressed about privacy. But it still retains the technology to do this. Google is not quite as far advanced in this area as Apple - at least, not that it has made public.
    1
  1367.  @danieldecides7894  I believe that with the advent of modern technology & various on-line forums, mainly provided by big tech style companies, there has been a genuine power shift away from government & the state, to these privately owned big tech companies. And because they are private companies, many people say there is no right to freedom of speech & free debate in their on-line forums - they can ban/cancel/block whomever they wish, along with perceived "unwanted opinions/views" or support for the wrong political parties. They can essentially control the debate & opinion & express a very one-sided view if they wish - all apparently perfectly okay & legal because they are privately owned organisations & can do as they please - as claimed by many people. One only has to look at the way former US President Donald Trump was effectively cancelled from the internet because some people did not like his views & his politics. Most of these large on-line forum providers have simply fallen for the rhetoric of the "woke" & "cancel culture" people who do not believe in free speech & will readily seek to "cancel" anyone they disagree with. I believe that the woke & cancel culture people are actually in the minority - but they have been given a very large media platform/s on which to operate, so they have quickly become highly invasive - wanting to punish people for having the wrong opinion, even though they have done nothing illegal. So the woke & cancel culture people have become vigilantes, wanting to mete out their own punishments on people with the "wrong thinking", because the legal system may not be able to punish them, if they have not done anything illegal. I do think it's time the "silent majority" stood up to make their views known - but it can be a very difficult thing to do when the social media system works against & cancels anyone with different views. Contrary to the commonly accepted belief that private companies can just do as they wish because they are privately owned, I do think that governments could probably step in/step up & not allow social media to block/cancel users, unless they have actually done something illegal (eg libel/slander/inciting & encouraging others to commit physical acts of violence etc). Governments could also start issuing licences for people & companies to operate things like social media sites & on-line forums & rescind those licences if they try to ban people for expressing different opinions. yet not doing anything illegal. This would be similar to the way governments issue licences for TV & radio stations etc. But there's also a risk here that the power of the big tech companies even extends to their power over governments, because many governments also use the services of these big tech companies - for things like hosting their own web sites, on-line services for the public & their own internal computer services. Many governments use extensively the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook etc. So if these big tech companies did not like what the government was doing, they could simply threaten to withdraw all their services from the government, which would probably place the government in a lot of difficulty. If they could do it to Donald Trump, then they could also do it to any country's government. Those governments would then need to start from scratch & try to build all their own customised digital infrastructures, if that were possible - though it would take a lot of time. Most true freedom of speech for the ordinary man is now restricted to street preaching, or in other public areas specifically designed for such things - such as Speaker's Corner in London. But even that is getting a bit dubious now - because there have been violent assaults on people at Speaker's Corner, when some people did not like what they were saying. We also have people being arrested by the police for "silently praying in their heads" in a public place. There have also been instances of police visiting people in their homes, wanting to make sure "their thinking is correct", after they responded in writing to someone else's on-line post. We have the police being called in when a young schoolboy drops a copy of the Quran. Unless one is a member of the woke or cancel culture brigades & shares their opinions, it can certainly be very difficult for people to have their voices & opinions heard. I once complained to my local Member of Parliament about a group of non-Christian religious people seeking to impose their views on all of the local community, but the MP made it clear that he certainly did not support my view. So at the next election, I made a point of voting for his opponent. Even if one does not vote at all, I don't believe it will bring about the necessary changes that the majority of people wish to see.
    1
  1368. What I read was that the paging devices themselves were made in Taiwan, but one of the component parts of those paging devices, came from Hungary.
    1
  1369. There were obviously a number of simply untrue claims that Meghan made in that interview with Oprah Winfrey - that from that time onwards, would have made it very difficult to believe anything at all that Meghan says. One of those untrue claims was her claim that she & Harry had actually been married by the Archbishop of Canterbury a couple of days prior to the publicly televised wedding event, in a back garden with just the bridal couple & the Archbishop (but no witnesses) present. That may be "her (Meghan's) truth" as Oprah later claimed. But it's definitely not a good look when "her truth" turns out to be mostly a series of untrue claims which of course, no-one else believes. As a result of that - Meghan's credibility now lies in tatters,
    1
  1370. I agree that if people just want to read books filled with hokery pokery wokery nonsense - then they should just write new books for themselves, instead of trying to re-write existing classics, including children's books, that have been with us for a long time now, & are much-loved favourites. If we allow this now with children's books - where will it stop? Next thing you know they'll be wanting to completely re-write great British classics such as Shakespeare & Charles Dickens - claiming that these books are no longer appropriate for study in schools in their present form, because they use gendered language & contain outdated beliefs & concepts. All that tells me, is that people have to be extraordinarily ignorant & stupid to be "woke". After all, most people are capable of understanding that many things are simply a product of their time & should just be left as they are. But the stupid woke people are not capable of understanding that.
    1
  1371. PragnorVorn: Some of the alternatives are localised, and may not be Australia-wide. There are places like "Red Rooster" (not sure how "Australia-wide" they are), and "Kingsley's Chicken" (I know they are in Canberra/Queanbeyan, but not sure how further afield). "Kingsley's Chicken" looks very similar to KFC, but tastes much nicer, and they have some good "meal deals". Most local Australian take-away shops also sell roast chicken and chips. Hope you find something in your local area!
    1
  1372. That woman who is throwing around racial slurs is clearly an idiotic, imbecillic, moronic twit of a non-human being, whose mother clearly gave birth to an inferior alien being!
    1
  1373. ...Actually, I've just seen that response video where the two of them make fun of the Malay and Muslim culture. Apparently they don't care about offending the Malays - probably because they're Muslims, no doubt. No wonder so many Muslims are anti-American!
    1
  1374. ...Yes, it may surprise some Americans, but there are other people in the world besides Americans, and American stereotypes exist "only in America". Firstly, the "black" people in this ad are West Indians, not black Americans, so your American stereotypes do not apply here. To put the ad in its correct context, you need to know that this ad was just one in a series of several similar ads made for Australian TV to be shown during the summer cricket season...
    1
  1375. Okay, so far we've got a number of alternative, yet much more appropriate names for these two people, other than "The Young Turks". The suggestions include: The Young Twats, The Yankee Twits, The Yellow-bellied 'Tanks", "The Yankee Turkeys". Come on guys, use your imagination and come up with a few more - let's have a bit of fun here!
    1
  1376. TonyCheekyful: AC/DC is actually an "Australian" band as well - Australia is where they started out as a band many years ago, before launching themselves internationally as well. They are still going strong today as a band internationally. A friend of mine in Denmark recently told me AC/DC were doing some live concerts in Copenhagen not so long ago.
    1
  1377. ​ @coweatsman  I don't think it really matters that the actual word "trinity" does not appear in the bible or church writings up to a certain point - as long as the 3 in 1 nature of god which it describes, is evident from what is in the bible. The word "trinity" then becomes just a convenient term that is used to describe that 3 in 1 nature of god, as indicated in the bible - & I do believe there is evidence of this in the bible itself. For example, Jesus says in the bible "I & the Father are one", "he who has seen me has seen the Father" etc. When his disciples asked him not to leave them, Jesus said that unless he left, his spirit could not come to indwell in them. I think there are many different sayings/verses in the bible pointing to the 3 in 1 nature of god, which came to be defined as the trinity. So it's really immaterial that the word "trinity" does not actually appear in the bible or the early church, if evidence of the nature of god being 3 in 1, is already there in the bible.
    1
  1378. I felt that @tricky216 was rather unwarranted with their criticism & did not really seem to understand that in the previous video, BBB was merely reporting that some people were pursuing the pharmaceutical company legally, alleging that the vaccine had caused them injury. That's not to say that BBB necessarily agreed with these claims or felt that they had merit. So, saying in their post that "thought you'd be better than this" makes it seem that they are accusing BBB of being a conspiracy theorist, because he thinks that BBB is agreeing with the claims - which was certainly not the impression that I got. Ultimately those claims will be proven or not proven in a court of law, & the court may make a decision to award some damages if the injuries are proven to be vaccine-related. And if the court found that the injuries WERE vaccine-related - that would also prove that it wasn't all just a conspiracy theory after all - but legitimate vaccine-related injuries. The other issue that @tricky216 just does not seem to understand - is that all common vaccinations - even the ones that have been around for many years - could have some possible rare but serious side effects with certain types of people & therefore set payments may be awarded to such people who have experienced those serious side effects. This is why - for all vaccines, & especially with the COVID-19 vaccines, it was recommended that if anyone was in doubt as to whether they should have the vaccine, they should consult their own medical practitioner (who would have access to their personal medical records) & seek their advice, as to whether the vaccine was suitable for them. If the recommendation then was that they showed no adverse indicators for the vaccine - & could therefore proceed with the vaccine - but then later still suffered some serious side-effects - the option is then still open to the individual to seek compensation in the form of one of the set payment/benefit amounts, if they qualified for them under the criteria. Unfortunately @tricky216 did not really seem to have a good understanding of how these things work.
    1
  1379.  @JasperDaniels-w5f  That was certainly not the impression I got. Even the video's title seemed quite realistic, in my view. But if the number of subscribers increased - that can only be a good thing - though it may have just been a "natural" increase in any case.
    1
  1380. How grossly stupid can these young police officers possibly be? Surely before they entered the police force, they must have known that it would involve 24/7 policing & round the clock shift work - including working weekends & outside of normal business hours. Policing is not a 9 to 5 job. Criminals don't clock off at 5pm. The police force is one of the essential emergency services - just like the ambulance service, hospitals, fire brigade etc. All of these services operate round the clock, 24/7, & need to be adequately staffed at all times. Are these young police officers way too stupid to understand that? If so, they are also way too stupid to even be in the police force, & I wonder how they even managed to pass the entrance test. Has the police force lowered its entrance standards that much, that they are now accepting such stupid young people into their ranks?
    1
  1381. The Falun Gong has had a presence in my country & in my city, for quite a number of years now. Whenever there is some sort of celebration or festival - particularly those which are multicultural in nature - the Falun Gong seem to have a stand/stall there, handing out flyers to passers-by etc. I have also been aware of the ethnically Chinese dance company Shen Yun, for a number of years now, & they usually visit my city annually for a performance when they are on tour. I always knew that they were not actually from China - but that the dance company was based in the USA (New York, I think). I had also always had a keen interest in ballet & dance (having been active in that area when I was younger). The excerpts I saw of Shen Yun's performances looked fascinating & beautiful, & for several years I kept telling myself that I should go to see one of their performances when Shen Yun next visited my city. I finally got to do that just 2 years ago now. I went by myself & happened to be seated next to a Caucasian gentlemen (who also appeared to be there by himself) with whom I had a brief discussion during the intermission. He had asked me what my interest was in China & Shen Yun - which I thought was a bit of a strange question to ask, or assumption to make. I explained to him that my interest was not really in either China or Shen Yun itself - rather my interest was in the dancing itself - as I had always been interested in ballet & dance. But the "interesting" part of the entire performance came at the very end, when they had a sort of "propaganda moment" on the stage, promoting the Falun Gong, & showing how the Falun Gong were being persecuted in China. I had only purchased my programme for the performance during the intermission, as I had no time to do that prior to the performance. But when I had a chance to read the programme more thoroughly, it became apparent from the advertising in the programme & also some of the write-ups in the programme, that the show was heavily sponsored & promoted by the Falun Gong. In fact, I had used my credit card to purchase the programme & when the transaction appeared on my credit card statement, the merchant's name appeared with the words "Falun Gong" or "Falun Dafa", or something like that - so I immediately recognised it as having a connection to the Falun Gong. Prior to attending that performance of Shen Yun, I had absolutely no idea they were connected to Falun Gong. On the other hand, I must say that I have never come across the Confucius Institute before at all - though I must admit, it's been a number of years since I was at university. However, the university I attended, & in particular the residential college where I resided there during my time at university, was amongst the first (or perhaps even THE first) in our country at least, to admit students from the People's Republic of China, at a time when the blue Mao suit was still the standard dress for people in the PRC. It was quite a fascinating experience for everyone in our residential college to encounter these 4 PRC students - 2 male & 2 female - always dressed in their blue-ish Mao suits, & looking rather plain as they did, & also probably a few years older than most of the rest of us (or at least, they did look a little bit older). They did not really inter-mingle with the rest of the students in our residence very much & tended to keep to themselves a lot - but we would always see them in the dining room at meal times. Perhaps they felt a little self-conscious if they thought their English was not "up to par" - I don't think we were a particularly "scary" lot of students - probably a bit on the conservative side really. But these 4 students from the PRC remained in our residential college for about 12 months. It was an interesting experience for us all.
