By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 18:23 - Sep 16 by WeWereZombies
Firstly, silly graphics go nowhere near how repulsive I found that presentation of a speech propagating liberal values to a liberal conference. My mother (a lifelong Tory as it happens) travelled up from Kent to Central London throughout the Second World War, through Blitz and V2s, because of another nation being swept up in falsehoods and totalitarianism. I cannot make my objections to the stupidity of you using that clip strong enough.
To the nub of the matter, what I meant by 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' was that the European project should carry on, not in my opinion towards federalism but towards expansion so as to have the continental landmass and surrounding islands united in a legal framework that upholds the best of humanitarian values (as opposed to the brutal nature of, for example, capital punishment employed by Russia and the United States and, especially, China) and to allow the four freedoms to flourish. The fix I see as a ruination is Brexit and anyone who has been following Verhoftadt over the least three years will have seen his pleas for restraint in the apparent rush towards a United States of Europe that some advocate. I think that is why he mentioned reform in his opening remarks.
Well I apologised for the graphics. I couldn't find the part of his speech I was looking for in another video to counter your view about not fixing what isn't broken.
How do you know that federalism isn't on the cards?
I've spoken about what scares me most about this new future of Europe and that is defence union, a central point of control and access to France and Britain's nuclear weapons by people like Verhofstadt. I also don't like this move towards military and civilian policing across Europe. That scares me, and it's planned for the EU and Britain when they join. I don't think it's talked about much in the UK press actually - I think that's because it wouldn't go down very well.
Who'd have thought that China, India and Russia would be seen by the west as models for Europe. Dangerous times.
I think people might have missed the point of what he was saying - China, India and Russia are not models for Europe, they are an example of the entities with which Europe has to compete now and in the future, Europe doesn't have to be the same as those, but has to punch at that weight - if every country in the EU starts pulling in different directions, it will be more difficult to compete, but it would still benefit the EU nations to work together than for each to always look after its own interests.
Could we work together outside the EU framework ? If the UK leaves, would we be able to compete with China, India and Russia (and of course the EU, because they would be a competitor then). To compete one needs a strong currency, we are lucky to have the pound (I would never advocate joining the Euro personally) but if we trash that as a world trading currency and we've been doing a good job of that lately, then we might be in trouble....
Just one small problem; sell their houses to who, Ben? Fcking Aquaman?
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 18:06 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
What's wrong with the existing EU? Why don't they just sort out EU corruption? I'd take that. Do you know what reforms / modernisation he's talking about?
I thought they’d done a lot to tackle corruption over the last 10 years or so? They’ve certainly tightened up recording procedures for MEPs and other public officials on their payroll. Or do you mean corruption in EU countries, which is very different?
I can only speak from experience of research & development funding (including regional development funds). Those are scrutinised to a ridiculously high level to ensure compliance with funding guidelines. Far more strict than any UK research funding pots (or any other nation I’ve ever come across).
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 17:56 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
**The first 30 seconds of his speech alone talks about reform, modernisation, and "we can't continue" that doesn't square with your 'if it aint't broke don't fix it' remark.
**Apologies for the silly graphics, rest assured the audio hasn't been tampered with.
You could have just linked to this video.
There are no graphics and the whole speech is there. Unfortunately that would have weakened the impact you required. You put much emphasis on his empire comments but they were not made in relation of the the EU. They were used to explain why a stronger EU is necessary with Britain central to it.. I would suggest that the only empire builders are the Brexiteers.
2
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 20:26 - Sep 16 with 2532 views
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 19:57 - Sep 16 by Eireannach_gorm
You could have just linked to this video.
There are no graphics and the whole speech is there. Unfortunately that would have weakened the impact you required. You put much emphasis on his empire comments but they were not made in relation of the the EU. They were used to explain why a stronger EU is necessary with Britain central to it.. I would suggest that the only empire builders are the Brexiteers.
Thanks for the link.
I heard his speech on another news channel and the overriding message was EU empire as far as I could make out.
Seems like others have interpreted his words like me in the past:
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 19:17 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
He's hailing a new world order of "empires". Didn't you hear that bit?
