I understand. The tabloids do this at times particularly for front pages. It sells newspapers. You may call it sensationalism, but it's not dishonest if depicts true facts and makes clear its a photo of models. TV documentaries will sometimes use a similar device to depict a scene
It'll be interesting how the real child and the real foster parents look. If they are dressed up in the same way sure, if its not accurate at all then its more then sensationalism, it's dishonest and propaganda
If it turns out that none of the foster mothers wore masks, then, sure, it is at least negligent, and the newspaper should be censored. We'll see, but I find it hard to believe that two such newspapers would get their basic facts so wrong. Everything suggests the foster parents were orthodox muslims at least. The Times claims to have seen confidential reports evidencing that at least one foster mother wore a veil in public
Also it'd be interesting to even see if the kid looks white not that it makes a difference to whether it was negligent of the council
Johnson and Priti having a ball in Nigeria Poor kid. Can someone explain this to me? Priti is going to halve humanitarian aid to Nigeria because they haven't tackled Boko Haram. I assume that this will make Nigeria a worse place to live, encouraging yet more migrants north to try to get to Europe, many of them to the UK because of historical, linguistic and family connections. So is Priti: a) desperate to show those who hate the very idea of helping foreigners how tough she is in her push to become leaderene b) expecting her budget will be cut and planning in advance c) worried about reduced immigration due to Brexit and has a cunning plan to sort this d) an unpleasant idiot [(d)can be combined with any other answer]
The first thing in the fight against Boko Haram is surely to cut their funding. We could help by suspending the royalty payments for 'A Whiter Shade of Pale".
Who knows what moved them to violence? Must have been all that Worthington E and Double Diamond they consumed in the Sixties
They are clearly trying to block all meaningful negotiations in the blind hope that either we change our mind, or, now that Labour have put opportunism ahead of National interest (surprise surprise!!), meaning that the Government will find it even harder to get Brexit through Parliament and the whole thing will collapse. Time to simply walk away and as you say, either go direct to Merkel and Macron or just completely walk away and wait and see if they come back to the table. If they don't..........we're off. Bye!!
Its all brinkmanship, who blinks first. The EU need to cut out the games. Everything should be on the table to be discussed, and we agree the payment when we know what trade deal is offered. Nothing else is acceptable.
Bet people in Europe are saying exactly the same about the UK. The EU negotiating team have a harder task as they have 27 countries who have given them a tight negotiating framework to stick within, though they have less at risk. Davies has already said that his tactic is not to discuss anything in detail until they allow discussion of trade, which the EU 27 have said won't happen until citizenship and the divorce bill are settled. You are right, it's who blinks first, though as we have said we want to leave I can see the logic of the 'let's get the leaving bit sorted and then discuss what comes after' approach. Clean break and then reboot easiest way forward. But as our main bargaining chips seem to be the status of the EU citizens living here (even though the government said they weren't a bargaining chip) and how much we will pay of the budget commitments we signed up to, I can't see the UK approach changing. It was pretty predictable that this whole thing was going to be a nightmare, especially given the ****wits on both sides who are supposed to be managing it.
If the EU want to get a divorce payment sorted first, it should itemise what it alleges we owe legally. It won't because, as a House of Lords report concluded, we don't owe anything for leaving under the EU treaties. Payments relate to going forward, which is why the trade element must come in now.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sit...ential-principles-draft-position-paper_en.pdf First phase of the negotiation was getting agreement on what should be included. I think the above sets out the EU position. Can't find a similar list from the UK side. Process looks clear - what on the list do we agree with, put the ones we disagree with to on side, negotiate cash for the items both sides see as valid, once done return to disputed items and noegotiate a work around.
Is this supposed to be the breakdown of the Euro 100 billion, because I can't see any figures in there? If they make such a claim, surely they should itemise it, rather than ask how much of 100 billion the UK is prepared to pay?
The EU are being incredibly vindictive and are determined to make the UK suffer so that no one else dares to leave their little protectionist club. We should walk away and tell them to stick it!
No, it's a list of th areas the U.K. Contributes funds to and that the EU want a contribution from us on. Two negotiations - what should be on the list (we need to prepare a counter list), how much per item on the list. The €100bn is bullshit, there has been no official figure published, new project fear. From what I read about €36bn is a more likely figure. While I don't think they are being vindictive, we voted to leave (or you did), not to leave if we get what we want from the EU first, and we should b prepared to walk and take the consequences, which will have to be explained by those who urged a Brexit vote to those who supported it.
There are direct quotes from some leaders and top officials that the UK must be punished and made an example of. That is vindictive. Time to walk away.
We will walk away eventually, blaming Jonny Foreigner for not playing ball. I reckon we've still got a good few years of blaming the EU in us.
