Davie P

To be honest, I think the Brexiteers think the damage is worth it to spite the Remainers. 

This Brexit's going well isn't it? Who would've guessed the so called fear mongers vastly underestimated the damage it would cause. 
People are realising they've been hoodwinked. The dead giveaway the snake oil salesmen that sold this pup are panicking is they're doubling down on their dishonesty.
They want us to believe the little boats crossing the Channel, Covid and the war in Ukraine are the reasons the economy has tanked and the NHS is woefully understaffed. Unfortunately for them there's a Brexit sized elephant in the room that even a blind man can't help but notice. 
 
 

Thank you for being open about this. Raising awareness, which leads to catching cancers earlier, is clearly a good thing.
 

I feel the same @Wheelsup. In my case it's an instinctive reaction, and having reflected on it, it's because this individual doesn't seem to have an understanding or interest in the nuances of UHA of someone who had grown up in the "Lerwick Up Helly Aa Community" (to quote @Muckle Oxters). UHA is more than an event to many men and women - it's a lifestyle, and a strong part of their identity. By attacking UHA from various 'legal' angles, and trying to play down folks wishes and concerns as sexist, misogynistic and backward, he is likely to do more harm than good to his crusade and is unlikely to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Lerwick Up Helly Aa Community.
This individual seems to be trying to portray people who do not agree with him as xenophobic or anti-incomer, when most people I know who don't agree with him don't care where he came from - it's his lack of understanding and empathy they resent.
I only know what he has written in letters, but there also seems to be an element of virtue signalling and wishing to be a knight in shining armour.
I'm quietly in favour of women's involvement in squads, but it's not my decision, and I agree that the avenues he is pursuing is likely to result in heels being dug in and divisions being strengthened.

This is a fairly comprehensive list of evidence re: Russian interference / influence on Brexit > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum 

"....the report leaves open the possibility that Moscow-based information operations, especially through social media and Russian state-funded broadcasters like Sputnik and RT—and backed up by targeted support to influential voices within UK politics—may well have been a significant factor. Crucially, the UK Government is accused of making a deliberate effort not to find out how Russian influence may have affected the June 2016 vote." https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit
"the government had reason to suspect a violation of our democratic processes and ignored it. An admission of such a breach would have caused embarrassment" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/russian-meddling-brexit-referendum-tories-russia-report-government
 

This is a fairly comprehensive list of evidence re: Russian interference / influence on Brexit > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum 

"....the report leaves open the possibility that Moscow-based information operations, especially through social media and Russian state-funded broadcasters like Sputnik and RT—and backed up by targeted support to influential voices within UK politics—may well have been a significant factor. Crucially, the UK Government is accused of making a deliberate effort not to find out how Russian influence may have affected the June 2016 vote." https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit
"the government had reason to suspect a violation of our democratic processes and ignored it. An admission of such a breach would have caused embarrassment" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/russian-meddling-brexit-referendum-tories-russia-report-government
 

Another minor difference: one 'side' is a partnership of independent sovereign democracies who voluntarily cooperate for mutually beneficial economic, social and defence reasons, and the other 'side' isn't.
And I'd question Ghostrider's assertion that "the end result is little different." The end result for whom, and comparing what?

Another minor difference: one 'side' is a partnership of independent sovereign democracies who voluntarily cooperate for mutually beneficial economic, social and defence reasons, and the other 'side' isn't.
And I'd question Ghostrider's assertion that "the end result is little different." The end result for whom, and comparing what?

One minor difference, Putins method involves killing thousands,if not millions of people.

Putin is worried that western democracy infects his Russia. It’s ok for the wealthy class in Russia to go to the West and enjoy their billions. Ukraine was in danger of becoming a wealthy European nation and that would create  discontent among their friends and relations over the border. They’ve already stripped their own Russian populace of  wealth, so when they want to splash the cash they come to places like London and keep our (Tory) government in treats, parties and expensive holidays. It looks as if it’s Moldova next. He’s also threatening neutral neighbours like Sweden and Finland. And yes it looks like you either join NATO or start learning Russian.

I'm not sure cluster-bombing civilian areas and shelling nuclear power stations is a proportionate response to one of your neighbours wanting to join a free trade area.

So the Ukraine, and any other border nation, should just be left as a "'no mans land' buffer 'fighting zone'"?

I take it you have very little knowledge of the recent history of the Ukraine, the voting record of Ukrainians on issues such as EU and NATO membership, or even the processes and requirements for joining the EU or NATO. But there you go......
 
And there we have it. It's all just a big conspiracy designed to distract people from Covid. FFS.