    1
  1382. When people say that Santa Claus is not real, I correct them & remind them that he was in fact a real person. Santa Claus is Father Christmas/Saint Nicholas, who was indeed a very real person, & the source of much of our tradition around gift giving at Christmas time. Certainly, Saint Nicholas was a very real figure in history, who is no longer alive - but one certainly should not be saying that Santa Claus is not real. Also, all the silly people always come up with the same old statements at Christmas time - claiming that Christmas is pagan - which is just nonsense. Several of the early church fathers indeed worked at calculating the date/time of Christ's birth & eventually came up with 25 December, based on the date that Christ was said to be conceived - when the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary & told her she would have a son. They then calculated 9 months from that date, & came up with 25 December. Just because there may already happen to be another celebration/festivity on any particular day, is quite immaterial. As most people should know, there are only a very limited number of days in each calendar year, so it's inevitable that there is going to be some "doubling up" of various festival/celebration days, which are going to be celebrated on the same day. Saying that each festive occasion should have its own unique day of the year on which to celebrate it, is totally impractical. It would be like telling me that my birth date is not my birthday, because someone else before me was also born on that same day. That is simply nonsensical. But even 25 December as the date of Christ's birth is not 100% accurate - does it really matter? After all, record-keeping in those times was not always as accurate as it is today. And surely, the main thing is that we DO actually celebrate the momentous occasion of the birth of Christ on a particular day. And if the exact date of Christ's birth is not known for certain, he is not the only one in that situation. Even today, there are still many people in developing countries, for example, who have no official record of their exact date of birth.
    1
  1383. I wholeheartedly agree that the media coverage in the west, of the present conflict in the middle-East between Israel & Hamas/Palestine, is enormously biased - especially by the BBC - which still will not admit that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. To get the real truth behind the situation, one needs to be very selective of which media outlets one watches. In the city in which I live - for at least the last 4 weeks or so, there have been pro-Hamas/pro-Palestinian rallies/demonstrations in the city centre every weekend either on a Friday night (our late night shopping night) or Saturday morning/afternoon. A lot of very exploited young people participate in these rallies & I'm quite confident they know absolutely nothing at all about the real historical situation between Israel & the Palestinians. Yet they still chant the most evil slogans which are anti-Israel (& that's the nicest thing which can be said about them). One only has to watch some of the children's TV programmes which have been produced by Hamas for consumption by young Palestinian children in Gaza (& also exported to Muslims in other countries around the world) - to understand that their children are being indoctrinated to hate Jewish people from an extraordinarily young age - & that's probably why so many of them become terrorists. I've watched a number of episodes of such programmes where young children blame the Jews for things like not having done their homework even! These Hamas children's TV shows would be totally laughable by most western standards - yet it is what the children of Gaza have grown up watching. One of the crucial differences between Israel & Hamas is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation which totally defies the rules of war by deliberately & brutally attacking & murdering Israeli/Jewish civilians. They use their own civilians in Gaza as human shields by not allowing them to leave/evacuate areas when warned in advance by the IDF that those areas may be targeted by the IDF. Hamas deliberately base their operations out of civilian areas & buildings expecting the IDF to obey the rules of war (which Hamas does not obey) by not targeting such areas. Then if the IDF do target such areas, knowing that Hamas are hiding in those civilian areas (thus making them a legitimate target during a war) - Hamas shouts "genocide!" & "war crimes!" - when Hamas themselves are really the only ones guilty of those things. In any war, some civilian casualties are inevitable, as collateral damage - even though they were never the intended target. But Hamas are the only ones to blame for the deaths of Gaza civilians - because they effectively used them as human shields by not allowing them to leave/evacuate & move to safer areas. Such civilian deaths are not the responsibility of the IDF, once they had issued warnings. Hamas of course, are willing to kill their own civilians in Gaza & blame it on the IDF - it's just what terrorist organisations do.
    1
  1384. MilitantPeaceist: I have already seen and read KFC Australia's official statement many times over. It still doesn't get away from the fact that they caved in to American pressure on this issue, and did not make a stand for Australia and Australian values. If they're not prepared to do that, then in my view they can't expect to sell their product to Australians.
    1
  1385. TenmaxHarima: Actually, for your information, that "Michael Jackson" sketch was not "a group of white guys" - it was a group of (Australian-born) Indian and Sri-Lankan guys who did the sketch. It was not intended as racist, and not considered racist by Australians. It was meant as a comedy, and the guys were just trying to look more like Michael Jackson by dressing up that way. Australians had no knowledge of the "American racial stereotype" of "blackface", and were not imitating "blackface".
    1
  1386.  @jjr185  For many causes of death it's possible for the cause to be known without an autopsy - eg matters related to heart or respiratory failure, or where people had a pre-existing condition which caused certain symptoms which may have brought on the person's death. However, putting the official cause of death on a death certificate as simply "old age" is simply a case of laziness or incompetence on the part of the doctor.
    1
  1387. @Xavier Breath Which begs the question - why is the government allowing them to get away with it?
    1
  1388.  @domari9459  Technically though, as "platforms" - they are not supposed to "censor" comments & posts on those platforms - in return for which, they cannot be legally prosecuted for anything other people may say on their platforms. But then they seem to want to have their cake & eat it too, by claiming to be "platforms" - but then censoring posts in any case. Once they start censoring, that means they are no longer "platforms" as such. Someone really needs to be pursuing them legally for censoring comments, while at the same time claiming to be a "platform" - which they are not, once they start censoring. And if they are no longer a "platform" - that means they can be sued for content in the posts made on their site/page. And since this does not appear to be working from the legal point of view - hence my suggestion for the "licensing" system.
    1
  1389.  @domari9459  I'm not claiming I can pull the big tech & social media providers into line to force them not to censor - nor should I have to. Just pointing out they are already breaching the law by censoring while technically/legally declaring themselves a "platform" - & the government is not pulling them into line as it should, for breaching the law. Big tech is controlling the government (it "cancelled" the US President), instead of the government controlling big tech.
    1
  1390.  @domari9459  I as one person cannot do very much. But government & its elected officials should be acting in the interests of all the people - after all, it is "people" who actually vote them in - not the big corporations. Despite their lobbying, big corporations do not actually "vote" in elections.
    1
  1391. I understand that western society, to the Asian culture, may appear promiscuous. But if they are getting that from TV shows like "Sex & the City" & "Friends" (as you mentioned), then if it's seen as something bad - I don't understand why the Chinese censors even allow shows like that on TV in China. The Chinese censors seem pretty good at censoring many other things, like the internet - so why even allow shows like that on TV in China? Also, given that the Chinese culture is one which once tolerated men having several wives &/or concubines, it's easy to believe that the Chinese themselves may be quite sexually promiscuous. In the case of drugs & western society - given that opium dens & opium addiction were once very commonplace in China & other places - it seems that the Chinese have made a complete "about face" on the issue of drug taking & have now developed an aversion to it - which is probably quite a good thing. I agree that not being aware of the custom of removing one's shoes before entering a Chinese home is perceived as bad manners . Many Asian countries have this custom (Japan, Korea etc) & I thought this custom was fairly widely known. In Asian countries like these, it is often said that people "live" on the floor - in the sense that they often sit on the floor, including to eat at low tables etc - hence the floor needs to be kept fairly clean, by people removing their shoes prior to entering the home. In some of these countries, people also sleep on the floor.
    1
  1392. My first overseas trip was to Spain in the early 1980's, where I stayed with a Spanish family (who had a very nice 3-level house) for about 3 months - & that was where I had my very first experience of a toilet with a "poop shelf" at the rear - like the one shown in the above video. The toilets in my home country never had such a thing, & had minimal water in them (unlike the American toilets, as I was later to discover) - so I was very puzzled as to why the Spanish toilet had this "shelf" which prevented the "poop" from just going directly into the water. I felt it was a bit embarrassing (who wants to look at their own poop?) & did not leave the toilet so clean afterwards. I was too embarrassed to ask my host family about it - but I later was advised that the reason for it, was the same as the reasons given in the above video - to avoid "splash" & so that if need be, the "poop" could be examined for any indications of ill-health etc. Not that either of those things had ever really concerned any of my family, back in my own country! However, on that same visit to Spain, I was also very shocked when I went to use the customer toilet facility at my local "cafe bar" - & discovered that it was nothing more than a hole in the ground, with a pole in the middle to hang on to, if need be! I'd never seen anything quite so primitive before! Fortunately, my own country had always had very good & free public toilet facilities - though at one stage when I was growing up in the 1960's/1970's, for a brief period the ladies rest room in the town hall building of the town I was from, did install locks on the toilet cubicle doors, where one had to insert a 2 cent coin (a very nominal charge indeed - even at that time) for the lock to open & allow one in. After leaving the toilet cubicle, the door would automatically lock itself behind you. However, if my mother & I both wanted to use the toilet there - one of us would go in first, pay the 2 cents, then hold the door open for the other to use it afterwards, so we did not have to pay the 2 cents again! The facilities were always very clean. When I attended primary school in the 1960's -1970, I recall the girls' toilets at our school sometimes had that "open" bit at the front of the toilet seat (like in the above video), which always puzzled me & I never figured out the reason for it (though our toilet at home was certainly not like that). Also, some of the toilets at the school were even older & had the "water tank" high up on the wall behind the toilet, with a long chain dangling from it, with a little handle on the end, that one had to pull down on hard, to flush the toilet afterwards. About 12 months after my trip to Spain in the early 1980's, I stayed with some friends near Bonn in West Germany, & must admit that I was always quite impressed with their nice bathroom & toilet facilities - everything always seemed very hygienic & sanitary. Their toilets did not have the "poop shelf" I had experienced in Spain, & was a bit more like the toilet I had been used to at home - though with slightly more advanced flushing facilities. Then from Germany I took a side trip to visit some friends near New York in the USA, just for 3 weeks or so - & experienced a slightly different kind of toilet yet again - one that had about half a toilet bowl full of water - just like the one in the above video. I wondered what the purpose was, of so much water in the toilet bowl & at first thought that as soon as I sat on the toilet seat - my bottom would almost be touching the water. I also thought that anything I put into the toilet bowl would make so much more of a splash & then be left to just float around in all that water, until I was ready to flush everything away. I found it all very off-putting really - but just had to put up with it. I must say I much prefer the style of toilet in my home country - which I found to be the most similar to the ones I also experienced in Germany - though in truth, I thought the toilets in Germany were slightly better. I can't recall whether the light switches overseas were inside or outside the bathroom - it obviously never really bothered me too much. But in my home country I've only ever come across them inside the bathroom. When I was growing up, all our kitchen sinks, vanity basins, & laundry tubs, only had a single fawcet through which the water came, but with separate hot & cold water taps to mix the water to the desired temperature. But some years ago now, "single mixer handles" started to become quite popular in new homes, or during renovations, & also in workplace bathroom/toilet facilities, & in some public toilet facilities as well.
    1
  1393. I certainly believe in freedom of speech & no censorship, unless people are also doing something that is currently illegal - like engaging in defamation/libel/slander/inciting physical acts of violence etc. It's strange that the "get out of gaol free" card that people generally use when allowing rampant censorship on the big tech social media platforms, is - "well they are private companies, so they can do anything they like". If that is really the case - then why, for example, are people in the real world - like a bakery being owned & operated by a person not wishing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, being prosecuted? Are they not also a private business being run by a private individual - so do those same rules of "they are a private business, so they can do anything they want" - not also apply to them?
    1
  1394. PragnorVorn: From memory, I think they were mostly either Indian or Sri-Lankan - but I'm not 100% sure.
    1
  1395. I wonder what would have happened if Matt had asked a bunch of people "What is a man?" - after all, women can be men too, or identify as men. Women can have male genitalia & identify as men - so really, I think Matt should have been asking as well, "What is a man?"
    1
  1396. Those who are critical of Stephen Fry's Christmas message are nothing but a bunch of idiotic, imbecillic, moronic twits who are highly immoral bigots. They have indeed proven Fry's point that they are all anti-Semitic idiots.
    1
  1397. All of Big Tech/social media is always listening - it's called "MAGA-FT" which stands for Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon - Facebook, Twitter".
    1
  1398. Harry & Meghan have hidden their children away for so long now, that everyone has lost interest in them & no-one cares about them at all any more. I say good riddance to them all.
    1
  1399.  @jstewart3799  Just because Christmas Day may also be Nimrod's birthday, does not make Christmas Day pagan. On that day, Christians are celebrating the birth of Christ - not Nimrod. There simply are not enough days in the year to ensure that each festival/celebration has its own unique "day" of the year, that is shared with no other festival /celebration. I don't go around saying my birthday is not really my birthday - it's actually someone else's birthday - simply because many other people before me were also born on that same day of the year. So it's not logical to claim that Christmas Day is pagan. It's true that some of the traditions & decorations used at Christmas time may have evolved from non-Christmas traditions/decorations, of other celebrations which occurred around the same time as Christmas. But when the very reason for celebrating Christmas/Christmas Day is the birth of Jesus Christ - I don't think anyone would say that is pagan.
    1
  1400. Jemini29944: Even without the sign at the start of the ad, most Australians would clearly recognise this as a scene from a cricket match. The black people in the ad are clearly recognisable as West Indian because of their celebratory behaviour - banging of drums etc. And cricket is the only gaime where Australia is involved in international sporting competition against the West Indians. So to most Australians, the secene is clearly a cricket match, with or without the sign at the start.
    1
  1401. Sounds like the British police force is nothing but a real pack of ignorant drong dogs.
    1
  1402. ​​That's true - but Jesus himself was also Jewish & Christianity still shares some of the same scriptures with Judaism. Islam came along about 600 years after Christianity & created their own scriptures & beliefs which contradicted much of both Christianity & Judaism. And I've yet to see Charles celebrating any significant Jewish events at all. He did nothing for Hannukah (around Christmas time), & he did nothing for the last Passover (around Easter last year - 2024). It will be interesting to see whether he does anything special for this coming Passover. I doubt that Charles will do anything at all to celebrate any Jewish events - he only seems interested in celebrating events in the Islamic calendar.