[Post edited 16 Sep 2019 19:17]
One more time, that world order of empires is China, the United States, Russia and India and not, tor the umpteenth time and which could only be missed by someone intent on hearing something else, Europe. For Britain and Spain and France and Portugal and Belgium and Italy and Sweden and Holland and Germany the age of empire is over and the new challenge is to manage the age of migration without falling into deep authoritarianism.
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 20:45 - Sep 16 by WeWereZombies
One more time, that world order of empires is China, the United States, Russia and India and not, tor the umpteenth time and which could only be missed by someone intent on hearing something else, Europe. For Britain and Spain and France and Portugal and Belgium and Italy and Sweden and Holland and Germany the age of empire is over and the new challenge is to manage the age of migration without falling into deep authoritarianism.
Although it would seem others have interpreted his words like I did, going back as far as 2016.
Perhaps Verhofstadt was misquoted when he said:
"The same with defence. Let's create a European defence union, let's take on our responsibilities... Let's become an empire, an empire of the good and not of the bad."
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 19:22 - Sep 16 by Darth_Koont
"The same with defence. Let's create a European defence union, let's take on our responsibilities... Let's become an empire, an empire of the good and not of the bad." Guy Verhofstadt. November 2016
What do you think he means when he uses the word "empire"? Clearly you think he means "collection of independent states in order to preserve each state's culture and identity."
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 18:56 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
"The need for Europe to be allied if we're going to defend our own individual cultures and interests has been as plain as day for several decades now."
We are allied. I've got no problem with being allied. But Verhofstadt isn't talking about maintaining the status quo, he's talking about an EU Empire. I can't remember the last time an Empire defended individual cultures and interests, apart from the cultures which run the Empires.
Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, have they lost their identities? If so, what have they lost exactly?
Iceland, Noway, Switzerland. I think we'd all agree they are independent sovereign states. None are in the EU. All have their own identity and currencies. None are part of the EU political project. So, why not follow their example, until UK can work out what we want.
0
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 21:47 - Sep 16 with 2478 views
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 19:06 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
Well I apologised for the graphics. I couldn't find the part of his speech I was looking for in another video to counter your view about not fixing what isn't broken.
How do you know that federalism isn't on the cards?
I've spoken about what scares me most about this new future of Europe and that is defence union, a central point of control and access to France and Britain's nuclear weapons by people like Verhofstadt. I also don't like this move towards military and civilian policing across Europe. That scares me, and it's planned for the EU and Britain when they join. I don't think it's talked about much in the UK press actually - I think that's because it wouldn't go down very well.
"How do you know that federalism isn't on the cards?"
What are your specific objections to federalism as a long term goal given it's created the richest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. It's almost as if working together with a united goal and policies is an effective way to run things. If you don't want federalism which is a valid position what do you want? It's easy to snipe - tells us what you actually want.
"a central point of control and access to France and Britain's nuclear weapons by people like Verhofstadt"
What specifically scares you about this? Are you suggesting a single person will hold sway over whether weapons are used and their finger will literally be on the button? If someone like Germany wanted to nukes they could just build them, they aren't complicated for any advanced nation. The Japanese for instance could build them very easily.
How is the EU having a say over the use of nukes any different to NATO requiring the same measures?
I'm interested to see your answers as it seems a lot of your posts are jibes along the lines of you are the only person who sees the truth and we are all too stupid to be in your club.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 21:51 - Sep 16 with 2474 views
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 21:47 - Sep 16 by StokieBlue
"How do you know that federalism isn't on the cards?"
What are your specific objections to federalism as a long term goal given it's created the richest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. It's almost as if working together with a united goal and policies is an effective way to run things. If you don't want federalism which is a valid position what do you want? It's easy to snipe - tells us what you actually want.
"a central point of control and access to France and Britain's nuclear weapons by people like Verhofstadt"
What specifically scares you about this? Are you suggesting a single person will hold sway over whether weapons are used and their finger will literally be on the button? If someone like Germany wanted to nukes they could just build them, they aren't complicated for any advanced nation. The Japanese for instance could build them very easily.
How is the EU having a say over the use of nukes any different to NATO requiring the same measures?
I'm interested to see your answers as it seems a lot of your posts are jibes along the lines of you are the only person who sees the truth and we are all too stupid to be in your club.
