482 dog attacks in 2022 resulting in criminal action but a fraction are caused by this particular breed.

In one recent study, researchers compared behavioural tendencies such as impulsivity and sensitivity to positive and negative stimuli – known to trigger aggressive responses – between eight dog breeds that are legislated against (including pit bull types), and 17 breeds that are not. This suggested that breed alone was a poor predictor of individual behavioural tendencies, including those related to aggression.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-the-uk-wont-stop-attacks-on-humans

I pointed out that the fact you refuted wasn’t what the person you replied to was asserting.

There were two claims asserted:

• “Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed.”
• “Some survive, many do not.”

(Emphasis mine) The first is not something I can find evidence for as there seems to be no break down easily availably by breed. And as for the second, most survive , 0.1% do not.

The down votes being given for asking for data seems like I’m offending some. 🤷

as far as info on which breeds are involved, I’m sure it’s out there.

Does not seem to be as you have also failed to find it. There is aggregate data for all dogs, which yes, is easily found actually refused some of the assertions that the person made.

Banning based on breed seems like a knee jerk reaction based on anecdotes.

Wednesday: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12522011/Shocking-moment-dog-mauls-boy-football.html

That one is a Staffordshire bull terrier, not the breed being banned for these attacks.

That’s 3 in 6 days.

You didn’t actually respond to my comment about a request for statistics, rather posting some individual stories. So since I posted I found this article from the BBC. It states that:

In 2022, there were 8,819 admissions to hospital in England with dog bites.

So that’s actually 24 dog attacks per day, so the problem is even more severe than you suggest, though the claim of only “some survive” then is misleading at best.

In 2022, there were 482 sentences given to owners of dangerously out of control dogs which resulted in an injury to a person in public

Out of all those hospital admissions, there’s 24 attacks a day being deemed criminal by our justice system. That data suggests that this problem is by no means limited to the XL bully breed.

Apparently requesting to have a fact based discussion is offensive. I merely asked for actual data for some rather extraordinary claims.

Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed. Some survive, many do not.

Can you please link some statistics on this?

The only source I could find says:

Six of the 10 fatal dog attacks in the UK last year were linked to XL bullies, and at least three of the seven this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/why-are-american-xl-bullies-being-banned-and-how-will-it-work

That’s too many deaths, of course, but hardly one a week.

Are we sure they actually have nuclear weapons to the level they claim? Given the level of corruption displayed elsewhere in their military and the sheer funds relatively allocated to their nuclear programme, it would not surprise me if their nuclear weapons were just stones with glow in the dark paint on it while the actual money was spent on some oligarch’s house in central London.

I would of course prefer not to find out by having an ICBM coming my way.

This article suggests 10 days from actual Russian plans, as opposed to the 3 day figure quoted.

The linked article didn’t show a picture of the “proof”…

I rounded for the sake of argument. If you look at the overall trend you’ll also see that China is the biggest growth market. Why would you think for one moment that any company would cut off their second biggest market which also has the biggest growth?

According to this Tesla’s sales breaks down like this in 2022:

• 50% USA
• 25% China
• 25% Other countries combined

That’s a significant chunk of its business.

He has a clear financial interest due the Tesla factories in China and the amount of cars sold there.

The company was incorporated as Tesla Motors, Inc. on July 1, 2003, by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.[13][14] Eberhard and Tarpenning served as CEO and CFO, respectively.[15] Eberhard said he wanted to build “a car manufacturer that is also a technology company”, with its core technologies as “the battery, the computer software, and the proprietary motor”.[16]

Ian Wright was Tesla’s third employee, joining a few months later.[13] In February 2004, the company raised US$7.5 million (equivalent to $12 million in 2022) in series A funding, including $6.5 million (equivalent to $10 million in 2022) from Elon Musk, who had received $100 million from the sale of his interest in PayPal two years earlier. Musk became the chairman of the board of directors and the largest shareholder of Tesla.[17][18][15] J. B. Straubel joined Tesla in May 2004 as chief technical officer.[19]

A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Founding_(2003–2004)

There used to be a Soviet saying about “China’s Final Warning”.

It’s basically this IMO

From the article, which I’m sure you read in its entirety:

State oil company Petroecuador will have to dismantle its drilling operations in the area in the coming months, something which they’ve stated they will comply with as soon as the vote is officially counted and ratified.

This is unlikely to be the end of this story though.

A fair hypothesis, but can you substantiate it?

I can’t answer for America, but generally in democracies you get two and only two parties.

Your answer is both incredible specific to the UK and subtly incorrect. I don’t quite have the time to write a full rebuttal, but the more egregious of errors is this one:

The Liberals were the radicals, the party of industry and progress and free markets and who cares who it hurts as long as it’s the future.

One of the core tenets of liberalism is the harm principle. Sure progress is important but so is not harming anyone. Your post seems to equate only socialism with bringing good to British society, when that quite simply is just not true, and refutable. The Labour Party in the UK quite successfully adopted a lot of the items on the liberal agenda, such as gender equality.

The FPTP system is quite poisonous to the political debate in the UK as the natural tendency that only one of two parties can dominate and thus removes all nuance and creates toxic tribalism.

Try this one. Maybe your browser or app doesn’t deal with the quote characters.

The negative option is that it’s a “no quarter” flag.

Oh, yikes. https://www.biscaynetimes.com/viewpoint/the-‘no-quarter’-flag-and-its-threat-to-america/