|
Post by peterparker on Jul 10, 2020 19:01:27 GMT
Was it not more a case of a genuine but sadly mistaken belief, that the great American dream, and in particular the housing sector, would keep surging ahead like Phar Lap on steroids, rather than outright fraud? Outright fraud The credit boom instigated by Alan Greenspan led to a glut of mortgage products on the market. The most ruinous of them all was the cheaper introductory rate mortgages. The fraud happened when the Real Estate Broker / Mortgage Broker colluded to get maximum value for a property and arranged a mortgage with an introductory rate which the deluded buyer was led to believe they could afford. Which they could, just, but as soon as the standard rate kicked in, on average two years later, they could not. Both brokers knew this would be the case unless the buyers income increased substantially. At which point they defaulted and lost their home. Cue a flood of defaults in 2006/07 and packaged financial products incorporating mortgage products and which the banks sold to each other using Bank Retail deposits became worthless as real estate values bombed. I was visiting California in 2005 and a close friend who at the time had her own Real Estate Brokerage told me this was going on then in 2005. It was Bill Clinton who repealed the law separating investment banking from retail banking which was a key driver in this fiasco, and over here the Tories were baying about the "Nanny State" and demanding light touch regulation, which of course Tony and Gordon did not resist, to their eternal shame. Now we have Boris. Cue repeat. In one form or another For the life of me I can't remember the name of it, but I watched an excellent documentary/true crime thing on how the Bank of America involvement in mortgage fraud
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 19:32:16 GMT
Outright fraud The credit boom instigated by Alan Greenspan led to a glut of mortgage products on the market. The most ruinous of them all was the cheaper introductory rate mortgages. The fraud happened when the Real Estate Broker / Mortgage Broker colluded to get maximum value for a property and arranged a mortgage with an introductory rate which the deluded buyer was led to believe they could afford. Which they could, just, but as soon as the standard rate kicked in, on average two years later, they could not. Both brokers knew this would be the case unless the buyers income increased substantially. At which point they defaulted and lost their home. Cue a flood of defaults in 2006/07 and packaged financial products incorporating mortgage products and which the banks sold to each other using Bank Retail deposits became worthless as real estate values bombed. I was visiting California in 2005 and a close friend who at the time had her own Real Estate Brokerage told me this was going on then in 2005. It was Bill Clinton who repealed the law separating investment banking from retail banking which was a key driver in this fiasco, and over here the Tories were baying about the "Nanny State" and demanding light touch regulation, which of course Tony and Gordon did not resist, to their eternal shame. Now we have Boris. Cue repeat. In one form or another For the life of me I can't remember the name of it, but I watched an excellent documentary/true crime thing on how the Bank of America involvement in mortgage fraud They were all at it. Mortgage brokers filled out the application, got the buyer to sign it and agree the Ts&Cs. Nobody bothered with oversight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 20:47:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 14, 2020 6:16:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 7:15:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jul 14, 2020 8:24:28 GMT
Look on the brightside,all those extra jobs that will be created checking lorries and processing bits of paper 😆😆
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 8:44:57 GMT
Look on the brightside,all those extra jobs that will be created checking lorries and processing bits of paper 😆😆 😂😂😂 Indeed. All that EU "Red Tape" being torn up. Ummmmmm
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jul 14, 2020 9:00:49 GMT
Look on the brightside,all those extra jobs that will be created checking lorries and processing bits of paper 😆😆 😂😂😂 Indeed. All that EU "Red Tape" being torn up. Ummmmmm It will be like that last days of the Third Reich! !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 9:03:39 GMT
Look on the brightside,all those extra jobs that will be created checking lorries and processing bits of paper 😆😆 😂😂😂 Indeed. All that EU "Red Tape" being torn up. Ummmmmm Great isn't it, we'll be free from protectionist rackets such as the motor vehicle SVA scheme which makes it highly problematic to move used vehicles of less than 10 years of age from a non-EU member state and register them for road use within the EU, yet a blind eye is turned to the elements of EU vehicles moved between member states which don't meet UK construction and use regulations when registering them for road use. Prove me wrong on this if you can. So there's one huge piece of 'red tape' gone. As Anne Widdecombe said, ''We're off, and we're glad to be going''.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 9:04:29 GMT