SB
Blokie Stew, lovely stuff with a crusty roll.
1
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 07:21 - Sep 17 with 2369 views
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 20:58 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
Although it would seem others have interpreted his words like I did, going back as far as 2016.
Perhaps Verhofstadt was misquoted when he said:
"The same with defence. Let's create a European defence union, let's take on our responsibilities... Let's become an empire, an empire of the good and not of the bad."
Perhaps when he uses this word "empire", which seems to be something he's done before, he means something completely different.
A quick trawl this morning to see if I can find anywhere that has a direct quote from Guy Verhofstadt using the word 'empire' in his vision for Europe (and let us not forget that he is only one voice amongst the many at the heart of the European project) and nothing. Only dodgy websites (the usual suspects: Russia Today, The Daily Express etc.) putting the word in his mouth, perhaps he said it in Flemish and their correspondents are fluent. I am not so I am going to stop digging (something you really need to do), he is not the most adept speaker in English but he does a better job than I could ever hope to in another language so I give him the benefit of the doubt and regard all the guff you have posted as, to reiterate what I have posted already, just someone wanting to hear what they want to hear despite what is actually being said.
If you are interested in what makes Guy Verhofstadt tick, as much as we can know another mind and taking into account his position in the political class and all that implies in building a public persona, you could do worse than reading this short link from a more reliable source:
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 18:04 - Sep 16 by caught-in-limbo
Perhaps I'm being naive, but how is that different (bar the goose-stepping, homoerotic leatherwear, and intolerance to Jews and gays) to Hitler's goals 80 years ago?
Deary me. You've really jumped the shark in the last year or so.
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 21:47 - Sep 16 by StokieBlue
"How do you know that federalism isn't on the cards?"
What are your specific objections to federalism as a long term goal given it's created the richest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. It's almost as if working together with a united goal and policies is an effective way to run things. If you don't want federalism which is a valid position what do you want? It's easy to snipe - tells us what you actually want.
"a central point of control and access to France and Britain's nuclear weapons by people like Verhofstadt"
What specifically scares you about this? Are you suggesting a single person will hold sway over whether weapons are used and their finger will literally be on the button? If someone like Germany wanted to nukes they could just build them, they aren't complicated for any advanced nation. The Japanese for instance could build them very easily.
How is the EU having a say over the use of nukes any different to NATO requiring the same measures?
I'm interested to see your answers as it seems a lot of your posts are jibes along the lines of you are the only person who sees the truth and we are all too stupid to be in your club.
SB
The US didn't become a federation with the shake of a wand in a vacuum. It was a 200 year journey which included a civil war and various other race related problems besides.
It's simply too simplistic to say "what's wrong with a federalism, look at the US!"
Of course the devil is in the detail. The promotional spiel for federalism sounds great but I'm not a fan of large political entities where the majority’s ability to control the central government is diluted. Federalism does just that to the point where it can become population control dressed up as governance of ethnic diversities.
Verhofstadt cites India's federal government as being the world's largest democracy. I know more about India than most do on this forum and I can tell you that most Indians hate Modi and feel that they are a democracy in name only. Politically, India is an absolute mess.
It comes down to trust in the end. It's not so much that any political system is good or bad, more the people running them. I'd much rather vent my anger at the inadequacies of my own countrymen and have the power to remove them democratically than have a much less power to remove those in central government located outside my country.
Your points about nuclear weapons are even more simplistic and I haven't got the time to address them. Doing so will simply set off an exchange of views which could go on for months.
Finally, I'm not sure why you have interpreted my comments as jibes or sniping when my point is little more than "this was coming before we even voted on Brexit and I don't like it". There seems to be a lot more people taking offence or getting personal about my views than vice versa. I'm sure that people even think that I'm pro-Brexit. Such has our society been divided by our leaders supposed incompetence.
And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights.
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 16:06 - Sep 17 by caught-in-limbo
The US didn't become a federation with the shake of a wand in a vacuum. It was a 200 year journey which included a civil war and various other race related problems besides.
It's simply too simplistic to say "what's wrong with a federalism, look at the US!"
Of course the devil is in the detail. The promotional spiel for federalism sounds great but I'm not a fan of large political entities where the majority’s ability to control the central government is diluted. Federalism does just that to the point where it can become population control dressed up as governance of ethnic diversities.