To say that a sovereign country being invaded, a million+ displaced refugees, and unknown numbers of civilian casualties is Putin "throwing his toys out of his pram" is poor form

I don't think either of those options were seriously considered for very long by anyone with an understanding of how the virus was spreading (I assume you know that but are writing for dramatic effect). Since very early on the aim of the game was to slow the spread i.e. the 'flatten the curve' principal whilst vaccines were developed and/or herd immunity achieved.
Surely there's enough evidence of health services around the world being overwhelmed for people to understand that aiming for herd immunity through the unchecked spread of the virus would have been catastrophic.
It feels quite odd to be even writing such an obvious comment.

Indeed. I've been involved in some online discussions that are basically people Googling whatever the subject is and posting links back and forth to each other without actually reading or digesting the information.
When I were a lad.... books and articles were read, experienced people were listened to, thoughts were pondered and some clarity was reached before mouths were opened. Now folk seem happy to find the first article they feel backs their point up and post that saying "see..." whilst believing that to be research.
I wonder if, in the age of information, we are losing our abilities to process the information in a meaningful way?

For me, Brexit was the apex because it represented a tipping point for one of the world's longest functioning democracies (a model upon which many Western democracies are based) and a failure of the classic view of the 4 Estates of Democracy. We are now in a new era in the UK where it is 'acceptable' for the government (the Executive) to ignore Parliament (the Legislature) and the courts (the Judiciary) and use the media (the 4th Estate, which has traditionally had a function to hold the other 3 to account) to manipulate voters into voting for something which would demonstrably make the majority worse off.
Personally, I feel that the move from 'editorial' media to 'social' media has rendered the function of the 4th Estate, to a large degree, obsolete. Mass manipulation seems quite straightforward on Social Media (e.g. Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal). Folk will believe what they want to believe, do very little in the way of fact checking, and seem particularly susceptible to simple false equivalences (e.g. the infamous NHS Bus blaming the EU for government's underinvestment in health services, and the government blaming immigrants for their underinvestment in social services and housing in deprived areas). It all seems very plausible to many people, and Social Media provides the online echo chambers for these manipulations to take hold and become accepted as fact. All the government then has to do is present their latest legislation as the silver bullet to shoot the bogeyman they created, and call anyone who challenges them 'undemocratic' or 'unpatriotic'

For me, Brexit was the apex because it represented a tipping point for one of the world's longest functioning democracies (a model upon which many Western democracies are based) and a failure of the classic view of the 4 Estates of Democracy. We are now in a new era in the UK where it is 'acceptable' for the government (the Executive) to ignore Parliament (the Legislature) and the courts (the Judiciary) and use the media (the 4th Estate, which has traditionally had a function to hold the other 3 to account) to manipulate voters into voting for something which would demonstrably make the majority worse off.
Personally, I feel that the move from 'editorial' media to 'social' media has rendered the function of the 4th Estate, to a large degree, obsolete. Mass manipulation seems quite straightforward on Social Media (e.g. Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal). Folk will believe what they want to believe, do very little in the way of fact checking, and seem particularly susceptible to simple false equivalences (e.g. the infamous NHS Bus blaming the EU for government's underinvestment in health services, and the government blaming immigrants for their underinvestment in social services and housing in deprived areas). It all seems very plausible to many people, and Social Media provides the online echo chambers for these manipulations to take hold and become accepted as fact. All the government then has to do is present their latest legislation as the silver bullet to shoot the bogeyman they created, and call anyone who challenges them 'undemocratic' or 'unpatriotic'

I agree, and there's several factors at play, some of which vex me greatly:
A debasement of the media - the 4th estate of democracy - people no longer expect to pay for news, investigative journalism is on its knees, and news has been replaced by opinion-ised 'infotainment' Statistics show that attention spans are going down across the board, particularly amongst younger people (the endless scroll of social media.....) Participation in consensus politics and local democracy has been replaced by online echo-chambers and keyboard warrior-ism - everyone has the ability to share ill-informed opinions without consequence, and there seems to be more of a desire to prove everyone else wrong that to actually put our collective heads together to solve problems and build a better future Brexit was the apex of the above
 

For me, Brexit was the apex because it represented a tipping point for one of the world's longest functioning democracies (a model upon which many Western democracies are based) and a failure of the classic view of the 4 Estates of Democracy. We are now in a new era in the UK where it is 'acceptable' for the government (the Executive) to ignore Parliament (the Legislature) and the courts (the Judiciary) and use the media (the 4th Estate, which has traditionally had a function to hold the other 3 to account) to manipulate voters into voting for something which would demonstrably make the majority worse off.
Personally, I feel that the move from 'editorial' media to 'social' media has rendered the function of the 4th Estate, to a large degree, obsolete. Mass manipulation seems quite straightforward on Social Media (e.g. Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal). Folk will believe what they want to believe, do very little in the way of fact checking, and seem particularly susceptible to simple false equivalences (e.g. the infamous NHS Bus blaming the EU for government's underinvestment in health services, and the government blaming immigrants for their underinvestment in social services and housing in deprived areas). It all seems very plausible to many people, and Social Media provides the online echo chambers for these manipulations to take hold and become accepted as fact. All the government then has to do is present their latest legislation as the silver bullet to shoot the bogeyman they created, and call anyone who challenges them 'undemocratic' or 'unpatriotic'

