in your opinion, which is somewhat jaundiced.

Are you saying that grooming gangs have nothing to do with Islam - the respect for women in that culture? Its just a load of rogue men that just happen by chance to be all Asian that follow the Koran? You are deflecting away from what is a despicable act by suggesting anyone who brings it up has an agenda.

Completely agree re the stats, these men are evil to the core and if caught need to be dealt with in the most severe way. - incest is an always will be around - if you believe the Bible - I don't myself - it is the foundation of the human race. Incest is by far the greatest cause of child sex offences, how much is actually reported?

That wasn't the argument was it - it was that the referendum has increased the levels of hate crime, that would infer that crimes against other Europeans has increased. The point I was making is that it may have had a short term impact 3 years ago but now its minimal. Far more LBGT hate crime than that against EU citizens resident in the UK.

No, I absolutely am not saying that, as would be evident to anyone who read the actual words I had typed.

What I'm very definitely saying is that 90% of child sexual offences are committed by white men, and that therefore, the outrage about the relatively small number of child sexual offences committed by Asian men, is disproportionate and is fuelled by racism and intolerance - because the ethnicity of the offender is a useful proxy for the agendas of Stephen Yaxley Lennon and his dim-witted disciples.

For example, there has been child sexual abuse on an industrial scale in the Catholic church, for decades; I don't see any organised protests against the Catholic church, or a call for that religion to be outlawed, or for its members to be deported or barred entry. Equally, the Far Right has its fair share of nonces - again, I see no condemnation from people like you about that.

Do you get it now?

The hate crime that we see now is all part of the same narrative, that it is ok to prejudice minority groups., either on race, colour, creed etc, etc.
Propagated by the "leader of the western world, Donald Trump and followed by his disciples, like Farage and his ilk.
You tried to deflect the increase in hate crimes by throwing grooming gangs into the pot and although nobody is saying that they dont happen or, trying to underplay what goes on, you seem to wish to steer the attention from the right wing, white males that are largely in "control" of our country-
Let us not forget Mr Johnsons own language "ninjah's" and "letterbox's" isn't the most appropriate language for our Prime Minister to use and is less than helpful in a multicultural society.

I think there has been significant protests against the Catholic church - plenty of people would like to see a more appropriate response from the Vatican. Like Islam in its strongholds the Catholic Church wields enormous power that belittles mere governments and as such seem above the law.

I suppose the far left is nonce free?

So are you now saying hate crime is due to Donald Trump and in reality has nothing to do with the referendum

No, I'm saying that the likes of Trump, Farage etc are contributing to the society that we all live in and not in a positive manner.
Although there has always been racism and always will be, the rhetoric and anti immigration used by Farage & co during the referendum help legitimise certain elements in this country into thinking that it was ok to single out people with different skin colour or foreign accents and having Boris over here and Trump in the states, with their own "white first" views perpetuates the situation, you can also chuck social media into the pot, which makes it all too easy for people to voice their racist viewpoints, something that just wasn't around previously.

I see Sal has skilfully deflected the conversation into (unsavoury) far right talking points and away from the stuff he wasn't able to answer about the detail of our trading relationship with Europe.

We have discussed this endlessly you think there will be queues everywhere because "you are in the business" I disagree because evidence suggests plenty of product from outside of the EU flows seamlessly into the EU so why should that change because the product is either flowing in or out of the UK. Even the bossman at Dover has seen significant changes and doesn't see the same level of disruption as was forecast.

Ireland is an island and as such there are limited amounts of goods that can leave the country - it all has to go by sea.

You know best - you tell us why it is going to be so bad.

Once again Sal, I dont know where to start here.

Ireland, which currently has an open border between the North and the South, allows products and services to move tariff free between the 2 "halves" of the island, would become a smugglers paradise.
On the basis that the North is part of the UK and goods have to be able to move freely between all parts of the same country, what would prevent companies over there importing heaps of goods to eventually find their way into the EU.
If they can move from the UK mainland to the north and then from N. Ireland into Eire tariff free, what will prevent said goods moving from Eire to the EU.
Where do you suggest that the customs checks take place.

On the basis that "everyone" has said that they will honour the "good Friday agreement", which prevents a hard border between the North and South of Ireland, just how will this prevent goods, services and people moving around freely.

You rightly say the Ireland is an island but if there is a free gateway from UK-N.Ireland-Eire-EU and the same in reverse, at which point to you want the physical checks to take place ?

Finally, where on earth would your "limits" come into force ?

To ensure that taxes etc are taken correctly, you would have to ether trade based on "trust" or have some physical controls and if there were tax/tariff benefits in either direction, there will be plenty of people / businesses ready to exploit any "loopholes"

If you can't comprehend the difference between freight, usually not time critical, arriving in containers in ports with generally several weeks on water before it gets here, and wheeled freight which arrives on trailers and is often time critical, not least in driver hours, then I worry about you. The first is how most of our freight from China etc gets here, the latter how most of our freight from the EU gets here.

