Free public transport for all. I win you.


Err How much we spend in Gulf war guvnah?


The UK faces no enemy that can be dealt with using nuclear weapons. Nor is such an enemy likely to re-emerge. There is zero justification for spending billions of pounds on a weapon that is only useful against an enemy that no longer exists. It is argued by those pro-Trident that the UK should retain its nuclear deterrent as an ‘insurance policy’ against future threats that might emerge later this century. This is a nonsense argument, because it assumes that ‘the future’ will not be affected by the replacement of Trident. In reality, the disarming of the UK would greatly improve Britain’s standing with the majority of the world and, combined with greater efforts at multilateral disarmament (as required by law), would greatly reduce the threat of proliferation and of nuclear war.

Is that directed at me, tin head?  You may notice I actually asked the question.  Getting your rather small virtual cock out doesn't help at all, does it?  Why not answer the question instead, it's called having a discussion.

It's called putting forward an idea.  Plainly you're unfamiliar with the concept.

I admire the way you keep things simple, Vic