    1
  1403. A Muslim is simply some who supposedly follows the teachings of the religion of Islam. It is the teachings & writings in the Islamic scriptures themselves, that in many instances, encourage the killing of non-Muslims. And that is why terrorism of that kind is often referred
    1
  1404.  @englishboy993  Yes we understand that - but we most often see it used to describe acts of Islamic terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, who understand their scriptures in a very literal sense, & seek to carry out the instructions contained in those scriptures.
    1
  1405. Yes - it looked like it fell to the ground - but we did not actually see it on the ground - so maybe it actually fell onto one of the lower level trays on the boy's cart, or something like that.
    1
  1406. dayal35: I know there've been a few recent incidents of violence where some Indian people have been attacked, though I don't think it's yet been proven that the attacks were racially motivated. Even if they were racially motivated, it doesn't mean everyone in Australia is racist - because don't forget, you'd also be condemning other Indian people in Australia as well.
    1
  1407. DoctorRosenRosen:...I agree that taking such an extreme PC stance on some issues, is only prolonging the problem. It also sometimes distracts peoples' energies, which could be put to better use fighting "genuine" instances of racism, rather than just trying to be politically correct all the time.
    1
  1408. Yes - everyone should just ignore Harry & Meghan - like they are "nobodies", like they do not exist, like they are unimportant, like they are not worth commenting on.
    1
  1409. Maybe then we should tell the Palestinians that their prophet Muhammad was a Jew! Some Muslims have even gone as far as claiming Jesus was a Muslim - even though Islam as a religion did not come along until about 600 years after Christianity. So if they can claim that Jesus was a Muslim - then surely it's okay for Jews & Christians to claim that Islam's main prophet - Muhammad - was a Jew. But honestly - Muhammad did & said so many terrible things (which can be read about in the Quran & hadiths) that I'm sure no self-respecting Jew or Christian would want to claim him as their own. Clearly Jesus was Jewish - because any child born of a Jewish mother is considered to be Jewish. And the Bible says that Jesus was born of the line of King David - who was also a Jew. Palestine did not even exist when Jesus was born - so Jesus could not possibly have been Palestinian. That is simply a figment of the very vivid imaginations of some pro-Hamas supporters. They very much want Jesus to be Palestinian, because Islam has always recognised Jesus as a prophet - albeit one who is way beneath Muhammad. They also want people to believe that as a Palestinian, Jesus would be on their side. But according to Jesus' teachings in the Bible - everything Hamas is doing is going against Jesus' teachings in the Bible - so there is no way he would ever have been on their side.
    1
  1410. There's a vast difference between cyber "security" & "privacy". Security does not necessarily guarantee your privacy. Apple iPhones may claim to be "secure", but they are a nightmare when it comes to your personal privacy - because even when the iPhones are switched off, they still behave like an AirTag & will be tracking you wherever you go. The only way to avoid this tracking is by storing the iPhone in a Faraday bag. One way to get around "end to end encryption", is with something like "client side scanning" (CSS) - which actually scans the content of one's phone, BEFORE it becomes encrypted, & sent anywhere at all - & Apple iPhones have already had the ability to conduct CSS for at least the last several models of the iPhone. The only way to avoid this CSS, on either an iPhone or an Android phone, is by using a non-Google/de-Googled mobile phone that does not use either Google or Apple's Operating System. Those who claim not to be worried about end to end encryption or CSS, obviously also have no concerns about their privacy at all - or may simply not have been able to think of all the possible ways their own privacy might be affected by something like this. For those who simply claim they have "nothing to hide" - I do wonder how they might feel if certain politically related views they may have expressed on-line say, 10 - 20 years ago, suddenly come to the attention of a prospective employer who may be checking out their background. Even though the person's political views may have long since changed - they might still risk losing out on that job, if the prospective employer is not impressed by those political views they expressed many years ago. So, when people say things like "I've got nothing to hide" - I think they do need to broaden their minds & their scope somewhat, to consider ALL of the possible ways a total lack of privacy might affect them. Because most of the time, I think people are simply ignorant or unaware of the many ways in which a total lack of privacy may affect them.
    1
  1411. Jemini29944: You can please yourself which one you choose to answer first.
    1
  1412. It's clear there is a pack of putrid perverted nazi terrorists who are going around some parts of the country promoting anti-Semitism. This mob of mindless morons don't even have two brains to rub together amongst the lot of them. They have no idea of world history or anything that has happened in the past, let alone the situation in the middle-East. If someone targeted them for extermination I don't think they'd be too happy - but they seem to think it's okay for them to want to exterminate a group of people, who on a world-wide basis, is very small minority group indeed - & nothing like the large numbers of Christians or Muslims throughout the world. These nazi imbeciles need to wake up from their "hokery pokery wokery" nonsense & get themselves a real education We should never forget our history - or we are doomed to repeat it. We can perhaps eventually forgive what has happened in the past - because it was done by very stupid people indeed - but we should never forget what was done - or we will end up doing it again.
    1
  1413. There's one sure way to "fix" that university - & that is for all students to "boycott" the university - for those existing students who object to what's happening to change to another university, & for any future/prospective students not to go there & select another university instead. Also, to facilitate the student boycott, any businesses firms/organisations/companies that would normally employ people/graduates from universities should make an open statement that because of the extremely poor reputation of Evergreen College, they will no longer even consider employing people who've attended Evergreen College. If all businesses come out & make that statement up front, & with that knowledge, it will make future university students want to chose any university other that Evergreen - thus assisting & promoting the student boycott. As a result the Evergreen student enrolments will eventually decline to the point where the university is no longer financially viable, & it will have to close. Perhaps then some other private university will "buy it out" so to speak, & start up a "proper" university on that campus, & call it by some other name. That will hopefully teach Evergreen College a lesson they are not likely to forget in a hurry - it's sad it might have to be that way - but it is really the only way when the administration & students insist on behaving so abominably. And when Evergreen College eventually closes its doors - it will be hard for those "left-over" staff to find jobs elsewhere because of the very poor reputation their university had. Fortunately, that seems like it might already be happening, with the university now being millions of dollars in debt, since student enrolments have already dropped dramatically - let's hope it continues on that downwards spiral till it closes.
    1
  1414. Rob Braxman has already done a video with Mr Bombal.
    1
  1415. Some of those supposed "feminists" would not recognise what true "feminism" was, even if it walked right up to them & slapped them in the face 10 million times. But then again, what else could one possibly expect to find in that cesspit of a swamp they call "Twitter" - other than a bunch of lunatic lefties & "woke" people who are entirely devoid of "common sense". Most "normal" people would easily know that Jenny Morrison's appearance & manner of dress (ie no make-up & a plain black/dark dress whilst signing the condolence book for Prince Philip was intended as a sign of mourning for a practising Christian. But we wouldn't expect any member of the loony left to know that now, would we? That is just way too complicated for someone like them to understand! They're way too busy spewing forth complete nonsense from their mouths! Maybe it's about time we put all those "woke" people back to sleep - since nothing at all they do makes any sense whatsoever.
    1
  1416. yelspa: The fact that Australia is an isolated country in terms of its geographical location, means that in many ways, in the past, it has been immune to some things that happen in the rest of the world. That's not necessarily a bad thing - especially if it means Australia hasn't heard of America's own racial stereotypes. In the past it's also meant that Australia hasn't fallen victim to the same diseases as other parts of the world...
    1
  1417. The girl already stated the reason - it was because there had been a few changes to the custody schedule - they had a bit of an argument about it.
    1
  1418. NzerinOz: Ha ha - personally, I wouldn't disown Russell Crowe just because he plays up a bit. And you wouldn't cop any flack from me about the All Blacks. When it comes to sport - let the best team win, I say!
    1
  1419. Jesus' message of loving one another does not apply to Jews & Muslims, because Jews do not believe in the New Testament of the Christian Bible & Muslims do not believe in the Christian Bible at all.
    1
  1420. NzerinOz:...I certainly don't believe KFC Australia made an Australian ad, which they knew contained an American stereotype that would be offensive to Americans. I think there would have to have plenty of American input into the making of the ad for that to happen. Given that the ad was made by KFC Australia, in Australia, by Australians, and for Australians, I simply don't think there would have been enough American input into the ad for its makers to be aware of the American stereotype...
    1
  1421. Moostachioed:Perhaps I should have clarified my earlier response by saying that the "West Indian" people in the advertisement were actually from the West Indies (in the Caribbean) - not the western parts of India.
    1
  1422. Email messages in particular are notoriously insecure, despite some email service providers claiming to be more secure & having end to end encryption. What some people don't realise, is that only email messages sent from & to email addresses with the same internet domain (eg both sender & recipient have gmail email addresses, not the sender being gmail & the recipient being Outlook, for example) can be encrypted for their entire journey. An email message travelling from a gmail address to an Outlook address, will not be encrypted when it's travelling from the gmail domain to the Outlook domain, but will only be encrypted while it is within the gmail domain, & again after it has reached the Outlook domain. So, while it is travelling between those 2 different internet domains, an email message is in effect not encrypted, & could be subject to interception in that un-encrypted state. Apple iPhones do in fact already have the technology in place to be able to do "client-side (pre-encryption) scanning" on all their mobile phone devices & they have had this ability since about iPhone 10 - though as far as we know, it has not actually been put into practice as yet. Google Android phones, on the other hand, do not yet have such technology on their mobile phones. It was not that long ago that Apple proposed to activate that client-side scanning on all their iPhones, to check for any illegal "CSA" material on their users' phones. But there were strong objections to it at that time, so Apple advised they would not be proceeding with it then - though they still have the technology for it on their phones. I think most of the objections against this client-side scanning of mobile phones relate to other albeit legal & confidential but "interesting" material being detected on phones (while being scanned for "illegal" material), which if used by the authorities or anyone who may gain access to it, could potentially cause harm to the owners. For example, it might reveal a person's political or religious beliefs, or confidential but legal business material could be made public, which might damage a person's business. There could be an endless list of things which if made public could potentially cause harm to the owner, even without being illegal. And once the technology is being used for such scanning, there's no way of knowing for certain what it's actually scanning for & what information is then being sent to the authorities, & who else might be able to access that information. I think people are right to be very sceptical of this new on-line safety bill, & believe they should do everything within their power, to ensure their important information, documents, photos, messages etc, are stored in a safe & secure manner so they are not able to be scanned in such mass scanning. This is why I always tell people not to keep any important documents, information, photos, messages on a mobile phone - it's best to keep them on a computer using a separate hard drive. In any case, now that people in the UK are being given fair warning of this scanning possibility, it's doubtful that many people will be "caught" - because they will simply take precautions against it & not keep information on any of their devices, which could be caught by this technology. I would also recommend that people use more secure 3rd party messaging apps such as Session (which don't require a phone number) & try to avoid where possible, using standard phone calls & SMS messaging relying on a phone company's SIM card, which can be traced in certain circumstances. I personally also use a custom-made non-Google Android mobile phone, that does not require me to log in to either Apple or Google, in order to use it. So in effect, the phone has no "identity" - unlike iPhones or Google Android phones, which require a person to log in using either their Apple or Google user ID's, thus identifying the user of the phone, before then allowing use of the phone. I don't really see the need for such client-side scanning technology to be able to scan everyone's devices en masse for illegal material, when relatively few people are likely to have such material in any case. If the authorities have good reason to suspect an individual has illegal material stored on their device - why not just obtain a search warrant to search that particular person's devices, rather than scanning everyone's devices en masse without even suspecting all those other people & without a search warrant? The authorities already have that ability. At the moment, there are other methods the authorities could use to gather more or less the same information. For example, they could just ask Apple to scan iCloud for any illegal material that a particular person might have. Or they could ask Google to scan Google drive for illegal material. Apple & Google have been known to comply with such government requests in the past (for a fee) - so I don't see why they should object to such a request & handing over such information. There's no need to scan everyone's devices just in case they might have illegal material. I certainly don't blame people for thinking that en masse scanning by the authorities would be an invasion of their privacy, when there are other methods already available to them. But I don't think it will surprise anyone, given that the UK has already legislated for thought crime. After all - if even people's thoughts are not private - why would anything else be entitled to be private? We are going back to the future of "1984".