Verhofstadt cites India's federal government as being the world's largest democracy. I know more about India than most do on this forum and I can tell you that most Indians hate Modi and feel that they are a democracy in name only. Politically, India is an absolute mess.
It comes down to trust in the end. It's not so much that any political system is good or bad, more the people running them. I'd much rather vent my anger at the inadequacies of my own countrymen and have the power to remove them democratically than have a much less power to remove those in central government located outside my country.
Your points about nuclear weapons are even more simplistic and I haven't got the time to address them. Doing so will simply set off an exchange of views which could go on for months.
Finally, I'm not sure why you have interpreted my comments as jibes or sniping when my point is little more than "this was coming before we even voted on Brexit and I don't like it". There seems to be a lot more people taking offence or getting personal about my views than vice versa. I'm sure that people even think that I'm pro-Brexit. Such has our society been divided by our leaders supposed incompetence.
And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights.
You've not really addressed anything I've asked, you've just talked about what you want to say.
So:
1). You know more than most the forum about India. 2). The points on nuclear weapons are simplistic so you won't bother with them with the insinuation that your view is the correct one. 3). Assumptions that your view on how a federal state would be structured is the only view and thus it's not worth discussing.
"And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights."
Yet you've decided that all the points are too simplistic and your interpretation is correct and thus you've skirted around them and not addressed them. It pretty much proves my point.
If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
SB
[Post edited 17 Sep 2019 16:15]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 17:23 - Sep 17 with 2250 views
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 16:14 - Sep 17 by StokieBlue
You've not really addressed anything I've asked, you've just talked about what you want to say.
So:
1). You know more than most the forum about India. 2). The points on nuclear weapons are simplistic so you won't bother with them with the insinuation that your view is the correct one. 3). Assumptions that your view on how a federal state would be structured is the only view and thus it's not worth discussing.
"And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights."
Yet you've decided that all the points are too simplistic and your interpretation is correct and thus you've skirted around them and not addressed them. It pretty much proves my point.
If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
SB
[Post edited 17 Sep 2019 16:15]
1). You know more than most the forum about India. - CORRECT (BUT THAT'S NOT DIFFICULT, I'M HALF INDIAN AND THIS IS A FOOTBALL FORUM)
2). The points on nuclear weapons are simplistic so you won't bother with them with the insinuation that your view is the correct one. INTERPRET WHAT YOU LIKE - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF SHARING THE REASONS FOR MY OPINIONS FOR YOUR PLEASURE AT THE EXPENSE OF MINE. I THINK I'M ENTITLED TO THAT PRIVILEGE ESPECIALLY AS I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF MY VIEW.
3). Assumptions that your view on how a federal state would be structured is the only view and thus it's not worth discussing. NOT AT ALL. I WOULD IMAGINE THERE ARE AS MANY VIEWS ON THIS TOPIC AS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CARE TO DISCUSS IT.
"And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights."
Yet you've decided that all the points are too simplistic and your interpretation is correct and thus you've skirted around them and not addressed them. It pretty much proves my point. -
If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
YOU SEEM TO WANT JUSTIFICATION FOR EVERY VIEW I HOLD WHICH ISN'T CONGRUENT WITH YOUR OWN. I DIDN'T REALISE THAT WAS ONE OF THE FORUM RULES
SB: "A" is best. CIL: I prefer "B" SB: What's wrong with A? A has a proven history of being better than B. Please justify your preference for B. CIL: IT'S MY OPINION, I JUST DON'T LIKE A AS MUCH AS B. SB: Why do you always have to imply that you are right and everyone else is stupid? CIL: I DON'T. SB: Yes you do. Anyway, there's no scientific basis for your preference for B. CIL: OKAY. ANYWAY, I PREFER B. SB: Here is a link to a peer reviewed study saying that A is best. CIL: I PREFER B. B WORKS FOR ME. SB: If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 17:23 - Sep 17 by caught-in-limbo
1). You know more than most the forum about India. - CORRECT (BUT THAT'S NOT DIFFICULT, I'M HALF INDIAN AND THIS IS A FOOTBALL FORUM)
2). The points on nuclear weapons are simplistic so you won't bother with them with the insinuation that your view is the correct one. INTERPRET WHAT YOU LIKE - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF SHARING THE REASONS FOR MY OPINIONS FOR YOUR PLEASURE AT THE EXPENSE OF MINE. I THINK I'M ENTITLED TO THAT PRIVILEGE ESPECIALLY AS I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF MY VIEW.
