Is changing donation laws for Reform retrospectively unfair or politically justified?

Yes, I understand that most of your own posts are just opinions. Thankfully, there are some really well informed posters on MN who are able to evidence their points much more effectively, and that makes for an infinitely more interesting and purposeful debate.

Thank you for acknowledging that you avoid some - I would suggest many - of the questions that are posed to you by other posters. The reasons for your avoidance are clear. And as I said, it's fine to avoid questions which you are unwilling and/or unable to answer, as your participation in the discussion is entirely voluntary. What you don't get to do is insist that I scroll on without at least asking you to justify the claims that you are making. It is your right to evade, but it is my right to challenge any unevidenced claims that you may make.

Yep it’s fairly pointless the same posters have already decided.

Evidently so.

If you quote data - it’s rubbished.
If you quote the ‘wrong media’ - it’s rubbished.

etc etc

Does everyone need a disclaimer now ;

Here goes.

I think Healey is a duplicitous POS. To have the temerity to deliver Starmer’s coup de grace by resigning, over concerns on defence spending, only to back greater welfare spending is galling beyond belief.

Just my opinion you understand.

Yes it’s a chat forum. Not a radio / HoL transcription service.

If you don’t like it just ignore or ask someone else.

You would like to be free to unsubstantiated opinions without ever being challenged to back them up? Yes, I can understand why that might be appealing to posters who like to be a bit creative in their assertions.

Unfortunately, that approach doesn't work for me because I am not happy to leave the unsubstantiated opinions masquerading as facts unchallenged.

Like pretty much all posts on here it’s mostly opinions. If someone asks questions I might answer but some I avoid as it’s not worth it.

I’m not sorting through stuff to list people, so take or leave my posts knowing that’s the case. I really don’t mind if you scroll past entirely and ask others for lists.

Opinions are fine, as long as they are presented as such. The problem arises when opinions are presented as facts. Inevitably, people will ask for evidence to back up unsubstantiated claims that look a bit suspect. That is part of normal debate and discussion, and it's very common both on MN and on most other discussion forums.

Of course, you don't have to respond to anyone's questions if you don't want to. Responding to posts on MN is entirely optional. But inevitably, if you present opinions as fact and then evade requests to back them up, then people may tend to become rather dismissive of what you say because unfounded opinions don't have that much value.

Excellent riposte.

Ok great. Let’s go back to the earlier suggestion where you don’t read anything not substantiated. That was a good one.

I’ve already posted that scroll back. Rayner answering on unions. Reynolds said the same.

They didn’t reply with yes it’ll be the same for unions, but that unions are different.

Ik you see that as certainty for it not happening, I disagree. Saying yes they’ll be subject to the same would indicate that certainty.

As for everyone jumping in it’s great to see the usual, but you can talk to each other too. I’m sure my views aren’t that central.

Yes, this is what I have observed. It is a very well practised technique.

Chat forums are opinions, but if a poster mentions - in support of their opinion - that X and Y has been said by someone/in some media, are you aware that it's common for other posters to follow up on those references?

Oh, I know. I do absolutely recognise it as a longstanding modus operandi for some. It is a strategy, of sorts, though not a terribly effective one in my view.

I'm not expecting to get any answers because I don't actually think there are any, but sometimes I feel that it's worth pursuing the point if only to highlight the repeated pattern of making unsubstantiated claims and then evading perfectly reasonable requests for evidence to back up those claims. Apologies if it details the discussion somewhat, I just don't like to see people making all manner of claims with no accountability.

A quick check didn't bring up anything about an exemption for Labour, maybe you misheard what was said on the radio?

I don't think it is @BIossomtoes MO. Many of us have mentioned that your posts often fail to answer the question asked. Often there is deflection or mirroring of posts instead.

Are you aware chat forums are opinions? Plus there’s a link below to the HoL for all those jumping in wanting a transcript in addition to the radio one.

Yes. Hence the need to challenge them and ask for evidence. Often, there is no evidence forthcoming.

100% this.

And this is yours.

You won’t get anywhere. The refusal to substantiate claims has always been the modus operandi.

Ok as before. No I’m not doing the stuff you ask so if you want to scroll on by then feel free to.

You misunderstand.

I'm not asking you to do my admin for me. I'm asking you to substantiate your own claims with solid evidence. This is entirely reasonable in a discussion where unevidenced claims are made.

As you're unwilling and/or unable to provide any evidence to support your claims, I will treat your earlier statement as just an assumption on your part, rather than a statement of fact.

If you could make a point of distinguishing between facts and unevidenced opinions in future, then I won't need to trouble you with so many requests for evidence.