    1
  1423. I've always found it strange how so many people - general members of the public etc - were able to talk about & make claims that Folau had actually breached the terms of his contract - when probably almost none of those people would have ever even seen Folau's contract, to be able to know what was in it. So how can they possibly legitimately claim that Folau breached his contract, without ever having seen or read it? What kind of a complete & utter idiot does that? At the very least they should remain sceptical until they have personally seen a copy of the contract - but they were never likely to be allowed to set eyes on it anyway. These are obviously the kinds of people who will believe absolutely anything at all they read in the media - or believe anything they are told by Rugby Australia - when it now turns out that both Rugby Australia & most of the media just told a pack of lies. So next time everyone will know who to believe - & it won't be Rugby Australia, or the tabloid media! It turns out there was nothing in his personal contract that he breached & the only reason they were able to come up with for dismissing him was that they claimed he breached the player's code of conduct - which was a very general code of conduct applicable to all the players - & they claimed that he breached that code by bringing the game into disrepute. So that means that all those other players who make headlines by taking drugs & drink driving, & getting into fights/brawls, committing acts of domestic violence - Rugby Australia believes those players did absolutely nothing to bring the game into disrepute & they suffered no punishment from RA. However a man of faith who makes posts in his private time in social media, containing quotes from the Bible, is seen as bringing the game into disrepute & is sacked & banned from ever playing the game again. It's simply ludicrous. RA & many of the other players are so full of double standards & hypocrisy, it's almost unbelievable. That player (Drew) who hinted that Folau should be donating to the causes of sick children instead of raising funds for his own legal defence, really needs his head examined (he obviously got hit in the head too many times while playing rugby, as he does not seem to be able to think straight any more) . How does he know that Folau is not already donating to sick children or other worthwhile causes? There are so many worthwhile causes in this world - & they don't all relate to sick children. People often donate to causes they feel a strong affinity with - causes with which they or their families have had some experience with - & these aren't always causes involving sick children. How dare Drew try to dictate to anyone, where people should donate their money. People will often feel a strong affiliation with Folau in this situation & want to donate to his cause, because they too have experienced similar religious discrimination in their own workplaces & businesses & they want to help put a stop to this kind of ridiculous persecution of Christians in Australia. Folau may be one of the more famous people in Australia who has been the victim of such religious discrimination - but he is far from the first. If you just dig a little deeper - you will find many more such "Folau's" in the general population - people who have lost their jobs or come very close to doing so - because of their Christian beliefs. So for these people, donating money to Folau's legal fighting fund is a perfectly worthy cause. Many people who know no better, have also claimed that Folau's social media post was "discrimination". That is simply not true at all. Legally, "discrimination" has a very specific meaning. One cannot be guilty of discrimination simply by saying or writing something that might offend a certain group or category of people. Discrimination can only be claimed by individuals who have personally experienced discriminatory actions against them, by another person. For example if Folau had said to one of his gay/homosexual rugby team mates that he would not play rugby with them because they were homosexual - then that individual could claim to have been discriminated against in the workplace, & may be able to pursue a legal case against for discrimination. But no-one has ever claimed that Folau did anything at all like this - so there is no legitimate discrimination case at all. Simply quoting a few Bible verses which refer to a number of different categories of people as going hell if they do not repent of their ways - is NOT discrimination. Offending someone is also not discrimination. If the Australian government & many members of the general population so obviously have disdain for the contents of the Bible - then it amazes me why the Bible is still allowed to be in such general use in our country - for things like taking oaths on it, & "swearing in" people to tell the truth in our courts of law. It is even used in Federal & State Parliaments for official purposes & swearing in of new MP's etc. Yet it has become blatantly obvious that most of these people (MP's etc) have so much hatred for the contents of that book. If that is the case - why do they continue using it for those official purposes? Why not just pass laws abolishing its use for all official purposes & advise the Queen that if she comes to Australia to open Parliament or officiate at any government ceremonies, the Bible must not be used (even though she is officially head of the Church of England). Surely it's better to abolish the use of the Bible in those scenarios, than to display hypocrisy & double standards. And you're not doing the Bible itself any favours either, by misusing it in those situations, yet not upholding the standards it espouses at all other times. It's a gross & blatant misuse of that book. I am certain that most practising Christians would never wish to see their holy book being used in such a dishonourable manner. It really is complete hypocrisy & gross misuse, to use the Bible for official purposes - then on every other occasion, turn in the opposite direction & say it's okay for a practising Christian to be sacked from their job for posting a Bible quote on their social media site in their own personal time. What is Australia coming to? At best, we seem to be on the very steep & slippery slope into oblivion.
    1
  1424. Knowing the stupidity of the Canadian authorities - they have probably taken his passport & will hang on to it until he has overstayed his visa/entry permit - then they will charge him with having overstayed his visa (despite that being the fault of the Canadian authorities, because they would not return his passport to him). And that will then become the immigration offence they charge him with. And because of that "offence" he won't be allowed back into Canada again in the future. It's just their way of preventing Tommy from engaging in any speaking tours of Canada - either on this trip, or any intended future trips. They probably really do not want Tommy doing speaking tours of Canada, because they do not approve of his views & politics. And they will do anything necessary to achieve that - even though it may mean shutting down freedom of speech to a certain extent, in Canada (not that they don't already have a very limited right to freedom of speech - as long as people learn to "say the right thing"). Another possibility is that if he is basically in Canada on a speaking tour, but does not have the correct type of visa/entry permit for that (because the Canadian authorities may consider that a speaking tour is "work", but his visa/entry permit may not allow him to "work" in Canada) - then that may also be considered an immigration offence. But one would have thought that if the police have arrested him & restricted his movements while awaiting a hearing - they also should have had the obligation to inform him in detail, exactly & in detail, what the charges are against him - so he can prepare a defence for his hearing, whenever that might happen. It sounds really silly that the authorities would not give him such details. It almost sounds like the charges may be trumped up & not genuine. And if he had outstanding immigration issues, why did they allow him into the country in the first place? Why not just refuse him entry & put him on a plane back to the UK? Anyway, those are just my own personal "speculations" on the matter.
    1
  1425.  @MKL614  Even though you might get a feeling that a person is racist from their "energy" or perhaps a "stare" - one should not actually be publicly accusing someone of being a racist without any hard evidence that they have said & done something which fits the dictionary & legal definition of being racist. A person who did that might find themselves in some serious legal trouble.
    1
  1426.  @chandrasingh1717  At the very least, I think it shows that, for whatever reason (maybe getting their "15 minutes of fame") some of them may be deliberately looking for "racism" in any comments or questions at all, pertaining to their ancestry/heritage - when often those questions are just being asked out of simple curiosity.
    1
  1427.  @MKL614  I tend not to see it like that - because so many people don't understand the proper meaning of the words "racism" & "racist". So, if I saw something being spoken about in the media as being "racist" - then I would not just believe it straight away, but take it all with a grain of salt, & eventually make up my own mind as to whether it was actually racist. In the past, I have seen many things mentioned in the media as being "racist", when they simply do not fit the correct definition of the word.
    1
  1428.  @okman9684  No it's not racism - the dictionary & legal definition of racism is treating people worse, or believing they are inferior based on their race/ethnicity, or actually discriminating against them in some way (eg by not giving them a job or some other opportunity) solely due to their race/ethnicity. Simply asking a question, out of curiosity about someone's ethnic origin or ancestry/heritage is not racism. There's nothing wrong with racial identification. In many cases, it will be quite obvious (without even having to ask) that someone is of a different race/ethnicity - & most people are quite proud of their own family ancestral & ethnic heritage/background & will readily identify that background when asked, or even when not actually asked about it. I have no idea whether (white) Americans would normally ask an African-American where they are from. As America has a slightly different history when it comes to the slave trade, I'm thinking that many Americans probably just assume that African-Americans may have been living in the US for many generations at least, having been brought there from Africa originally as part of the slave trade. As most of the African-British did not find themselves in Britain due to the slave trade (they are more recent arrivals for work purposes, with probably only 2 or 3 generations at most having lived in Britain), I think it's not unreasonable to be curious about their ethnicity/heritage.
    1
  1429.  @rashiidabdallah1648  Really? I'm actually from a mixed race family - & have personal experience of some of the things I commented on.
    1
  1430.  @rashiidabdallah1648  Even if some members of the royal family may have been racist in the past - it does not automatically mean the entire royal family is racist, including all the present day members of the royal family.
    1
  1431.  @rashiidabdallah1648  I disagree - usually when someone is bi-racial (meaning "white" & another non-white ethnicity) they will often identify more with their non-white side of the family, than their white side. At least, that has been my personal experience. And certainly, Meghan Markle herself does emphasize the fact that she is bi-racial. She also only invited her mother to her wedding, & did not invite her white father.
    1
  1432.  @rashiidabdallah1648  I'm not "downplaying it" Ngozi's experience - just saying that it's not "racism" according to the dictionary definition of the word. Unfortunately, not many people today who make accusations of racism, understand the true/correct meaning of the word.
    1
  1433.  @rashiidabdallah1648  Well - I guess that's a matter of opinion - but it would be something you might have difficulty proving in a court of law.
    1
  1434.  @rashiidabdallah1648  I think it's also often perceived as "trendy" these days, to be seen as a person of foreign ethnicity. And there might also be some benefits - like when it comes to employment opportunities, many employers are keen to make their workforces more ethnically diverse - so it helps to be able to claim a foreign ethnicity, or to be an indigenous person of some countries as well. Indigenous people in some countries are also entitled to additional financial benefits & more educational opportunities. I think those may be some of the reasons why many mixed race people are more keen to embrace their non-white ethnicity, than their "white" heritage - particularly when sometimes there can be a lot of antagonism towards white people these days.
    1
  1435. In a lot of cases - actual victims DO get treated like oppressors because some people will insist that they "deserved" whatever happened to them, as a result of their own behaviour. Just as rape victims in the past were often told they provoked the rapist & deserved to be raped because of the way they were dressed. NOTHING deserves to be treated with physical violence unless you are already trying to physically defend yourself from such physical violence. The only thing that deserves physical violence is physical violence itself. The problem is, we have way too many people in this world who are just incapable of controlling themselves physically. Which is why it's always a good idea to learn some good self-defence & martial arts techniques. With a few fairly easy/simple moves, it's possible to disable someone, if you know what you're doing & the other person doesn't. And let's face it - those stupid people who cannot control themselves are generally way too stupid to learn effective techniques in martial arts classes.
    1
  1436. Jemini29944: I don't seek to blame KFC over this issue. They were only trying to make an ad they thought would appeal to an Australian audience, and within an Australian cultural context. The reason why Australians didn't "gut-check" KFC on the ad sooner, was simply because the vast majority of Australians had absolutely no knowledge of this "American racial stereotype" about black Americans and fried chicken, and neither had most of the rest of the world...
    1
  1437. Why do the hokery pokery wokery people claim to want tolerance, diversity & inclusiveness, whilst at the same time actually creating more divisions than previously existed in society? Claiming there are now 73 different genders instead of 2 only creates a lot more division & reason for discrimination where previously none existed. And let's not forget that those hokery pokery wokery tolerance, diversity & inclusiveness people will only tolerate & include you as long as you agree with them. Anyone else who does not believe like them is automatically excluded & cancelled from social media. So it is a very highly intolerant & exclusive form of "tolerance, diversity & inclusiveness" that they actually practise, & they just end up being a very small group of very weird people who have been given a very loud voice by the media to promote their very weird ideas.
    1
  1438. One can't be certain that just because you ask a company to delete the information/data they hold on you, that they will actually do it. You'd have to do another information access request perhaps a couple of months later - to check that they HAD actually deleted that information as requested - but even then, you could not be 100% certain that they had done it. And they will often only allow you to delete certain types of information/data they hold on you - but not other information. This sort of thing is not uncommon with big tech companies like Amazon, Google etc where they make a lot of money by selling their customer's information to other companies, or targeting advertising to certain customers, based on the information & data they hold about them. These companies may also sell their customer's information to government authorities, for the purpose of checking on the activities of people - purportedly for security reasons. I for one certainly would never use something like an Alexa, or Ring camera/doorbell, as I have been aware for some years that these kinds of devices are quite privacy invasive - & the information that is gathered from them can be used quite fraudulently. For example, a voice recorded by Alexa or something similar, could be used fraudulently to mimic the owner & gain access to other services they may use, or be used to identify the owners in situations where they may not wish to be identified. Ring cameras & other similar cameras may capture images of people passing by in the street, which might be an invasion of their privacy. Those images might then be used to identify them for other purposes & in situations where they might not wish to be identified. Such cameras might also reveal the activities of the owners at or inside their own property, which they may not wish to be revealed. And as all of this is done using equipment which uses the internet - that creates a further risk of camera footage being misused. If I wanted to install a security system - I would install one which was not dependent on the internet Even iPhones are quite privacy invading, because there is no way to turn off their tracking - even by adjusting the settings or turning the phone off completely. Even when the phone is switched off, it behaves like an air-tag & is still revealing your location, even if you may not wish it to. That is one of the reasons why I will only use a non-Google/de-Googled Android phone - because there is no association with either Google or Apple, so it is not continually tracking the owner.
    1
  1439. Clearly, this is a university that has absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the words "freedom of speech" & "freedom of debate". They would not recognise "freedom of speech" if it walked right up to them & slapped them in the face a million times to awake them from their "woke" slumber. They will continue walking along in their zombie-like trance until finally awoken when the government cuts off their funding. Freedom of speech means that inevitably, some people WILL be offended by what others say, if they happen to disagree with it. But offending people is not illegal nor a criminal offence & universities were never intended as safe spaces for people who are very easily offended by different opinions & points of view.