3). Assumptions that your view on how a federal state would be structured is the only view and thus it's not worth discussing. NOT AT ALL. I WOULD IMAGINE THERE ARE AS MANY VIEWS ON THIS TOPIC AS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CARE TO DISCUSS IT.
"And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights."
Yet you've decided that all the points are too simplistic and your interpretation is correct and thus you've skirted around them and not addressed them. It pretty much proves my point. -
If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
YOU SEEM TO WANT JUSTIFICATION FOR EVERY VIEW I HOLD WHICH ISN'T CONGRUENT WITH YOUR OWN. I DIDN'T REALISE THAT WAS ONE OF THE FORUM RULES
SB: "A" is best. CIL: I prefer "B" SB: What's wrong with A? A has a proven history of being better than B. Please justify your preference for B. CIL: IT'S MY OPINION, I JUST DON'T LIKE A AS MUCH AS B. SB: Why do you always have to imply that you are right and everyone else is stupid? CIL: I DON'T. SB: Yes you do. Anyway, there's no scientific basis for your preference for B. CIL: OKAY. ANYWAY, I PREFER B. SB: Here is a link to a peer reviewed study saying that A is best. CIL: I PREFER B. B WORKS FOR ME. SB: If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
Well, that's a perfectly calm, rational and and non-flat out weird reply. That'll show everyone.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 17:29 - Sep 17 by caught-in-limbo
I'm always calm. You're usually weird.
It says a lot that you actually believe that!
Anyway, carry on!
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 17:40 - Sep 17 by caught-in-limbo
I will.
Of that I have no doubt!
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Guy Verhofstadt's speech to the LibDems on 17:23 - Sep 17 by caught-in-limbo
1). You know more than most the forum about India. - CORRECT (BUT THAT'S NOT DIFFICULT, I'M HALF INDIAN AND THIS IS A FOOTBALL FORUM)
2). The points on nuclear weapons are simplistic so you won't bother with them with the insinuation that your view is the correct one. INTERPRET WHAT YOU LIKE - I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF SHARING THE REASONS FOR MY OPINIONS FOR YOUR PLEASURE AT THE EXPENSE OF MINE. I THINK I'M ENTITLED TO THAT PRIVILEGE ESPECIALLY AS I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF MY VIEW.
3). Assumptions that your view on how a federal state would be structured is the only view and thus it's not worth discussing. NOT AT ALL. I WOULD IMAGINE THERE ARE AS MANY VIEWS ON THIS TOPIC AS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CARE TO DISCUSS IT.
"And finally with regards to your comment about me being "the only person who sees the truth and you are all too stupid to be in my club"... well I can't help you with your self-manifested inferiority complex. Better to exchange ideas without resorting to personal slights."
Yet you've decided that all the points are too simplistic and your interpretation is correct and thus you've skirted around them and not addressed them. It pretty much proves my point. -
If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
YOU SEEM TO WANT JUSTIFICATION FOR EVERY VIEW I HOLD WHICH ISN'T CONGRUENT WITH YOUR OWN. I DIDN'T REALISE THAT WAS ONE OF THE FORUM RULES
SB: "A" is best. CIL: I prefer "B" SB: What's wrong with A? A has a proven history of being better than B. Please justify your preference for B. CIL: IT'S MY OPINION, I JUST DON'T LIKE A AS MUCH AS B. SB: Why do you always have to imply that you are right and everyone else is stupid? CIL: I DON'T. SB: Yes you do. Anyway, there's no scientific basis for your preference for B. CIL: OKAY. ANYWAY, I PREFER B. SB: Here is a link to a peer reviewed study saying that A is best. CIL: I PREFER B. B WORKS FOR ME. SB: If you actually want to discuss things it's perhaps best to answer peoples queries. If you just want to spout your opinions then carry on.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
