What European TV am I legally permitted to watch in the UK without buying a UK TV licence? I want to watch European TV in various languages online, without breaking UK TV Licence regulations.

The TV licencing laws are changed regularly, becoming increasingly egregious. Not content with robbing the elderly, the cheeky cunts at the BBC are now demanding payment for foreign TV channels that they have nothing to do with!

Now, the only exception appears to be for non-live TV. You can’t record live TV, or watch live TV through streaming or a service like Sky or NOW, or watch live foreign channels.

Incidentally, you’re under no obligation to let the fuckers into your home to search for TV sets or other illicit entertainment-watching equipment. They can “suspect” all they want, but they can’t get access and therefore cannot prove you have any.


Why didn’t the EU take a smarter & more business like approach towards the UK? You can leave if you like & still have full access to the single market, but at a certain price & fee of one billion a year? They would still get the contribution back?

Because – and this is REALLY IMPORTANT – the UK did not want access to any aspect of the EU.

The EU’s approach was to be guided by what the UK wanted. There were several options available to the UK, with varying levels of access to the EU and related price tags. The UK wanted the no-access, zero-cost option. So that is what they got.

Karl Marx said that in A future communist society he wanted to get rid of all religion because it was all false and all morality because the current morality was at the time bourgeoise. What would he have replaced it with?

I can’t track down any quotation that sounds like that imputed by your question, but I’d recommend reading the Wikipedia article on Marxism and religion as a starting point.

[Religion] is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Marx’s view of religion was complex and nuanced. He saw it in many respects as necessary in our society, to provide comfort and consolation for people living hard and difficult lives, and to be an expression, a reaction or protest against the harshness of their lives:

The last sentence is often remembered, but not quite fully understood: opium in Marx’s day was not merely the evil, addictive drug we consider it today. It was a medical treatment for severe pain, but also dangerously addictive in excess, with addicts coming to prefer the lassitude of addiction to actually doing anything about their suffering. With this, Marx was saying that people who are suffering need the “medical treatment” of religion to ease their suffering, but that religion, thus used, often became a damaging substitute for eradicating the cause of suffering.

Marx believed that if people could see through their “addiction”, they would set about fixing their real problems:

The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses

(Here, the word “disillusions” means dis-illusions, i.e., “removes the illusions”. Marx was unnecessarily flowery in his language).

While he uses the phrase “the abolition of religion”, it’s not clear that he actually means banning religion. He calls “the abolition of religion”

the demand for … happiness … [the] call … to give up a condition that requires illusions.

This may be read as saying that, once people decide to do something to improve their lives, to get rid of poverty, disease, etc., religion will no longer be necessary. Interestingly, it appears that many fundamentalist pastors have read Marx, realising that the continuance of their faith requires that they be seen as victims, thereby teaching their congregations that they are under attack when they are in fact very privileged.

Marx in fact had no problems with the spiritual side of religion. He believed that, once the desperate addict’s need for religion as a painkiller for their living conditions was removed, people would

develop in greater spiritual freedom … cease to be the slaves of the body … have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment

So that’s what he had in mind for a post-suffering, post-religion society: a society that could attend to its real spiritual needs.

Will a post-Brexit UK replace Northern Ireland’s EU grants?

However, I expect all the money will end up “resting” in the tax-haven bank accounts of various Tory cronies.


Less snarkily, the savings from our EU contribution are going to be needed to offset the economic damage of Brexit. Whether there will be anything left over for the regions, as well as all the other programs the EU supported, is open to question.


How do the Irish view the USA’s gun culture?

I’m getting a lot of ridiculous comments from gun-lovers defending US gun culture.

  1. The question asks about Irish people’s thoughts on the US gun culture.
  2. I gave the Irish opinion of US gun culture.
  3. I don’t give a flying f*** what Americans think of their gun culture, and it’s irrelevant to my answer.

Some of these same challenged individuals are bringing up a load of crap about the UK, mostly alt-right bollocks.

  1. The question asks about IRISH PEOPLE’s thoughts on the US gun culture.
  2. I gave the IRISH opinion of US gun culture.
  3. I don’t give a flying f*** what Americans think of THE UK, and it’s irrelevant to my answer.



We think you’re crazy because we used to have gun problems too. You might have heard of the Troubles? Or the earlier Troubles?

As I drop my son to school every morning, I see one of my neighbours out for a walk. To call it ‘walking’ is charitable. He leans heavily on a walking stick with the one arm – his left – that still works, and drags one twisted, useless leg along behind him. It’s a flailing, hopping mockery of walking. His face is a rictus of agony, not because he’s necessarily in agony – it’s just how his face was left after terrorists gunned him down in the street. He was one of the first casualties of terrorism back in 1969.

We can see every day the misery and suffering caused by a few people with guns. We can’t believe you can’t see it too. The only conclusion we can come to is that your 2nd Amendmentists are crazy.


I am 25, from the UK and I don’t yet have a passport. Should I apply for one before we leave the EU? What differences would it make to me if I wait?

Whether you apply now or after Brexit is irrelevant. It will be a British passport in either case, and your rights will be adjusted behind the scenes. After Brexit, the colour of the cover might change, and possibly some of the wording inside.

However, if you are planning to travel by air to Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic, it is advisable to take a passport as proof of identity. This is because of changes to air travel security following the 9/11 attacks in the US, and doesn’t apply to travel by ferry. It isn’t necessary to go through passport control, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and Ireland is part of the UK/Ireland Common Travel Zone (which predates the EU). In theory, you could use your driving licence as proof of identity instead of a passport, but I’ve never tried that personally.


Why do exchange rates cause Americans to pay more abroad? Why are goods and services not priced at 10% less if the currency is worth more 10% more?

Very, VERY broadly, goods and prices around the world are not pegged to US currency. Neither are currencies around the world.

The cost of goods and services is relatively stable, and may not vary year to year, or even decade to decade. Exchange rates change as fast as the stock market computers can keep up with them.

The hotel room in Berlin that cost you €100 in 2014 will still cost about €100 – but today, the dollar is worth less against the Euro than in 2014. But if you’re working in dollars only, you’ll feel ripped off: $70 in 2014, $90 today.

NB: the dollar is ‘strong’ compared to the Euro. It’s just not as strong as it was – i.e., it’s ‘weaker’ than it used to be. But it’s still ‘strong’ in comparison.


Why aren’t liberals defending Emile Weaver for killing her newborn?

Let’s just ban abortion, shall we?

In fact, let’s really cut to the chase, and prosecute every man who has ever masturbated, and every woman who has ever had a period. Because there’s no difference between all those individual sperm and a real live baby, and there’s no difference between the egg being squirted out with the uterine lining and a real live baby.

In fact, let’s just prosecute men for the crime of being men, since – if the sperm isn’t ejaculated – it’s reabsorbed into their bodies. Men are murdering millions of babies every day, even if they also fertilise eggs at the same time. 

So, when is your next protest being held at a fertility clinic? They routinely destroy unwanted fertilised embryos, you know.