    1
  1440. I think if we are not careful, the way things are going, the country will end up being far less diverse than it is now, or has been in the past. For fear of being labelled racist when speaking to people of other ethnicities - where so often now, anything at all that a person says can be interpretted by the receiver as "racist" - people of different races & ethnicities will simply cease intermingling with one another, & just stick to mingling, socialising & supporting those of their own ethnicity. Everyone will decide to remain within their own little ethnic boxes, because when going outside that box, one may be labelled a racist. The world itself will still be a diverse & multicultural place, as it has always been & countries will continue to be diverse, as they have become in more recent years - there will just cease to be any ethnic intermingling. And ironically, the reason people will then probably use to describe this lack of ethnic intermingling, will be "racism" - just as you would expect - because basically these days, anything & everything a person says or does involving people of different ethnicities, can ultimately be put down to racism in some form, according to many people.
    1
  1441. Maybe what Australia really needs to do is to stop American companies in Australia from sponsoring traditional Australian sports and Australian sporting events. There are probably plenty of other big companies in Australia who would jump at the chance to be a major sponsor of the cricket.
    1
  1442. ...The REAL reason the ad was not intended for American consumption was simply because the whole context of the ad was about cricket - a game that most Americans know little about - so there would have been no point showing the ad to an American TV audience. It is as simple as that - there was NO ulterior motive, as you seem to be implying...
    1
  1443.  @Commander-Rem  Not at all - there are often Muslim preachers & other Muslim activists with their "dawah" stands out in the city centres, talking to, & handing out leaflets to, members of the public. And I'm sure a lot of people find some of their teachings very offensive - though I've yet to see any of them actually arrested & put in a gaol cell overnight. They must have some special sort of exemption with the local authorities. Or if not, then maybe next time they approach me & talk to me & hand me a brochure, I should call the police & tell them I'm in a lot of distress, because their beliefs have caused me great offence - & maybe the police will come & arrest them & put them in a gaol cell & press charges against them. And yes - the Bible does say "go ye into all the world & preach the Gospel" - & that is why many Christian preachers do street preaching.
    1
  1444.  @Commander-Rem  Islam preaches exactly the same things as Christianity re abortion & LGBTIQ+ issues - yet they are not arrested.
    1
  1445. DoctorRosenRosen: I think it was The Chaser who did a comedy sketch showing some American tourists lost in England. They went up to random people and asked if they spoke English. On each occasion, the people said that yes, they did speak English. However the Americans did not understand them. Still, the English people kept insisting - yes, this is England, and we speak English. But the Yanks still didn't understand them and just left to try asking someone else - and that happened a few times.
    1
  1446. yelspa: By your own reasoning, you appear to think that the USA should rule the rest of the world just because they assisted not only Australia, but also Europe, during the two world wars. But I don't see Europe bowing down to the US - or other smaller countries such as New Zealand.
    1
  1447. Actually - the Queen had already removed Harry's & Meghan's "royal" titles of His & Her Royal Highnesses (HRH) shortly after they stood down from their roles as working members of the royal family in the UK. So they no longer have those "royal" titles. The only titles they still have are the Duke & Duchess of Sussex - & strictly speaking, those are not "royal" titles as such, because one does not need to be a member of the royal family to be a duke or duchess - the reigning monarch can bestow those titles on whomever she/he wishes. But I think they should now also be stripped of their Duke & Duchess titles even - because, while they are supposedly Duke & Duchess of "Sussex" - they have done absolutely nothing at all for the people of Sussex in the UK - in fact they don't even live, or want to live, in the same country as them. All they have done is "cash in" on their Duke & Duchess titles for financial gain - & that money has gone straight into their own pockets & none of it has gone to benefit the people of Sussex. So I think they should now be stripped of those last remaining titles, so they will be now plain old "Harry Mountbatten-Windsor" (or whatever surname he may choose to use) & "Meghan Markle" (or whatever other surname she may chose to use).
    1
  1448. This is something which has annoyed me for a very long time. People who smoke & then just toss their cigarette butts anywhere at all - usually on the ground. And for some unknown reason - they seem to think they have a right to do that, & don't seem to think that that constitutes "littering" - which probably reflects the level of intelligence of many people who smoke. I believe that the litter-bugs who create the litter - no matter the nature of it - whether cigarette butts or something else - need to be fined & pay the penalty for that litter. The rest of the community should not be forced to clean up after the smokers who just toss their cigarette butts on the ground. Another thing which really annoys me is all the chewing gum on the pavements. People who litter the pavements with their used chewing gum also need to be fined & pay for their litter to be cleaned up.
    1
  1449. I totally agree & have been quite outspoken for several years about our gradual loss of free speech in supposedly democratic western countries. One only has to look at what happened in the run up to, & even after the recent US election - where the views of one side of the political spectrum, & even the US President himself, were totally silenced & wiped off the face of the internet. And these people who are doing all the silencing/cancelling/deleting of dissenting points of view proudly proclaim themselves as promoting "tolerance & diversity" - yet as soon as they encounter someone with a different point of view - they want to immediately silence them & ban them from all possible social media sites & the internet etc. The rational & logical thing to do would be to simply enter into a debate with those who have different views - yet I suspect these supposed "woke" & "politically correct" people just don't have any logical arguments they can possibly come up with to defend their own views - so instead, they just "cancel" the views of those with whom they disagree. But that's certainly not going to convince anyone with dissenting views to change their opinion - it is just going to reinforce their own views & drive those dissenting opinions underground (& it may well be a "majority" of the population who hold such "dissenting" views). Then - at some point in the future, they will all come out in revolt & "the woke mob" will wonder what happened & where they all came from! That's just what you get when you seek to "silence" your enemies - or those with different views. The "woke" crowd have obviously never heard of the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". How can they possibly begin to even know what their "enemies" are up to, if all they do is silence & cancel them? They'll only go underground & organise themselves even better & one day they'll revolt so hard that the woke crowd won't even know what hit them! I believe the only time people should be silenced on-line or in social media, is if people are actually breaking the law in their on-line activities. This rubbish about not being allowed to "offend" people, or post things that the social media site owner "believes could potentially offend some people" (without even having received any formal complaints yet) is an absolute load of nonsense. It's certainly not illegal or against the law to "offend" people. I also don't believe web sites should only allow things which they claim are "factual" to be posted on their sites, & employ "fact checkers" to determine what is "factual" - so they can delete posts which they claim are not "factual". In most cases, the "fact checkers" the web sites employ are actually biased people themselves, in some way - so it does not necessarily ensure that "only facts" are permitted to be posted. In any case, I believe it should be left up to the reader/user to determine for themselves what may be true or not true, & do their own research to determine the truth. If people want to post "fake news" as such - it should be allowed & people need to work out for themselves, what sites they can trust for "real news". Unfortunately though, in recent years, the major internet sites have gone mad with censorship & it's all extremely one-sided - to the point where it's really not worth bothering with most of the major social media sites these days - because you simply cannot get a diversity of views, after all the censorship those sites have done. All one ends up with then is "propaganda" from the owners of the web site. I've been thinking for quite some time that maybe it's about time we all put those "woke" people back to sleep - & never ever wake them up again! At best, they've never really been truly "woke" - they've either only been "half-awake" or just "walking in their sleep". Nothing they do or say makes any sense at all - so we should just put them back to bed & back to sleep! And that applies to Harry & Meghan as well! Maybe some people don't care at all about free speech - because they've simply got "nothing to say". But what about those who do have "something to say" - who's going to protect their right to free speech? And who's to say that those people who presently claim they have "nothing to say", might not want to change their mind at some point & have something to say in the future? But if we're not careful, by then it might be too late, & we might already have given up our right to free speech, if we don't strongly defend it here & now.
    1
  1450. I think in any religion or culture where marrying your cousin is considered normal & actually encouraged, as is polygamy, then in such situations where one's husband's cousin is seen to be flirting with him, it is certainly wise to be extremely wary of that (even if that cousin is engaged to be married). And as it is perfectly normal in western culture, for married couples to do most social activities together, then if that cousin were to ask one's husband to go for a walk - it would only be natural for the wife to be included in that activity. So even if that question about going for a walk was addressed by the cousin to the husband - the wife could always respond with something like "Of course "we" will come for a walk with you" - thus automatically making known to the cousin, that the wife as well as the husband will be going on that walk - & that is perfectly normal for any married couple. Obviously if the cousin had an ulterior motive for asking the woman's husband to go for a walk, she may be slightly put off by that, & even decide not to go for a walk after all. I think in this kind of a situation, the key thing to do is to always stick by your husband, so he has very little opportunity to be alone with that cousin so she can flirt with him. And maybe even be flirtatious with your husband yourself - especially since you are pregnant - that is always a good reason. Maybe even try to be a bit "needy" around him, to show how much he is needed & valued as a husband. Another option might be for yourself to even be a bit flirtatious around any male cousins that may be there. Watch & see how your husband might react to that. It may cause him to be suddenly more attentive to you than to his cousin. If there were any "pregnancy dramas" - that may also be something which might cause your husband to be more attentive to you than to his cousin. I hope there are some useful ideas in the above suggestions.
    1
  1451. NzerinOz: There are some people (mainly Americans) who say that the ad is racist mainly because KFC is an American company. They claim that KFC Australia (who made the ad) knew perfectly well of the "stereotype" when they made the it, but went ahead with it anyway...
    1
  1452. philochs: AC/DC did not start their musical career in Scotland. The band was formed in Australia and got their musical start in Australia on programmes such as "Countdown" many years ago. It was in Australia where they had their first hits and initially became well-known before going international. Scotland can't lay claim to starting them off in their musical careers. The Beatles aren't American, because they were popular in the UK long before anywhere else.
    1
  1453. One of the things which really appalled me about the role that Qantas played in the Folau fiasco, & how they encouraged RA to take serious action against Folau - was how it also showed up the Qantas senior executives as being idiotic 2-faced hypocrites with some really serious double standards. While wanting to ensure that Folau himself suffered serious consequences for posting some Bible verses on his social media (verses which indicated that a number of categories of people - including homosexuals - would go to hell if they did not repent of their sins & turn to God) - Qantas themselves have for some time now been skipping along very nicely holding hands with Emirates airlines - having codeshare & sharing Frequent Flyer arrangements with that airline - presumably because they think it will somehow benefit them financially. Emirates airlines is the official national airline of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) & is state-owned by the UAE government. The UAE is an Islamic country & as such, much of its legal system is based on Sharia law - both in its civil courts, as well as in its Sharia courts. Flogging & stoning are therefore common forms of punishment for many "crimes" such as adultery, premarital sex (fornication), alcohol consumption, & kissing in public - with the number of lashes awarded ranging anywhere from 80 to 200. Even crimes like verbal abuse pertaining to a person's honour is illegal and punishable by flogging. Death by stoning is a common punishment for adultery in the UAE. Blasphemy is illegal & apostasy is punishable by death. Female citizens of the UAE need the permission of a male guardian in order to marry or to re-marry. It is also illegal in the UAE for Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, as this is considered "fornication". Homosexuality is actually illegal in the UAE & is punishable by death. The crime of sodomy - whether consensual or otherwise - is punishable with lengthy prison sentences of up to 14 years. Dancing in public is illegal, & amputation & crucifixion are both legal forms of punishment in the UAE. Needless to say, the UAE has a very poor human rights record, with forced disappearances/kidnappings, torture & abuse not uncommon for those who may be critical of the government. The UAE government is repressive & restricts freedom of speech & assembly. The UAE also ranks very poorly when it comes to freedom of the press, & the UAE media is generally regarded in the west as not being "free". If Qantas whole-heartedly supported RA in the sacking of Folau because of the Bible verses he posted on his social media - you'd think Qantas would at least have the common decency not to align themselves (solely for the purpose of making money, presumably) with a government-owned overseas airline from a country where homosexuality is punished with death & sodomy punishable with up to 14 years in prison. However, it seems those hypocritical senior executives at Qantas would align themselves with a dead dog, if they thought it would either make them money, or gain them support from some even rather small quarters. It certainly does not say much at all for the values or character of those Qantas senior executives - & shows them up as people with gross double standards. Honestly - out of all the other international airlines in the world that enjoy much better reputations - why did Qantas have to pick a government-owned airline whose government has such a poor record? That is why - being the patriotic people that we are, & standing up for certain values - my colleagues, friends & I have for some time now refused to fly Qantas. We just cannot in all honesty go along with Qantas & all their hypocrisy & support of government airlines from countries with gross human rights abuses & represssive regimes. This latest fiasco involving Folau, RA, & Qantas has only strengthened our resolve to continue our lack of support for Qantas, until such time as they acknowledge the error of their ways & apologise - including an apology to Folau. But Qantas is unlikely to do that - because they will just do anything for money, or if they think it will garner them favour in some rather limited circles. Adios Qantas!
    1
  1454. Palestine was simply the name of the country/land area in the middle-east, in which they lived. The Jews practised Judaism, while most of the Arabs these days are Muslim, though some still remain Christian, as they were prior to Islam coming onto the scene several hundred years after Christianity.
    1
  1455. What I would like to know, is how can anyone prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what someone else may have been thinking or doing in their head, unless the person actually confesses to it? Are the authorities actually in possession of some kind of mind-reading machine?
    1
  1456. Excellent information in the above video & a very good explanation as to how Google works on the Android phones, & why it can't simply be "removed". The good thing is that some Google Android phones can be de-Googled & have a new OS installed, & others can be created with no Google in the first place.