😂😂😂 Indeed. All that EU "Red Tape" being torn up. Ummmmmm It will be like that last days of the Third Reich! ! 😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 9:13:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 9:49:23 GMT
No, SVA is still running. IVA for some vehicles, SVA for others. To the point, you can move vehicles already registered from one EU member state to another and register them for road use with less 'red tape' and less cost than bringing a vehicle from outside of the EU. This reduces choice and increases cost to the consumer. Add to that, if the vehicle is under 3 years of age and brought from another EU member state, literally 0 checks are carried out to confirm that it is roadworthy or that any aspect of the vehicle conforms to UK construction and use regulations, just send the papers to DVLA, in normal circumstances wait 2 weeks and you get a UK registration number, but during that time you can drive it around on the EU plates. It's a protectionist racket. Come on, have a sense of humour, that speech in the Euro Parliament was funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 10:18:35 GMT
No, SVA is still running. IVA for some vehicles, SVA for others. To the point, you can move vehicles already registered from one EU member state to another and register them for road use with less 'red tape' and less cost than bringing a vehicle from outside of the EU. This reduces choice and increases cost to the consumer. Add to that, if the vehicle is under 3 years of age and brought from another EU member state, literally 0 checks are carried out to confirm that it is roadworthy or that any aspect of the vehicle conforms to UK construction and use regulations, just send the papers to DVLA, in normal circumstances wait 2 weeks and you get a UK registration number, but during that time you can drive it around on the EU plates. It's a protectionist racket. Come on, have a sense of humour, that speech in the Euro Parliament was funny. Not according to the Government guidelines. "From 29 April 2009, the current Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) scheme will undergo some significant changes. This is as a result of the introduction of a new EC Directive. SVA will be replaced by Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA), a revised approval scheme which may be the route of choice for vehicles that are ‘one-offs’ or produced in very small numbers. The approval process for affected passenger cars comes in immediately from 29 April 2009." Which covers "The legislative changes will affect anyone who currently uses the SVA scheme. This includes: • Anyone who builds, designs or sells kit cars • Importers of cars from outside the EU (particularly the Far East and North America) • People re-building older cars with significant modifications • Specialists converting new vehicles into Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAVs) • Manufacturers producing vehicles in low volumes such as ‘Lotus 7’ type sports cars." I cannot see that as being a "protection racket"? Sensible manufacturing and safety standards for all cars on the road. And However, well-engineered vehicles should continue to pass the inspection without difficulty. Currently, all vehicles going through SVA examinations are either taken to Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) test stations (including ‘Designated Premises) in Great Britain, or to the Driver Vehicle Agency (DVA) in Northern Ireland. This will still be the case under the new IVA arrangements, as will the fact that, in Great Britain, some private firms will also be able to arrange for their workshops to be appointed as a ‘Designated Premises’ for IVA inspections." What's wrong with that? Faux indignation from Tonbridge Wells again it seems. The Widdecombe speech was a cause of national embarrassment to anyone who used to consider the UK as a rational and pragmatic country, THE country that was instrumental in creating the Single Market. But that's old now, we lost and the barbarians have stormed the gates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 10:57:02 GMT
No, SVA is still running. IVA for some vehicles, SVA for others. To the point, you can move vehicles already registered from one EU member state to another and register them for road use with less 'red tape' and less cost than bringing a vehicle from outside of the EU. This reduces choice and increases cost to the consumer. Add to that, if the vehicle is under 3 years of age and brought from another EU member state, literally 0 checks are carried out to confirm that it is roadworthy or that any aspect of the vehicle conforms to UK construction and use regulations, just send the papers to DVLA, in normal circumstances wait 2 weeks and you get a UK registration number, but during that time you can drive it around on the EU plates. It's a protectionist racket. Come on, have a sense