Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

DavidL said:

TimS said:

Lib Dem policy clarification for Thursday morning.

Davey is not proposing limiting the profits of privatised companies. The Lib Dem policy on water companies is fairly clear and sensible:

- Enforce existing rules including more regularly taking companies that infringe to court, and increasing fines to levels that actually have an effect
- Replace Ofwat with a regulator with more teeth
- Set more ambitious binding water quality targets

All things that are perfectly reasonable, and if they are enough to scare off foreign investment then perhaps that’s not the kind of rent-seeking foreign investment we want.

If you won't believe me listen to Bob:

"You say you never compromise
With the mystery tramp but now you realise
He's not selling any alibis
As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
And say
"Do you want to make a deal?"

The UK 2023.

A like from me for quoting from one of the greatest songs ever written. I don't understand how it relates to the Lib Dem water industry policy (but please don't explain, I don't care).

Fair enough.
I do remember, however, the Rolling Stones doing an acoustic cover version of the song at Murrayfield many years ago. Absolutely magic.

I think the Stones covered this when I saw them last year too.

These days rolling is about the only way they can get on stage.

I'd be grateful to have half the energy of Mick Jagger, and he's almost twice my age. And Keith is in phenomenal shape, considering.

The BBC documentaries on each of the Stones were some of the best programs I saw last year. Keith's one stole the show though.

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

What I'm curious to know is your view of woke lefty champagne socialists. You've never given much away on that one.

RandallFlagg said:

YouGov
@YouGov
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (9-10 May)
Con: 25% (-1 from 3-4 May)
Lab: 43% (=)
Lib Dem: 11% (+1)
Green: 8% (+1)
Reform UK: 7% (+1)
SNP: 3% (-1)

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think.
For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

What I'm curious to know is your view of woke lefty champagne socialists. You've never given much away on that one.

Lefties, righties,muslims, christians etc are all made of groups that are made up of people that share a common ideology...on the subject of that ideology it is ok to address them as a group. But only on that ideology.

Boomers arent drawn from people that all believe in (from this example) covid denial therefore it is unfair to treat all boomers as one on this issue.

Now a group that are all drawn from covid deniers then yes it will be fair to treat them as a blob on the subject of covid denial.

See the difference?

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

I see Carole’s not taken it well:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1659193784649875458

A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.

It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.

It's a decision I don't really understand.

Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.

Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.

"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr
has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"

Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.

IE what she said were lies

so as usual Farooq only sees what he wants too

source https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

Ummm, yes, this is what I was saying.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.

I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.

It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Westie said:

Great headline today in British regime media: "Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral cost government £162m"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772

No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.

Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?

Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it

kle4 said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Westie said:

Great headline today in British regime media: "Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral cost government £162m"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772

No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.

Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?

Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it

Yes, 'virtually the whole world was hyperbol'e, but are we really redoing the whole 'only 1/3 of the country watching it is not a lot' (or however many it was) debate again? That's no less hyperbole, and in fact is more so since it is trying to claim it was not a lot, rather than overplaying just how big it was.

We have to be better than that.

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

I see Carole’s not taken it well:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1659193784649875458

A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.

It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.

It's a decision I don't really understand.

Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.

Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.

"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr
has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"

Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.

IE what she said were lies

so as usual Farooq only sees what he wants too

source https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

Ummm, yes, this is what I was saying.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.

I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.

It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.

her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part

which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially

you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now.
You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.

Mexicanpete said:

Off topic

Just heard Guto Harri on Andrew Marr Programme. Fascinating scenario proposed of Starmer winning a minority election and requires (unstable) support from other parties. Sunak resigns. Johnson takes over as LOTO, after a short time Starmer Government falls and Johnson returns triumphant to Downing Street on the back of another magnificent election victory.

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Westie said:

Great headline today in British regime media: "Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral cost government £162m"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772

No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.

Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?

Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it

A state funeral costs money. Even a "republican" one for the death of a well-known president. The only question is the RoI.

For something like HMQEII and the impression it made of Britain on the global stage I'd expect the soft power value return to be well over 100:1.

Clue: a business case is normally considered good if it's 2:1 or greater.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think.
For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

I see Carole’s not taken it well:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1659193784649875458

A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.

It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.

It's a decision I don't really understand.

Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.

Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.

"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr
has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"

Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.

IE what she said were lies

so as usual Farooq only sees what he wants too

source https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

Ummm, yes, this is what I was saying.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.

I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.

It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Westie said:

Great headline today in British regime media: "Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral cost government £162m"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772

No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.

Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?

Really virtually the whole world watched it bollocks,not even most of britain watched it

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Farooq said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

I see Carole’s not taken it well:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1659193784649875458

A dark day for freedom of the press, for everyone who cares about it and for every journalist & news organisation that believes in public interest reporting.

It’s nothing to do with the press, and nothing to do with reporting. It’s everything to do with standing up on a stage and clearly defaming a named individual.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.
She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020, during which time Cadwalladr hasn't had the ability to remove the talk from the Ted site.

It's a decision I don't really understand.

Because when you tell a court you’ll not repeat the allegation, you’d better make sure the video of the allegation actually gets taken down. She decided instead to challenge the order, and now she’s a couple of million in the hole.

Newspapers correct stories all the time, and print apologies and legal notices when required.