    1
  1457. GusPhillips:It is chicken because KFC is the major sponsor of cricket and that may be the only food for sale at the match.The situation is awkward because the guy feels bad because his team is losing. But he is surrounded by supporters of the opposing team, whose team is winning, and they are celebrating. So he feels embarrassed and out of place and can't commiserate with like-minded supporters. Those around him are celebrating, so to calm down their celebrations for a while he gives them KFC.
    1
  1458. And indeed, some Islamic clergy have already publicly condemned the latest acts of Islamic terrorism.
    1
  1459.  @RoyHolder  Because they want people in the western world to believe that Islam is a religion of peace - & in fact some Islamic clergy have already come out & condemned such acts of Islamic terrorism, even though their scriptures may actually condone it.
    1
  1460. It's hard to feel sorry for people like this who've been "scammed" when even their own bank warned them they were possibly/probably being scammed, yet the couple ignored that advice & went ahead anyway - which means that they probably lost recourse through their bank - unless their bank can successfully track down the owner of the account to which the money was sent. As the couple were both nurses, it's hard to believe their own financial situation was so desperate to want to make a lot of money quickly like that. But the old saying "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", should probably be a warning to most people. Also, something to note is that, if someone had already worked out this very easy way of making a lot of money - why would they just not use it themselves to make their own fortune & retire? Why would they then need to promote such schemes to others? Would they not want to keep that good thing to themselves? If this couple started out with a small investment of 100 pounds & initially increased that to 600 pounds (or so they were told) - at that point, I would have asked them to cash out all my money & put it back into my bank account, before I "invested" any more money. If they were not able to give me back my initial investment as well as my purported "profit" at that stage - it would have been a good warning sign for me. Another option might have been, instead of giving them any more money to invest following the initial "success", would have been just to tell them to "re-invest" part or all of the profit I had supposedly made (according to them). That way you would not actually be giving them any additional money & they would probably lose interest.
    1
  1461. And we all know that being woke is being weak. And Islam in particular will take this as a sign that Charles' own personal faith is very weak & see him as a very weak King because of that. They will see him as a potential convert to Islam.
    1
  1462. thedreamdealer:...Yet, as you clearly point out, America does not even seem able to follow its own advice on this issue. If America says it's wrong to give food or chicken to black people, then why are they sending food to Haiti?
    1
  1463. Moronic Meghan Markle is nothing but a dumb blonde bimbo in disguise. She dyed her hair black, trying to give herself some "artificial intelligence" - but unfortunately that trick did not did not work for her & she is still as dumb as she ever was.
    1
  1464. Douglas1102:... It's a pity those shows aren't broadcast on American TV, or Americans might start to realise how silly they really are.
    1
  1465. ... and their first allegiance would be to Australia rather than America,
    1
  1466. MyJibJib: And if the rest of the world did actually turn on America, it could be that some of America's present allies might then decide to side with "the rest of the world" rather than America. So America might find itself without quite so many allies in that case.
    1
  1467. The only people responsible for all those deaths of Palestinian civilians - is Hamas itself. They are the ones who used their own Palestinian civilians as human shields & would not allow them to evacuate areas when they had been forewarned by the IDF that those areas would be targeted by them. Hamas deliberately bases their operations in civilian buildings such as hospitals & schools, which is against the Geneva Convention. The IDF on the other hand, does their best to comply with the Geneva Convention. And don't forget that Hamas was the one who started this entire conflict by deliberately targeting & attacking Israeli civilians & brutally slaughtering them in the most horrifically primitive & barbaric ways - almost like something out of the stone age. Then they celebrated those attacks by singing & dancing & parading the bodies of some dead Israelis through the streets of Gaza. How primitive can they possibly get? On the other hand, the IDF does not deliberately target Palestinian civilians - rather any Palestinian deaths or injuries are the result of Hamas using their own people as human shields & not allowing them to evacuate Hamas strongholds that are being targeted by the IDF. The Palestinian civilians are merely the collateral damage of this war, from the IDF point of view. In all wars, there are many civilians who die as a result of collateral damage during the conflict. And to think that much of this conflict might be resolved, if Hamas would just surrender the 240 or so Israeli hostages they are still holding. But Hamas will not do that. They would much rather that their own people continue to be killed & injured because of the reckless behaviour of Hamas. The IDF needs to totally destroy Hamas - that is the only option - or Israel will continue to suffer brutal civilian attacks at the hands of Hamas - just like the events of 7 October. For all those people in the west who are supporting the pro-Palestinian demonstrations/protests - one gets the impression that Hamas could attack & brutally murder their entire families - yet those stupid muppets would still be mindlessly shouting those pro-Palestinian slogans etc, as they were all being murdered. There's not a single brain between the lot of them. They have no idea of the true situation in the middle-East & have probably just fallen for all the propaganda they've heard. Maybe we should change that well-known Palestinian slogan to have it say instead - "From the river to the sea - just watch those Palestinians flee!"
    1
  1468. If the Queen were a normal working person - she would be entitled to a certain number of days off each year, as "sick leave", if she was not well/sick - so why should she be deprived of the benefits of her job, just because of one particular event she is unable to attend due to illness/mobility issues. In any case, she has continued performing her role way beyond the normal retirement age for most working people.
    1
  1469. That's true - but just because he may be some kind of public figure - that does not necessarily mean that they also automatically know what phone he is using. A VPN or something similar, may also be used to prevent everyone from knowing his IP. There are other precautions that can be taken to minimise one's exposure on-line. If he is on YouTube, then Google will obviously know something about him - but in other areas on-line, if he uses a non-Google web browser - it can limit on-line exposure of one's information & details.
    1
  1470. PollockQT:...KFC in America probably had no knowledge of the ad until the American media brought it to their attention. To suggest there is some sort of ulterior motive, or conspiracy on the part of KFC, is rather far-fetched.
    1
  1471. Absolutely true - that is one of the key issues I will be considering when determining who I vote for at the next election. And due to the fact that Albanese & Wong have done nothing but fan the flames of anti-Semitism in Australia - I will definitely NOT be voting for them at the next election. I was once a regular ALP supporter - but certainly not any more after its behaviour on this particular matter.
    1
  1472. bvwcad:No, I don't work for KFC, and obviously if I did, I would not be working there for much longer. But I do believe jobs will be created in other areas if people boycott KFC.
    1
  1473. Even if the Brand allegations make it to court, Brand won't be "exonerated" or declared "innocent" - as the courts can only find the accused person either guilty or not guilty. And even if Brand is found not guilty - it's not the same as innocent or exonerated - it just means there's insufficient evidence before the court, to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of those allegations of which he has been accused. A finding of not guilty though, does not mean that the allegations were necessarily & automatically false, or that the accusers were not telling the truth. The allegations may or may not have been false - but if someone has very good reason to believe they were false & has some very good evidence to support those claims - it might be possible that a separate court case could then be pursued, charging the accusers accordingly. In reality though, it's also possible that a person whom the court finds "not guilty", might still be guilty - it's just that the court was not able to be convinced by the evidence presented before it, that they were guilty.
    1
  1474. I guess the message here is - don't do anything which might be perceived by others as possibly illegal/criminal, & which may come back to seriously haunt you much later in life & when you least expect it. This could easily happen with any crime on which there is no statute of limitations - which are usually the more serious crimes. Unfortunately, such crimes as murder still need to be paid for many years later, no matter how long ago they occurred & no matter whether the person is now a completely changed human being. The law requires that they still pay the required penalty for any crime they have committed many years ago.
    1
  1475. Jemini29944:... I think this whole matter has made Australians realise how heavily censored American TV must be. Half of the things shown on Australian TV could probably never be shown on American TV, because they simply would not be regarded as "politically correct".
    1
  1476. Yes - it's nothing short of physical violence & assault by some Nazi-like women.
    1
  1477. I would not trust those Hamas terrorists as far as I could throw them! During this 4 days of temporary ceasefire - Israel will need to be very wary of Hamas & continue to be prepared for literally anything.
    1
  1478. PollockQT: I think I know the ad to which you are referring, and it is actually a Korean ad (not Chinese), and the ad is not for KFC - it is for a brand of chicken in Korea known as Kyochon chicken. I have also seen the original article about the survey done by the New York Daily News which says that 51% of Americans did not find the Australian ad racist, and 6% were "unsure".
    1
  1479. ...If they're putting their own words in KFC's mouth, surely that's just poor journalism? Does anyone know if these people are actually meant to be professional journalists? They certainly come across looking extremely amateur. They do tend to be rambling a lot and don't seem to be able to back up what they say. The girl mentioned that any assoociation of even non-American blacks with chicken made her feel uncomfortable. That to me says more about her own racist views than racism itself.
    1
  1480. Sorry - didn't mean to imply that I thought it was an American show - I presume it's a Canadian show sending up the Americans. However, since they are close countries and share a common border, I thought it possible the American and Canadian senses of humour may have been similar - hence my statement about Australians and American humour.
    1
  1481. tizik20: I don't even think some of the Americans realise that the setting of the ad is at a sporting match. I saw one of them make a comment on the clip, stating that they thought the setting was some kind of "African festival"!
    1
  1482. Douglas1102:...I honestly can't think of a situation where an American QANTAS ad might be considered racist in Australia but not in America. However I do now understand that due to the ad being misinterpretted in America (which was NOT the target audience), KFC's large American market could possibly have been affected by the ad, and that's ultimately why KFC Australia withdrew the ad. It's all just to do with money really. Thanks for supporting the boycott!
    1
  1483. And that is why many of the blood donations in the US end up being of poor quality & unacceptable - because some people only do it for the money, & they are usually the kinds of people who should not be donating to start with.
    1
  1484. AussieBrock: When it comes down to the finer detail of what the situation is, I think it is somewhat open to interpretation. I thought my interpretation was quite valid, but I agree your interpretation is also quite possible - that he paid a lot of money for his ticket and the Windies supporters were preventing him from properly viewing the game. Yes - the offer of food could have been to "make friends" (although the Windies supporters didn't exactly look unfriendly to start with)...
    1
  1485. Douglas1102: I don't dispute that people who misinterpret the ad find it offensive. But just because something is offensive, does not make it racist or racism. Most people know that America is a country which is very much prone to legal action, even for small things. So if a legal case of racism could have been made out of the ad, it surely would have been...
    1
  1486. Jemini29944: I doubt that KFC in America would have even seen the ad prior to its screening on TV in Australia. When it comes to advertising, I think most local branches of international companies are largely autonomous, because they are more likely to know what would appeal to their local audience. I very much doubt whether there was any American input into the ad at all.
    1
  1487.  @dobermankompanie537  I don't believe that.
    1
  1488.  @dobermankompanie537  Calvin may be high church & Anglo-Catholic - but that does not make him "Catholic lite" - unless you a just referring to the word "Catholic" in its true sense of meaning "universal".
    1
  1489.  @dobermankompanie537  The Church of Scotland is actually the Presbyterian Church - which could hardly be described as papish. The Anglican Church/Church of England in Scotland, is actually called the Scottish Episcopal Church.
    1
  1490.  @dobermankompanie537  Okay - understood - but now I'm wondering why he was Christened twice - because most mainstream Christian Protestant denominations recognise each others' baptisms. For example, the Church of England would recognise the baptism of someone who was baptised in the Church of Scotland/Presbyterian Church - so there should have been no need to get baptised again in the Church of England, after going to England from Scotland, after having been already baptised.
    1
  1491.  @dobermankompanie537  Okay - understood, that the family wanted 2 separate baptismal celebrations for the different sides of the family. Even in the 1950's though, I did not think the churches would allow someone to be baptised twice - even in different denominations.
    1
  1492.  @tobysherring1369  Yes - I was aware that the FCE is not a member of the Anglican Communion, which I did mention in my comment. And although I did state that Calvin Robinson's holy orders in the FCE are recognised as valid by the established Church of England - I did not suggest that he could therefore minister in, or conduct services in the Church of England.
    1
  1493.  @tobysherring1369  The wording I used in my original post was that the established C of E "recognised as valid" Calvin's ordination into holy orders in the FCE - which was not stating that he would be able to minister/preach in the established C of E. I was already well aware that he had eventually been rejected as a candidate for ordination in the established Cof E - despite them initially obviously agreeing that he had a calling to the church, & for that reason, having largely funded his theological training at Oxford. And at the conclusion of that training, when he applied for ordination as a deacon in the Cof E, he was not assigned a curacy in the church, & the C of E would not ordain him. That then led him to the FCE, which agreed to ordain him & offer him a curacy.
    1
  1494. Perhaps they also boo "taking the knee" because they know that BLM is a Marxist organisation & Marxism has been proven not to work, by the collapse of so many communist countries & the poverty in those communist countries which have not yet collapsed.
    1
  1495.  @salvationbygracethroughfaith  I've certainly been aware for some time that YouTube is owned by Google - so the same user ID & photo that I have for Google is used with YouTube. But they still don't have my correct/real name anywhere - all they have is my Google/YouTube user ID & photo. I've never used my real name with Google/YouTube.