The container ports at Felixstowe and Southampton are built with plenty of space for customs clearance where things can sit even if the six weeks at sea hasn't been enough to get the paperwork sorted. The port of Dover and the tunnel exit at Folkestone aren't, because they are developed for immediate clearance with minimal fuss and the stuff they are delivering often can't sit around anyway. Where are they going to go, who is going to do the customs clearing, what paperwork is ready to go on day 1?


And even if your government's opening gambit under WTO rules is to just not bother with inspection and duty (wait til you meet the people who enforce World Trade Organisation rules, you'll love them) we know that the French and the Dutch will enforce the EU rules which protect the single market. Thus delays at Calais are the greater issue than those at Dover.

Your answer, as ever, appears to be "ignore the detail, it'll work itself out". But then this is what happens when ignoring experts was a key plank of your agenda.

Ignoring detail, blaming others, not answering questions and outright lying won the Leave side the referendum. It simply isn't good enough now you have to implement the unformed policy you fought for. But I've long given up expecting Leavers to take any responsibility for this whole sorry mess.

If that's the case, why bother leaving the biggest trading block in the world?

Because reasons - but definitely *not* racist xenophobia, deliberately stoked by people who have billions resting on short positions against the £. Definitely not that.

I have found it interesting how little Government & media support there has been for the Hong Kong protestors. Surely not related to our desperation to do a trade deal? Sod labour standards, environmental protection and anti-corruption measures.

Because whilst that is a benefit there are numerous downsides as you well know - this was never about the movement of goods this was always about control and being subservient to the EU. Is free trade worth having your laws implemented elsewhere, is a free trade deal worth your having to refer to ECJ, is a free trade deal worth the EU telling you where you can fish and who can fish in your waters. Is a free trade worth the billions you have to put in to support other countries and the amount of waste that inevitably comes when huge public bodies emerge? etc. etc.

Given the contents of the Yellowhammer document - it's a yes from me, to all your loaded questions.

On that matter - I've yet to speak to a Leaver who could reasonably articulate which EU laws have negatively impacted them; can you?

Obviously yes. Control & subservience are just emotive words spewed out by those who really want to control us. Just how much local control has Cameron's localism reforms given us? The major problems in this country are as a result of domestic policies pursued by a Tory party, using the excuse of a capitalist inspired world recession, to impose austerity & who couldn't give a stuff about the impacts on the worse off in society. I would say it is far more efficient that one body agrees & manages trade deals with the rest of the world than a bunch of desperate numpties pleading with a 100 individual countries.

So, should they gain power in the forthcoming election (when it finally happens), the Libdems have voted to scrap article 50 and remain in the EU, reneging on the referendum result.
Controversial or political masterstroke (remembering that they would have course have to gain a Parliamentary majority first, which is very highly unlikely)

I'm a lifelong Lib Dem voter (with the exception of about 6 years from 2010 when I was full of rage and politically homeless). However often Jo Swinson wants to say she aspires to be the next Prime Minister, we all know it is a load of old cobblers. When you know you cannot possibly gain power then you could write a manifesto offering a unicorn for every family that cries diamonds. So to me that whole revoke article 50 is a red herring. The commitment to push for a second referendum is their only Brexit policy decision that's relevant imo.

It will be an interesting election for sure.
As you rightly say, the chance of the Libdems gaining power is 0, although with such a black and white statement, their realistic hope will be to pick up "remain" voters from both Labour and The Tories.
Of course, unless they do a deal with Farage, the Tory vote could well be split down the middle and who knows what will happen to Labour, who despite having "a clear policy", need to firmly pick a side.
Their poll ratings, for an opposition party against a minority ruling party, are abysmal, currently sitting 4th behind the Tories, Brexit and Libdems.

I think that when the campaign kicks off for real, we will all need translator's and lie detectors to cut through the current trend of spewing made up rhetoric and numbers.
Your suggestion of a Unicorn for each voter is likely to be closer to the truth than many of the promises that are to come and in Boris' case already made. He's already put Labours "magic money tree" firmly in the shade.

Realistically, the best the LDs can aspire to be in the short to medium term is kingmakers along with the SNP. And if we believe their insistence that they would never get into bed with the Tories again, which would be an unforgivable act to me and many others after 2010, then that's a Labour Government given a functioning majority by a pact of LDs and SNPs. The condition of that support (I'd hope confidence and supply not coalition) would be a second referendum.

My worry is that the Labour polling suggests a possibly precarious majority even with all the pro European minority parties lending their support.

If Labour and the Libdems were clever, they would drop a few candidates and ensure that the Tories/Brexit parties win fewer seats but, I think that Corbyn in particular and Swinson are both pretty stubborn and neither wants to be seen conceding ground to their "rival".
Hopefully, Farage and Boris are just as obstinate and the knock lumps out of each others vote share

Boris "chicken" Johnson failed to show for his own press conference in Luxembourg, hilarious.

Johnson the chicken liar that he is, was shown by Xavier Bettel just how a statesman should conduct himself.

Wasn't a pre arranged press conference, but don't let facts worry you. I am sure the mighty Luxemboug would welcome you with open arms.