stevenl

That's what happens this time of year, lots of rubbish washing up.

Please react to my post or refrain from my post or refrain from quoting.

Yes that is why daily mail and telegraph are asking questions of Cummings'and Johnson, because they're staunch remainers and hate the Tories.

Open is a big word.

You claim there are indications, looking forward to a link about the indications. Maybe a link to the recently started study will do.

Tory hating press, sure that is why daily mail, telegraph and others are on the case.

There are indications it could lessen infections in early stages, frequent testing is required for that which is an issue in many countries. Afaik no indications it could help to prevent infections, looking forward to links regarding that.

You clearly really don't know anything about this.

Do they get a pass? Are they teaming up and ferrying illegals across the channel? Doesn't it get mentioned? Looking forward to your links.

I have not seen any power strips sold here without maximum wattage indicated. Having said that, it would not surprise me if the story reacted to were true.

'"This is a sad reminder of Maduro's hopeless mismanagement," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said on Sunday. ' Maybe your own boycott played a part in this? Anybody who thinks this "Venezuelans need free and fair presidential elections leading to democracy and economic recovery" is a reason why it came to this really needs to take a look at the history.

Please read. The OP cancelled the flight, not the airline, after a change did not suit the OP's plans.

Quote from where? I'll help you, this is the post you said of 'rubbish' "While the US has been spending on guns ,bombs and aircraft carrier the Chinese have been developing infrastructure.Now the Yanks realize they are behind in 5g. So because they can't beat them they try to screw them.". So again, why is this post rubbish? Also to help you, nowhere is it said China has not been investing in military.

Since he knew he masterminded that to the irritation of others, all the more reason to stick to the rules. He flaunted them because he thought he could get away with it, and, with some upheaval, it looks like he was right. But this is not doing him or Jonson any good.

Why are you omitting one of the following sentences, that clearly state how he should have handled? According to the law this was clearly not a reasonable excuse. You're defending the indefensible, just admit you don't care in Cummings' case.