of humour, that speech in the Euro Parliament was funny. Not according to the Government guidelines. "From 29 April 2009, the current Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) scheme will undergo some significant changes. This is as a result of the introduction of a new EC Directive. SVA will be replaced by Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA), a revised approval scheme which may be the route of choice for vehicles that are ‘one-offs’ or produced in very small numbers. The approval process for affected passenger cars comes in immediately from 29 April 2009." Which covers "The legislative changes will affect anyone who currently uses the SVA scheme. This includes: • Anyone who builds, designs or sells kit cars • Importers of cars from outside the EU (particularly the Far East and North America) • People re-building older cars with significant modifications • Specialists converting new vehicles into Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAVs) • Manufacturers producing vehicles in low volumes such as ‘Lotus 7’ type sports cars." I cannot see that as being a "protection racket"? Sensible manufacturing and safety standards for all cars on the road. And However, well-engineered vehicles should continue to pass the inspection without difficulty. Currently, all vehicles going through SVA examinations are either taken to Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) test stations (including ‘Designated Premises) in Great Britain, or to the Driver Vehicle Agency (DVA) in Northern Ireland. This will still be the case under the new IVA arrangements, as will the fact that, in Great Britain, some private firms will also be able to arrange for their workshops to be appointed as a ‘Designated Premises’ for IVA inspections." What's wrong with that? Faux indignation from Tonbridge Wells again it seems. The Widdecombe speech was a cause of national embarrassment to anyone who used to consider the UK as a rational and pragmatic country, THE country that was instrumental in creating the Single Market. But that's old now, we lost and the barbarians have stormed the gates. Look for MSVA. Nice to see you couldn't manage a post without an insult. You'll sulk again when I reciprocate later. It's quite sweet that you've chosen to challenge me on this. You are about to come 2nd in a 2 Man debate, again. I have no idea what you are actually good at, but there must be something, if I ever work out what you do well I'll show due respect and will listen to what you say. I've lived this SVA / VOSA life, I know every twist and turn of it, so you keep finding little bits of text to copy and paste, we'll end up with me saying the exact same things and you not being able to demonstrate that I'm wrong. The reason that there are now 'designated premises' is that prior to commencement of the scheme a consultation process was undertaken, one of the questions that independent importers (they would be the people primarily using the scheme) were asked was, what quantity of vehicles do you anticipate you will test under this scheme. Now, I know an awful lot of vehicle importers from my time living in Japan and through contacts in America, those being to 2 primary countries of origin of imported vehicles to the UK, we had a little organisation, BIMIA, British Independent Motor Vehicle Association (long since disbanded, this scheme killed the trade), so there was plenty of contact between the larger importers, of which I was one, we all answered that we would not use the scheme as we could see that the test data and requirements were poorly drafted and open to interpretation, we couldn't move a high value unit half way around the world only to find that it couldn't be registered because a tester was having a bad day so decided to fail a vehicle due to his/her 'interpretation' of test requirements. However, VOSA didn't seem to believe us, maybe they thought that we were thinking that if we all said that we would stop importing qualifying vehicles they would scrap the scheme, but we were serious, either way, they went ahead and invested large sums in test stations, which, guess what, had no vehicles, or far fewer that they anticipated, to test. So after several years of those sites losing money, in fact, it got to a stage where they only had a few qualified tester and moved those testers between different sites, they invited independent sites to apply to become 'Designated Premises', so that they could lower their own overheads. There's your EU red tape, killing British business. The reason that it's a protectionist racket, for the 2nd time, is that different registration criteria apply for vehicles being moved between EU member states to the standards that are applied to vehicles being registered from outside of the EU. As a footnote. I have actually put a few vehicles through these tests and guess what, 2 identical vehicles, both Japanese manufactured, both literally brand new, same year of construction, no differences whatsoever, one passed, the other failed. Why? The testers interpreted requirements around lighting differently. How are you supposed to work with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 11:28:37 GMT