For me, Brexit was the apex because it represented a tipping point for one of the world's longest functioning democracies (a model upon which many Western democracies are based) and a failure of the classic view of the 4 Estates of Democracy. We are now in a new era in the UK where it is 'acceptable' for the government (the Executive) to ignore Parliament (the Legislature) and the courts (the Judiciary) and use the media (the 4th Estate, which has traditionally had a function to hold the other 3 to account) to manipulate voters into voting for something which would demonstrably make the majority worse off.
Personally, I feel that the move from 'editorial' media to 'social' media has rendered the function of the 4th Estate, to a large degree, obsolete. Mass manipulation seems quite straightforward on Social Media (e.g. Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal). Folk will believe what they want to believe, do very little in the way of fact checking, and seem particularly susceptible to simple false equivalences (e.g. the infamous NHS Bus blaming the EU for government's underinvestment in health services, and the government blaming immigrants for their underinvestment in social services and housing in deprived areas). It all seems very plausible to many people, and Social Media provides the online echo chambers for these manipulations to take hold and become accepted as fact. All the government then has to do is present their latest legislation as the silver bullet to shoot the bogeyman they created, and call anyone who challenges them 'undemocratic' or 'unpatriotic'

The 'all politicians are liars' line of discussion is quite tedious, and quite frankly nonsense. I studied politics as a student, worked alongside several politicians at various levels during my career and still take a keen interest in it.
There are many politicians of great integrity, past and present, and at all levels of local and national politics, who have contributed very positively to society.
However, in all the years I have followed politics I have never seen such blatant dishonesty as that which came from, in the most part, the pro-Brexit politicians and the media outlets which amplified their jingoistic nonsense and glossed over their disregard for due process. They played to the gallery, and promised things that were obviously impossible, with apparent impunity. I feel Brexit was probably the lowest point in British politics for several generations.

The fundamental challenge the Remain side was that their only option was to try to point out the benefits of the status quo whilst preaching caution - never the 'sexy' option - whilst the Leave had the benefit of being able to paint pictures of a multiple different futures in which everyone's lives would be better.
Remain meant more of the same, whilst Leave was a hotchpotch of scenarios and promises with little detail to back any of up - Leave just had to persuade people that at least one of these competing scenarios would benefit them (from my estimation, there was at least 6 or 7 fundamentally different scenarios that came under the umbrella of 'Brexit')

The 'all politicians are liars' line of discussion is quite tedious, and quite frankly nonsense. I studied politics as a student, worked alongside several politicians at various levels during my career and still take a keen interest in it.
There are many politicians of great integrity, past and present, and at all levels of local and national politics, who have contributed very positively to society.
However, in all the years I have followed politics I have never seen such blatant dishonesty as that which came from, in the most part, the pro-Brexit politicians and the media outlets which amplified their jingoistic nonsense and glossed over their disregard for due process. They played to the gallery, and promised things that were obviously impossible, with apparent impunity. I feel Brexit was probably the lowest point in British politics for several generations.

The fundamental challenge the Remain side was that their only option was to try to point out the benefits of the status quo whilst preaching caution - never the 'sexy' option - whilst the Leave had the benefit of being able to paint pictures of a multiple different futures in which everyone's lives would be better.
Remain meant more of the same, whilst Leave was a hotchpotch of scenarios and promises with little detail to back any of up - Leave just had to persuade people that at least one of these competing scenarios would benefit them (from my estimation, there was at least 6 or 7 fundamentally different scenarios that came under the umbrella of 'Brexit')

The 'all politicians are liars' line of discussion is quite tedious, and quite frankly nonsense. I studied politics as a student, worked alongside several politicians at various levels during my career and still take a keen interest in it.
There are many politicians of great integrity, past and present, and at all levels of local and national politics, who have contributed very positively to society.
However, in all the years I have followed politics I have never seen such blatant dishonesty as that which came from, in the most part, the pro-Brexit politicians and the media outlets which amplified their jingoistic nonsense and glossed over their disregard for due process. They played to the gallery, and promised things that were obviously impossible, with apparent impunity. I feel Brexit was probably the lowest point in British politics for several generations.