"In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr
has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part"

Note the part bolded....public interest only succeeded in part....no defence of truth.

IE what she said were lies

so as usual Farooq only sees what he wants too

source https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

Ummm, yes, this is what I was saying.

Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given.

I then went onto detail that the reputational damage suffered after 29th April is where Cadwalladr lost.

It's a little disconcerting for you to repeat back the thing I'm telling you as evidence that I'm somehow wrong. You're a bit strange, you know.

her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part

which bit of said it was a total win....succeeded only in part...not totally....in part. I guess you would be one of those struggling with the sat tests as you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between succeeding totally and succeeding partially

you are arguing against things I didn't say. I literally said "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". It's right there. Scroll down. 5:54pm. See that? Nobody said "total win" apart from you, just now.
You are completely barking. Honestly, you really are.

You said and I will quote "Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest" no she didn't she partially won on that point and doesn't change the fact she was a lying hag from the start

"Cadwalladr won on the point of public interest that covered the time the talk was given." It's right there, literally right there in what I said. And the next sentence too: "She lost on the damage caused to Banks since April 2020". What more do you need?

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think.
For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.

Good thing too OLB or I as a very sane Boomer would be most upset.

TimS said:

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think.
For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.

Good thing too OLB or I as a very sane Boomer would be most upset.

Not only sane, but now definitively eclipsed for the angriest man on PB title. Got to up your game.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Westie said:

Great headline today in British regime media: "Queen Elizabeth II: Funeral cost government £162m"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65636772

No, mateys, it cost the British people that sum. And we weren't consulted.

Given virtually the whole world watched it, and it projected British identity, and self-confidence on the world stage, including our ties to the Commonwealth, how much value do you think it generated in terms of "soft power" projection?

Is that the same Commonwealth where most countries are republics OR have indigenous non-Windsor monarchies?

Yes, you keep repeating this ad-nauseum as if it's some sort of killer point.

Spoiler: it isn't.

Yes it is, only 15 Commonwealth members have Chuck has head of state.

solarflare said:

DavidL said:

Finally, interminably, the next stop is Dundee. Thanks all for the chat.

I've missed the rest leading up to this comment, but it sort of reads like the Scotrail train announcements have finally reached peak cynicism.

MoonRabbit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MoonRabbit said:

First 😇

I’ll now have to think of something to say on topic?

Um.

Rather Trump than DeSantis. You sense Trump only does it for money it can make him, and the massaging of his ego. He doesn’t actually believe any of the rubbish he comes out with, or the Q Anon rubbish of many of his supporters. None of them believe it, Trump, Tucker, Marg Greene, Alex Jones, they are all too intelligent. It makes them money, massages their ego.

DeSantis would do it for God.

We saw this when Trump was booed for telling the crowd to get vaccinated. Trouble is, if the president acts in a certain way, or stacks the Supreme Court, then whether he believes it or not is of academic interest (cf Boris and Brexit).

I believe everything in my first post, there’s more than enough footage of Democratic era Trump saying if he ran for President it would be as a Republican, becuase they are thick and wold buy into all his lies. Tucker too, had been caught on candid moments admitteing he doesn’t actually believe all the rubbish he comes out with. Alex Jones whole defence in court was “but that’s not me, what you see up there under the lights, that’s not me, that’s just acting.”

This is how I would answer the header, answer that Mike is spot on in his instincts. Things are different now, in how many people may want Trump policies, but now realise he is the very last person who can actually deliver Trump policies. That’s the fact that is the final nail in Trumps political coffin. And the same for Boris in UK. Like Trump there is no come back for Boris - even if you like his policies, you now know he’s incapable of delivering what he’s promising.

This answer is word perfect here, is it not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhe0amOv5Lw

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Pagan2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/18/dining-across-the-divide-she-is-a-big-conspiracy-theorist

Don't read this if you already suspect that boomers are all nuts.

You do realise that all age groups have loony conspiracy theorists?

No that had never occurred to me.

So if I said x believes this and they are a millenial you would not object to me saying for all people who suspect all millenials are nuts

No go ahead, knock yourself out. It's a free country.

No because I don't tend to tar whole segments of the populace because of the views of one person. This is for the reason that its wrong. You are obviously someone who finds it acceptable yet you will get antsy when people do this for groups you approve of like muslims, POC, etc.

Boomers are to you an acceptable target however.....you are no better than those that label any other category. No I am not a boomer for info

I think you are overreacting a bit here. I don't think that boomers are all nuts. I posted a link to one of those Guardian pieces where two people who disagree have dinner together, one of whom is 75yo and a complete fruitcake. I said that those who already thought boomers were nuts would have that prejudice confirmed if they read this piece. I did not state that I thought boomers are all nuts - for the simple reason that that's not what I think.
For the avoidance of doubt I "approve" of all people.

Boomers are no more nuts than any other generation. The only issue is they have disproportionate political power, due to the fact they diligently vote.

If Millennials or GenZ did the same, and the Boomers did not, we'd very soon consider the former "nuts".

After travelling round the world for a fair old chunk of time, it is my formal conclusion that good people and arseholes are distributed remarkably well across race, creed, age, country etc.

Anyone who either puts such a group on a pedestal or damns them all is a fool.