Not according to the Government guidelines. "From 29 April 2009, the current Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) scheme will undergo some significant changes. This is as a result of the introduction of a new EC Directive. SVA will be replaced by Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA), a revised approval scheme which may be the route of choice for vehicles that are ‘one-offs’ or produced in very small numbers. The approval process for affected passenger cars comes in immediately from 29 April 2009." Which covers "The legislative changes will affect anyone who currently uses the SVA scheme. This includes: • Anyone who builds, designs or sells kit cars • Importers of cars from outside the EU (particularly the Far East and North America) • People re-building older cars with significant modifications • Specialists converting new vehicles into Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAVs) • Manufacturers producing vehicles in low volumes such as ‘Lotus 7’ type sports cars." I cannot see that as being a "protection racket"? Sensible manufacturing and safety standards for all cars on the road. And However, well-engineered vehicles should continue to pass the inspection without difficulty. Currently, all vehicles going through SVA examinations are either taken to Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) test stations (including ‘Designated Premises) in Great Britain, or to the Driver Vehicle Agency (DVA) in Northern Ireland. This will still be the case under the new IVA arrangements, as will the fact that, in Great Britain, some private firms will also be able to arrange for their workshops to be appointed as a ‘Designated Premises’ for IVA inspections." What's wrong with that? Faux indignation from Tonbridge Wells again it seems. The Widdecombe speech was a cause of national embarrassment to anyone who used to consider the UK as a rational and pragmatic country, THE country that was instrumental in creating the Single Market. But that's old now, we lost and the barbarians have stormed the gates. Look for MSVA. Nice to see you couldn't manage a post without an insult. You'll sulk again when I reciprocate later. It's quite sweet that you've chosen to challenge me on this. You are about to come 2nd in a 2 Man debate, again. I have no idea what you are actually good at, but there must be something, if I ever work out what you do well I'll show due respect and will listen to what you say. I've lived this SVA / VOSA life, I know every twist and turn of it, so you keep finding little bits of text to copy and paste, we'll end up with me saying the exact same things and you not being able to demonstrate that I'm wrong. The reason that there are now 'designated premises' is that prior to commencement of the scheme a consultation process was undertaken, one of the questions that independent importers (they would be the people primarily using the scheme) were asked was, what quantity of vehicles do you anticipate you will test under this scheme. Now, I know an awful lot of vehicle importers from my time living in Japan and through contacts in America, those being to 2 primary countries of origin of imported vehicles to the UK, we had a little organisation, BIMIA, British Independent Motor Vehicle Association (long since disbanded, this scheme killed the trade), so there was plenty of contact between the larger importers, of which I was one, we all answered that we would not use the scheme as we could see that the test data and requirements were poorly drafted and open to interpretation, we couldn't move a high value unit half way around the world only to find that it couldn't be registered because a tester was having a bad day so decided to fail a vehicle due to his/her 'interpretation' of test requirements. However, VOSA didn't seem to believe us, maybe they thought that we were thinking that if we all said that we would stop importing qualifying vehicles they would scrap the scheme, but we were serious, either way, they went ahead and invested large sums in test stations, which, guess what, had no vehicles, or far fewer that they anticipated, to test. So after several years of those sites losing money, in fact, it got to a stage where they only had a few qualified tester and moved those testers between different sites, they invited independent sites to apply to become 'Designated Premises', so that they could lower their own overheads. There's your EU red tape, killing British business. The reason that it's a protectionist racket, for the 2nd time, is that different registration criteria apply for vehicles being moved between EU member states to the standards that are applied to vehicles being registered from outside of the EU. As a footnote. I have actually put a few vehicles through these tests and guess what, 2 identical vehicles, both Japanese manufactured, both literally brand new, same year of construction, no differences whatsoever, one passed, the other failed. Why? The testers interpreted requirements around lighting differently. How are you supposed to work with that? You do make me laugh, you really do. I was quoting from the Government PDF on this, I did provide the link, 😜😂😂 If that's wrong or has been superceded please provide the link to the new guidance showing the transition, as the link provided did from SVA to IVA. All you did just introduce another acronym and quoted some (slightly bitter I must say) personal experience insisting, without empirical evidence, that we must believe you.