    1
  1496.  @salvationbygracethroughfaith  I'm aware of the metadata on photos taken with a Google Android phone. The photo I use in my Google profile was taken in another country by a third party using their own camera. It is part of a group photo that I cropped so as not to include the other people. So any data that may be on that photo is highly unlikely to give away my present location. If either of my grandmothers were alive today - they would be about 135 years old & probably not up to using a smartphone of any kind. In any case, when I do take photos with my smartphone, I know how to get rid of any metadata that may be on them. And if I'm using a de-Googled smartphone to take photos - I won't have to worry to much about Google knowing about that photo.
    1
  1497. Jemini29944: As I've said in previous comments, it could be that the scene is at an "away" match being played in the West Indies, where there simply aren't many like-minded Australian supporters. Or perhaps the only ticket he could get, was in the midst of the other teams' supporters. The exact situation isn't made clear. However there are also similar ads where the guy finds himself alone in the middle of New Zealand supporters, Indian, Sri-Lankan supporters.
    1
  1498. How about "Geoffrey Robertson" of "Hypotheticals" fame many years ago - though admittedly, he is getting a bit on in years - so I do not know whether he would want to do this sort of thing any more.
    1
  1499. ianonline:I don't think any legal action stood a chance of success, since it was not likely to happen in Australia, and the ad was never intended for screening in America - some Americans just happened to see the ad and misinterpreted it. I think it is more like that KFC Australia withdrew the ad from TV because they were pressured to do so by KFC head office in the US, who feared repercussions in their US market if they did not do something about it.
    1
  1500. I actually bought 3 different pronoun badges - one for each gender - at the Christmas markets at my workplace, in the lead up to Christmas last year. I bought all 3 as a bit of a joke, & as I was buying them, I mentioned to those around me at the time, that I intended to wear all 3 badges at the same time (they are quite small) & confuse everyone in my workplace!
    1
  1501. Blood is not necessarily unique to each individual - but DNA is.
    1
  1502.  @cynthg9547  The "love your neighbour as yourself" request is only in the New Testament of the Bible - which Jews do not believe in. In any case - I think it's still possible to "love your neighbour" - yet still need to protect yourself from their aggression - as has happened in the past with rockets being fired by Palestinians into Israel/Jerusalem, & crowded Jerusalem passenger buses being bombed. The wall & the checkpoints were built to help prevent such attacks - & to a large extent, they have succeeded in doing so.
    1
  1503. I've certainly heard of these types of investment "scams" before - where the scammed person starts out with an initial "small" investment, which is then added to over time, so that eventually the scammed person has a lot of money invested in the scheme - which they are never able to retrieve or to cash out. These scams are often claimed to involve crypto currency trading. The sad reality also is, that the people on the other end of the phone line who are actually encouraging their victims to invest their hard-earned savings in these scams - are often the victims of human-trafficking. Cambodia at the moment is a particularly bad country for these types of scams - where there are many hundreds of these "scam compounds" accommodating many thousands of people, who are effectively prisoners in these compounds - where they both work & live. The local Cambodian police in most cases are being paid off by the scam owners/operators, who are often businessmen from China. They will usually lure people from other poor Asian countries, with the prospect of seemingly genuine job offers in another Asian country (not Cambodia). But then the person is more or less "smuggled" into Cambodia by their "escort" - after their escort has usually bribed the border guards on both sides. When the person reaches the compound in Cambodia, they then discover they are expected to work these "scams". Their mobile devices are confiscated by their bosses & they are often given unrealistic daily targets to achieve & are not allowed to finish work for the day until they have achieved those targets. So they often get very little sleep & they both work & live in the same multi-storey building, where their accommodation is in "dormitories" perhaps on a different floor/level to where they work these scams. There can also be very serious punishments for those "staff" who do not meet their allocated targets - like being treated with electric shocks. Sometimes part of one level of their building may be allocated as a "punishment" centre. Another form of punishment for people who don't meet their scam targets, is that often they will then be sex-trafficked & sent to work in brothels. Apparently these types of "investment" scams became more popular in Cambodia during the severe world-wide restrictions of the Covid pandemic - when tourism traffic almost came to a halt. So some of the hotels, casinos & gambling venues in Cambodia, had to come up with other ways to make money - & resorted to these types of scams. These days, the scams have become even bigger business in Cambodia, & now more of these large "scam compounds" have arisen quite independently of the casinos & gambling venues. It's difficult for trafficked people to escape such situations because along with their mobile devices, their passports & any identity documents they may have had, are held by their bosses/captors & they are often in the country illegally in any case. The outgoing "scam" phone calls they are required to make as part of their "work", are also monitored by their bosses. Their financial "account" with their "employer" may often go into debt if they do not meet their targets - & they are told that they need to keep working the scam in order to pay off that debt - though often they may just get further into debt with their bosses. They often start that account in debt, because their employer/boss usually pays for the cost of them travelling to Cambodia from their home country. These people both work & live on the upper levels of multi-storey buildings - so simply jumping out of a window to escape, is not an option - though some people have tried it & severely injured themselves in the process. Others are known to have eventually taken their own lives. If these people do manage to escape from their scam bosses, they are often required to spend amounts of time in Cambodian prisons, before eventually being allowed to return to their home countries. Even the embassies of their own countries in Cambodia, are often powerless to help them in this regard. It really is a terrible situation of human trafficking which is difficult to control or to stamp out in a country like Cambodia, where the police & authorities are often corrupt & too ready to accept bribes.
    1
  1504. I've heard Harry previously state that he wanted to reform/change the British media. But who is he to say that the British media needs reforming? He is not an elected official of the British people - so he does not have a mandate from the British public to do that, even as a member of the royal family. And no-one from the British public has asked him to do that, to the best of my knowledge. And since he is no longer even living in the UK & has cut himself off from the royal family - what right does he have to try & reform the British media anyway? I'm sure it would not have gone down too well with American public, if, while he was still a working member of the British royal family in the UK, he stated he was going to make it his life's work to reform the US media - when he was not even living in the US at that time. He would have been a laughing stock of the US public, who probably would have told him in no uncertain terms, to keep his nose out of their affairs!
    1
  1505.  @susanbishop5228  Deviating from the religion of Islam, under which homosexuality is forbidden - thus "gay Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. Islam prescribes very severe punishment for any Muslim who is found to be homosexual. Which is why many Muslims try to hide their homosexuality.
    1
  1506.  @sh.4409  White English non-Muslim children of that age would not have sufficient knowledge of the teachings of Islam, to know that Islam prohibits homosexuality. So it was more than likely the Muslim students who knew that homosexuality was forbidden in Islam & therefore told the speaker that it was not possible to be both gay & Muslim. That's why it was also most likely the Muslim students &/or their parents who made any death threats. Islam has very severe punishments for Muslims who are homosexual & found to be engaging in homosexual activity. That is why many Muslims deliberately try to hide their homosexuality.
    1
  1507. I guess if you want a visa to be able to work in another country apart from your own - you have to be prepared to abide by the rules of that visa. And if such foreign workers don't believe they are being treated fairly by their employer (or not in accord with their employment contract) in Israel - there are organisations they can go to to appeal. They did mention that she gets 2 days off a week - which is a good start, at least.
    1
  1508. ...How about, "The Yankee Turkeys"?
    1
  1509.  @ANEEAMA  Yes - but in the UK, the majority of black people have only come to the UK in that last 2 - 3 generations probably at most - though there may be a few who were in the UK earlier than that. So it's not unreasonable to believe that a person of a different ethnicity may have either been born overseas themselves - or had parents/grandparents who were born overseas. The history of the majority of black people in the UK is somewhat different to that of the USA.
    1
  1510.  @coin9007  Things are different in the UK - where the majority of black people have probably only been in the country 2 to 3 generations at most - though there may be a few who go back longer.
    1
  1511.  @SuperYAS111  Even if it's only the Anglo's & the Celts who are the recognised "indigenous" (Caucasian) people of the British Isles - the point I was trying to make is that the lady who was being questioned was obviously not an "indigenous" Briton. Most people readily accept/recognise the "indigenous" people of the US & Canada as the native Indians, or the indigenous of New Zealand as Maoris, or the indigenous of Australia as the aboriginals, the indigenous of Africa as black Africans, the indigenous of Central & South America as probably descendants of what was once the Aztecs & Incas. We must also not forget that indigenous people of the British Isles & Europe were predominantly Causasian. But no doubt, even before any of these people existed, there were other races/peoples which preceded them - so who knows who the ultimate "indigenous" people were?
    1
  1512.  @SuperYAS111  I can honestly say it would not bother me in the slightest. But it's somewhat irrelevant in this scenario, because the lady being questioned was not being asked to return to the country of her ancestral origin.
    1
  1513.  @babymonalisa  The problem with using the term "white", is that some people can construe it as racist, & in any case, not every white person in Britain is necessarily a British citizen, or even ethnically an indigenous Briton. If Ngozi did not wish to reveal her ancestry/heritage (assuming that she even knew what it was, if it goes back several generations), she could have just said that either she did not know, or she did not wish to reveal it. I'm sure that would have stopped that line of questioning.
    1
  1514.  @SuperYAS111  I agree that we should learn about the differences that exist - but how on earth is anyone going to do that, if people are not allowed to ask questions about heritage & ethnicity without being called a racist? Some differences also seem to be celebrated & valued more than others - hinting at an inequality amongst those differences. Ultimately - who knows what the indigenous/original first people were of any country at all? While the indians may be acknowledged as the first people of countries like the USA & Canada - no doubt there were other people there before them - so they may not be the true first people. Similarly with the Maori in New Zealand & the aboriginals in Australia - both acknowledged as first people - even though there were probably others there before them. And there were probably other people in Africa, before the present day black Africans emerged. Similarly with the indigenous people of the UK - whether they are Anglo-Celtic-Norman etc - but I think it's generally accepted they were probably caucasian people. In any case, when talking about indigenous people - one needs to make a start somewhere - & acknowledging Anglo-Celtic-Norman people is probably as good a place as any to start.
    1
  1515.  @SuperYAS111  I'm not sure that anyone was really treated differently - it was probably just a case of curiosity brought on by the unusual outfit that was being worn at the time. No doubt, if anyone else had been wearing such an unusual outfit (regardless of their ethnicity) - it may have prompted a similar line of questioning. I don't think anyone absolutely assumes that people are from the same ethnic origin, just because they may have similarly coloured skin - as they may obviously have other different facial features as well. And this would be the case, even though some people may have difficulty telling the difference between some Asian people such as Japanese/Chinese/Korean etc. There has also been a lot of racial intermingling amongst some of these Asian ethnicities.
    1
  1516. If you're referring to the recent attacks on some Indian students in Australia, I don't think it's definitely been determined yet that the attacks were racially motivated - though I certainly don't rule that out. Australia's certainly not perfect, but neither is India. Anyone who's been there knows that there is discrimination even with India, amongst people from different states, the north versus the south, speakers of different languages, and different religions.
    1
  1517. I would like to have seen TYT bring in a panel of suitably qualified and credentialled experts on this issue. Perhaps one of them could have been someone like Geoffrey Robertson - an internationally renowned lawyer, especially in the area of human rights. He has acted in many high-profile international legal cases (eg Pinochet, terrorism etc), and is on several UN committees about human rights-type issues. Those are the expert opinions I am interested in hearing - rather than these two on TYT.
    1
  1518. TonyCheekyful: Well, I hope The Chaser DOES do some sort of sketch about TYT claiming the ad is racist. And I would like to see it get just as much, if not more publicity, than the TYT episodes containing the racist allegations. However, I somehow doubt that it is likely to get equal or more publicity, and I particularly doubt that it would get much coverage in the USA...
    1
  1519. bvwcad:Of course, the employees are always a concern in any boycott situation, and companies often use this to their advantage to try and stop the boycott. And if we always let that over-rule us, there would probably never be any boycotts. It is unfortunate for the employees, and may sound a bit harsh, but at the end of the day, sometimes a boycott is the only way if people want to send a clear, and ongoing message to a company...
    1
  1520. Won't your phone connect to a public wifi internet connection? If so, there's no SIM card required in the phone for that. The mobile phone/cell data that is available for use from your SIM card, is not a wifi connection - it is mobile phone/cell data & is not a wifi connection. And that cell data from the SIM card will obviously only work if that SIM card is inserted in the phone. But a wifi connection does not require a SIM card to be in the phone.
    1
  1521.  @robyee3325  Have you tried using different wifi connections & made sure your phone's wifi switch is in the "on" position?
    1
  1522. Do you have an old/spare phone that you could try - to see if wifi will still work on that phone? Perhaps your current phone has developed a fault. Was wifi previously working on your current phone, then just stopped working at some point?
    1
  1523. In a show of support that they will not stand for acts of intolerance & dismissal of Christians based on their religious affiliation, by the Essendon football club, I hereby call on all Christian Essendon supporters, season ticket holders & club members, to withdraw all their support for the Essendon football club & not attend matches or visit the club. Let's also see a few people burning/defacing their membership cards & season tickets, burning their club scarves/beanies, jerseys etc. Maybe at the next match, such former Christian supporters could conduct a protest outside the stadium, with many of them holding banners stating "Christian Lives Matter", "Wake Up Essendon". Since Essendon are intent on destroying the lives of Christians - maybe it's time for Christians to start destroying the Essendon club.