😂 A bit like the Baltimore School Meals Programme. Did I insult you? Blimey I must be getting good at it😂, so subtle I don't even realise it myself!! It's not a 2 man debate, you are talking to yourself again. Anyway, moving along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 12:20:56 GMT
Look for MSVA. Nice to see you couldn't manage a post without an insult. You'll sulk again when I reciprocate later. It's quite sweet that you've chosen to challenge me on this. You are about to come 2nd in a 2 Man debate, again. I have no idea what you are actually good at, but there must be something, if I ever work out what you do well I'll show due respect and will listen to what you say. I've lived this SVA / VOSA life, I know every twist and turn of it, so you keep finding little bits of text to copy and paste, we'll end up with me saying the exact same things and you not being able to demonstrate that I'm wrong. The reason that there are now 'designated premises' is that prior to commencement of the scheme a consultation process was undertaken, one of the questions that independent importers (they would be the people primarily using the scheme) were asked was, what quantity of vehicles do you anticipate you will test under this scheme. Now, I know an awful lot of vehicle importers from my time living in Japan and through contacts in America, those being to 2 primary countries of origin of imported vehicles to the UK, we had a little organisation, BIMIA, British Independent Motor Vehicle Association (long since disbanded, this scheme killed the trade), so there was plenty of contact between the larger importers, of which I was one, we all answered that we would not use the scheme as we could see that the test data and requirements were poorly drafted and open to interpretation, we couldn't move a high value unit half way around the world only to find that it couldn't be registered because a tester was having a bad day so decided to fail a vehicle due to his/her 'interpretation' of test requirements. However, VOSA didn't seem to believe us, maybe they thought that we were thinking that if we all said that we would stop importing qualifying vehicles they would scrap the scheme, but we were serious, either way, they went ahead and invested large sums in test stations, which, guess what, had no vehicles, or far fewer that they anticipated, to test. So after several years of those sites losing money, in fact, it got to a stage where they only had a few qualified tester and moved those testers between different sites, they invited independent sites to apply to become 'Designated Premises', so that they could lower their own overheads. There's your EU red tape, killing British business. The reason that it's a protectionist racket, for the 2nd time, is that different registration criteria apply for vehicles being moved between EU member states to the standards that are applied to vehicles being registered from outside of the EU. As a footnote. I have actually put a few vehicles through these tests and guess what, 2 identical vehicles, both Japanese manufactured, both literally brand new, same year of construction, no differences whatsoever, one passed, the other failed. Why? The testers interpreted requirements around lighting differently. How are you supposed to work with that? You do make me laugh, you really do. I was quoting from the Government PDF on this, I did provide the link, 😜😂😂 If that's wrong or has been superceded please provide the link to the new guidance showing the transition, as the link provided did from SVA to IVA. All you did just introduce another acronym and quoted some (slightly bitter I must say) personal experience insisting, without empirical evidence, that we must believe you.😂 A bit like the Baltimore School Meals Programme. Did I insult you? Blimey I must be getting good at it😂, so subtle I don't even realise it myself!! It's not a 2 man debate, you are talking to yourself again. Anyway, moving along. Stop making things up. I told you to look for MSVA, see here; www.gov.uk/vehicle-approval/motorcycle-single-vehicle-approvalSame scheme, one covers 2, 3 and light 4 wheel vehicles, you are splitting hairs, address the actual point. If you can. It's interesting that you don't even realise when throwing around mild to moderate pejorative insults. Not surprised that you want to move along, you were running your mouth about red tape, so here's an example that destroyed a thriving little independent market that provided choice for customers and helped to keep prices on new vehicles competitive. That's your EU for you, a protectionist racket, at the expense of us consumers. I'll explain why we were keeping retail prices down. I personally was buying brand new vehicles, manufactured for the UK market, and importing them, so they were identical to the unit that would be stood on a main agent's showroom floor, I was retailing that unit for £6500, at the time the main agent was asking a tiny bit under £10,000. Official importers had to react to that, so they lowered their retail prices. It wasn't just me doing this. Suddenly, almost as if by magic, a scheme appears that puts a massive hurdle in our way. We were also bringing in to the UK used vehicles that the official importers didn't import. We were aware of our liability and ensured that the standards that the vehicles were prepared to exceeded those ISA/SVA test standards, that was never the issue, it was being compelled to pay for that test, long test lead times, and interpretation of test criteria, which as my example above demonstrates, was a well grounded fear. Keep wriggling. Or, just once in your life show some humility and say something like; That's terrible, I can see how that's a bad scheme, and I'm sorry that EU policy harmed those businesses and costs hundreds of jobs, but on balance I still think that the EU was beneficial to our economy. Not that I would believe you now even if you did say that, if you thought it you would have said it 2 posts back, you wouldn't be arguing about it as if it all happened in my imagination. The difference between this and the Baltimore free meals conversation is that when I was wrong I was happy to accept new information and acknowledge that my opinion had been formed with information that was out of date. It's called humility. You should try it sometimes, it's not painful, it's just part of life, sometimes we are all wrong, apart from you, naturally.
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jul 14, 2020 13:17:14 GMT
You do make me laugh, you really do. I was quoting from the Government PDF on this, I did provide the link, 😜😂😂 If that's wrong or has been superceded please provide the link to the new guidance showing the transition, as the link provided did from SVA to IVA. All you did just introduce another acronym and quoted some (slightly bitter I must say) personal experience insisting, without empirical evidence, that we must believe you.😂 A bit like the Baltimore School Meals Programme. Did I insult you? Blimey I must be getting good at it😂, so subtle I don't even realise it myself!! It's not a 2 man debate, you are talking to yourself again. Anyway, moving along. Or, just once in your life show some humility and say something like; That's terrible, I can see how that's a bad scheme, and I'm sorry that EU policy harmed those businesses and costs hundreds of jobs, but on balance I still think that the EU was beneficial to our economy. That`s not going to happen, and well you know it. There`s more chance of him appearing on the X Factor, singing, "Let my people go."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 13:47:46 GMT
Or, just once in your life show some humility and say something like; That's terrible, I can see how that's a bad scheme, and I'm sorry that EU policy harmed those businesses and costs hundreds of jobs, but on balance I still think that the EU was beneficial to our economy. That`s not going to happen, and well you know it. There`s more chance of him appearing on the X Factor, singing, "Let my people go."
That would be worth watching, followed by Anne coming on to stage saying; There's a pattern throughout history of oppressed people turning on their oppressor...
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jul 14, 2020 14:42:40 GMT
That`s not going to happen, and well you know it. There`s more chance of him appearing on the X Factor, singing, "Let my people go."
That would be worth watching, followed by Anne coming on to stage saying; There's a pattern throughout history of oppressed people turning on their oppressor... Edward the Oppressor? Wasn`t he king of England, just before William the conq?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 14:58:10 GMT
That would be worth watching, followed by Anne coming on to stage saying; There's a pattern throughout history of oppressed people turning on their oppressor... Edward the Oppressor? Wasn`t he king of England, just before William the conq?
Here it is William. Of course the hopeless Guardian, up to their necks in their own hypocrisy on the issue of the slave trade themselves, claim, falsely, that she compared the EU to slavery in some way, a complete lie, but of course the lefty media here ran with it for days. Absolutely hilarious. They don't like the truth, do they. The other interesting thing about this is the diversity there on the UKIP benches, amongst a sea of almost exclusively white faces in the EU parliament. Odd that it seems to be the same people who are quick to put this wonderful country down, often on the grounds of racism, institutional racism, who are pro-EU yet I've never heard a single one of them complain about a lack of diversity in that chamber.
|
|