    1
  1524. The ordination service & the laying on of hands are recognised as valid in the Anglican Communion.
    1
  1525.  @robertjarman4261  I don't think it's fair to say that the church itself is heretical - just because some of the members may not believe in God. I would certainly agree that some of the members do not believe in God & are therefore heretics, or hypocritical at best. But a few heretics does not make the church itself heretical. I think the church, or any religion, should be judged on its official teachings & beliefs, which should be in accordance with the Bible, if the religion is Christianity. In its official teachings & beliefs - I don't believe the church itself is heretical. Nevertheless, some of its clergy do have a very bad habit of going "off topic" & talking about their weird views on climate change & racism etc. I certainly get the impression that Calvin Robinson does have a very personal, sincere, & traditional/orthodox Christian faith, based on what I've heard him say about his faith in other interviews. And he is sufficiently enthusiastic about that to want to become a priest in the church & share that faith. I think he will "go the distance" so to speak - but as you indicated, "time will tell".
    1
  1526. ​ @robertjarman4261  The ordination service that Calvin has gone through, was only ordaining him to the diaconate (ie he was being ordained as a deacon in the church, not as a priest). It will be another 12 months at least, before he will be ordained as a priest, in holy orders. He has already completed his theological college studies at St Stephen's House at Oxford (high church, Anglo-Catholic). Although the church where he was ordained a deacon is not a part of the Anglican Communion, his ordination is still recognised as valid by the official Church of England, & therefore recognised as valid by the Anglican Communion. The church where he was ordained is part of the Free Church of England - a more traditional/orthodox part of the Anglican church. However, as with all ordained clergy in the Anglican church, this ordination would not be officially recognised by the Roman Catholic Church.
    1
  1527. NzerinOz: I agree that people shouldn't forget where they came from. But if one leaves one's country of birth at a very young age, then that country is unlikely to have much of an influence on how a person ultimately turns out. And to a certain extent it is also about peoples' own perceptions of themselves, and what country they regard themselves as belonging to.
    1
  1528. May God put a curse on these Paris Olympic games. Let them be the worst games ever. At least it rained during the opening ceremony - & that was a good start. From now on, in addition to boycotting these Olympics, I will also be boycotting all French products, as well as the products & services of the sponsors of the Olympic games, & all those who performed in the opening ceremony.
    1
  1529. Douglas1102:They only said it because they knew the Americans would not understand the word "prawn". It was for the benefit of the Americans that they said it.
    1
  1530. writergrrl92:Why should Australians have to view it from the American perspective when the ad was never even made for American TV? It was an ad made purely for Australian TV catering to Australian culture, with no knowledge of any pre-existing American racial prejudices and stereotyping. The ad really has nothing at all to do with America - it is not set in America, and it does not contain any black African Americans. Therefore "American" stereotypes simply have no place there...
    1
  1531. It's ironic that such activists from the woke & cancel cultures - those proudly claiming to promote tolerance, diversity & inclusivity, always prove themselves to be way less tolerant than their claims - because they only tolerate those who agree with them. And they can turn extremely vicious & physically violent - way more so than the "non-woke" people whom they oppose. So in the end, it's the "non-woke" people who are way more peaceful, tolerant & non physically violent in their methods. These trans activists are like people who realise they are losing in a debate - they suddenly forget about the debate topic & launching personal attacks against the individual - because they have simply run out of any good arguments in their own favour. They resort to behaving like a pack of rabid dogs that just need to be put down. It's totally disgusting behaviour in the mind of any normal, sane person.
    1
  1532. The reason Harry & Meghan got away with doing their "tell all" stories about the royal family, is because at that time, they had already deliberately cut themselves off from the royal family & were no longer undertaking any official duties as working members of the royal family. Andrew, on the other hand, is still a member of the royal family - even though he is presently prevented by the royal family from undertaking any official royal duties. It's possible there may come a time, when Charles might re-consider Andrew's position & allow him to to re-commence royal duties & if that were to ever be considered by Charles, it certainly would not look good for Andrew, if he had written a tell-all book about his life as a member of the royal family.
    1
  1533.  @privateparty5616  I'm not so sure about that. If Charles has been so lenient with Harry & Meghan, it's not hard to imagine he may be lenient with Andrew too, after some time. Charles is rather weak-kneed when it comes to family members, it seems.
    1
  1534. ... The reason chicken is being offerred and not some other type of food, is that KFC is a major sponsor of cricket in Australia, hence it was not appropriate for a different food to be used in the ad, even though the situation would have been suited to any type of food at all. In any case, if you were to ask the West Indians themselves if they thought the ad was racist - they would probably say no. KFC sponsors their cricket team and they willingly took part in the ad...
    1
  1535. Agreed - they might be in a no-win situation, but that's not my concern. I'd still encourage everyone to boycott KFC Australia, since they didn't make a stand for Aussies in the Australian market.
    1
  1536. The company may have gone bust - but "the company" did not buy back the vehicle - Colin bought the vehicle himself, as an individual. Given that the company was already in liquidation at the time Colin bought the vehicle, "the company" would not have been allowed to buy back a vehicle that it already owned. And selling the vehicle to one of the company directors is not illegal, even though the company may have gone into liquidation. If there was no other interested buyer for the vehicle (as was indicated) - Colin may have been seen to be doing the liquidated company a favour, by purchasing the vehicle - as it had to be sold, in any case.
    1
  1537.  @Corruption-uncensored  And that's exactly one of the scenarios I had in mind when I made the above comment - people sometimes regressing to their childhood memories.
    1
  1538. NzerinOz:...I guess it then boils down to which country actually gave them their start in their artistic careers, and to a certain extent, what country they regard themselves as "belonging" to, or occasionally where they choose to live.
    1
  1539. No matter what Meghan may say about the royal family - she won't damage the royal family, because after that Oprah interview, people now realise that nothing Meghan says can be trusted, & she never backs up any of her claims with hard evidence. The monarchy & the royal family will endure & be here long after Meghan is gone. The royal family will always be able to outsmart Meghan - she has shown that she is just not smart enough for them - definitely no match at all there.
    1
  1540. I was so disappointed to learn that the Church of England was no longer going to ordain Calvin Robinson as a deacon/priest. I believe he could have been such a great asset to the church with his pre-existing high profile as a commentator in the media - & being able to use that, on occasions, to the benefit of the church. Despite the church having in recent years "gone woke" - if they had been hoping that just going along with the societal trends of the day, would actually "put more bums on seats" in the church pews - then "going woke" has certainly been an abject failure in that regard - because it's done nothing to prevent the tide of people leaving the church. In fact, in my personal opinion, it has probably been THE cause of many more people leaving the church. I don't think many people like going to church & being preached to about highly political issues, on which they have probably already formed their own views. So I think it's high time that the church "woke up from its wokeness" so to speak, & got back to basics with traditional Christian teachings & values. And having an ordained priest like Calvin Robinson could have been of great assistance in doing that. I think there most definitely needs to be a movement against "wokeness" in our society. While, being a minority in our society - they are definitely more vocal than the "silent majority". Originally, I suppose, in the interests of "tolerance & diversity" - they were obviously allowed to have their say - but then they have been allowed to completely overtake the debate, to the point where those of the majority viewpoint who are more vocal, are now being completely banned/blocked/cancelled/silenced, by the minority view. Maybe there needs to be a campaign to encourage everyone to "wake up from woke" & "snap out of it" so to speak. Wouldn't it be funny if there were to be a street protest called "walk against woke", or some people started up a movement/political party called "BAMEs against WOKE" & it gained a lot of followers & traction? Now that would be a real "slap in the face" (figuratively speaking) for the woke campaigners - with the people they think they are helping, actually combining to campaign against them! I've always said that the woke movement are either just zombies, or people walking in their sleep - who don't make much sense at all, let alone being a destructive & divisive force in our present society. And if that's the case, they need to be put back to sleep, & never awoken again. I do think it would probably help to put "wokeness" in its place - if some of the non-white people who've been in effect cancelled by the woke brigade & the pressure they've often brought to bear to cause people to lose their jobs etc, for not going along with the woke beliefs - were to pursue court cases against such wokeness, & have those court cases succeed, in effect, ruling against wokeness. Such cases would need to be given the huge publicity that they deserve. Wokeness is actually causing more racial divisiveness than previously existed. When non-white people stand up & state that Britain is not an institutionally racist country (which can now be backed up by a reputable report) & get howled down by white people proclaiming that it IS institutionally racist (not supported by any reputable report) - it sometimes makes me wonder whether woke people are actually promoting & becoming racist - just to prove their own point that Britain is institutionally racist! Such behaviour would not surprise me in the slightest - because the woke brigade are obviously not going to accept the outcome of any reputable report stating that Britain is not institutionally racist - they will be determined to MAKE it so, one way or another, through their very own behaviour, if such racism does not already exist. And it's a shame that the established church wished to be a part of such activity. I already know a number of non-white people who do not support the woke brigade - people whom I've known for many years - since my university days living in a residential college along with people of various non-white ethnicities. One of those people, with whom I occasionally still have discussions about current issues - says he has never felt discriminated against in this country since arriving here for university studies many years ago. He acknowledges there will always exist the genuinely racist "crackpots" as he put it. He said before he left his own country to come to this country - people had actually warned him that he would probably be discriminated against. But he was very pleasantly surprised to discover that he experienced no genuine racism at all, in his new country. In fact, looking back, he said he actually experienced more discrimination based on race etc, in his former country, & he indicated that as a result of that racism, had he remained in his former country, he would never have had as many opportunities to succeed, as he has had in this country..
    1
  1541. Maybe you should have recorded that phone call with the insurance company yourself, & let them know at the very start of the call, that you were going to do that.
    1
  1542.  @NicolasValentinScotland  True - there's not a lot of customers in the shops or cars in the car park - but then Russell did say that it was the middle of the day on a week day - so maybe that explains the lower numbers. I think he deliberately tries to go to these places when they're less busy - because it's much better for making videos at the shops when it's not busy. There's probably a lot more people there on the weekends etc.
    1
  1543.  @laugh1717  Hello.
    1
  1544. I guess the Israeli government is just trying to implement safety precautions for themselves & Jerusalem, after having rockets fired on them & passenger buses blown up, resulting in the losses of many Israeli/Jewish lives.
    1
  1545. I would have thought the reason why Americans whine so much is because Americans are highly "parochial" - most of them have never travelled outside of their own country - so they have no personal experience of what things are like in other countries. So if a few bad things are happening in America - they think it's always worse than anywhere else & whine accordingly. Also, Americans tend to think that what's happening in their own country is more important than what's happening in other countries in the world & that is why the news media in America is often quite parochial - & it's difficult to find true in-depth news coverage of what's happening in other countries. Also - access to the US Presidency in terms of who can actually become President may not be quite as easy as you think - because as far as I'm aware there is (or certainly was, until relatively recently), a rule in place, saying that the US President has to be someone who was actually born in the USA (or a US Territory) - so that would certainly rule out a lot of migrants to the US, ever becoming the US President, even though they have become US citizens. It seems, when it comes to the US Presidency, there are 2 distinct "classes" of US citizens - those who were born in the US, & those who were not born in the US. However, the same is actually not the case in many other western democratic countries - where anyone can become the country's leader (President, Prime Minister etc) - as long as they are a citizen of the country - whether they were actually born in the country or not. Some of the other things you've claimed about the US - like important information & documents being provided in other languages, & non-citizens/immigrants & people from other countries having US driver's licences which do not differentiate them from other US citizens - are the same as services provided to migrants in many other western countries around the world - so it's not something that the US necessarily "does better" than anywhere else. I'm also aware of some countries which provide (& have provided for many years) a "telephone interpreter service" - where people (whose first language may not be the language of the country in which they are living) needing to deal with, for example businesses or government departments in the country where they are living, can call a central phone number & be assisted in their dealings (in a conference-type call) by a professionally qualified interpreter who speaks their language. So some of the "benefits" that you mentioned which exist for migrants to the US, are not just unique to the US - but have also been available for many years in other countries as well - & perhaps for even longer than in the US. The only thing I would point out is that in some western democratic countries - it's not possible to get a job working for the government, or a government department, unless one has already become a citizen of that country. It's not sufficient simply to have a visa which enables one to work in that country. If one wants to actually work for that country's government, then one needs also to be a citizen of that country. I don't think that's an unreasonable request - especially since there may be issues of national security involved. I'm not sure whether the US may have that same rule - but I suspect they probably do. I'm not American & don't live in America (though I have visited that country a couple of times) - but I have visited quite a few other countries & even lived in some of those other countries for extended periods of time. Whatever country I've lived in, I've never felt "not safe". In my own country, I live in a city of about 450,000 people & have never held a driver's licence, so I also don't own a car. I am thus totally dependent on the public transport system - which fortunately, is quite good for a city of its size. So I'm always using public transport - even coming home very late at night on many occasions - & have never had any issues with safety or security. So just in terms of safety & security I would say there are probably quite a few countries who are at east on a par with, if not even better than the US in terms of providing good public transport systems & safety & security.
    1
  1546. Yes - I believe all deliberate fare evasion should be prosecuted, no matter how small. I'm a regular user of public transport & notice fare evaders a lot. They are often the reason why fares keep going up for everyone - because those people who are doing the right thing & paying the correct fare, also end up having to pay for those free-loaders.
    1