horsefly

And yet none of the fans were witness to the training sessions pre the game. None of the fans know what the state is of Syd's fitness levels, etc, etc. There was no excuse to boo. For me it remains an act of simple ignorance that unfortunately soured what was a very good squad performance.

YESTERDAY: "The Plan is working" (Sunak, Hunt, et al) TODAY: Recession officially declared CONCLUSION: It's a sh*it plan, produced by a sh*it government, full of sh*it politicians.

Indeed! And they got it completely wrong. The players substituted had declared themselves injured at half-time. It seemed pretty obvious at the time that the very early nature of those substitutions was a clear indication that it was injury concerns that motivated them. There simply was no excuse to boo. It was pig-ignorant. Why would any player want to stay at a club whose fickle fans turn on them like that? Imagine being Fassnacht and Nunez arriving onto the pitch to that roar of boos. Appalling!

New spokesperson on the benefits of Brexit https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1659545687741046785?s=20

Both Hernandez and Sargent declared they were injured at half-time. A few minutes into the second half when their injuries persisted Wagner rightly replaced them. Fans booing did so without this knowledge. If ever there was a good example of why unknowledgeable fans shouldn't boo, this is it.

Goldman Sachs they latest to point out what so many others have already pointed out. Brexit is screwing our economy https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2637e62a-9979-45c3-99c5-e174d8074954?shareToken=17961b4e70313d66123f0ac9c9ea7557 Brexit delivered 5% blow to UK economy, says Goldman Sachs Britain has “significantly underperformed” compared with the European Union and the United States since the vote to leave in June 2016, the bank claims

The senile old git embarrasses himself everyday: https://x.com/g_gosden/status/1757033313594749221?s=20

And now the senile old fool has called 9/11 Seven/11.

Nope! He actually ENCOURAGED Russia to attack NATO countries. That goes way beyond saying NATO countries need to pay their fair share. US politicians have long recognised that a secure Europe is essential to their own interest in preserving the authority of a democratic free world. Empowering a dictatorship that has 1000s of nuclear warheads trained on the USA would be a disaster for American security, and indeed for its economic wellbeing. There's a good reason why every dictator in the world wants captain Bone Spurs to win the presidency; they know full well it would amount to a license to persecute and invade at will. For Trump; Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping are not enemies, they are his role models. A Trump victory would see an explosion of conflicts around the world, and a very real risk of another world war breaking out. Whether we like it or not, America's traditional role as the policeman of the free world has prevented escalation of local conflicts into a world war. The surrender of that role in the guise of "America First" is both delusional and threat to to world safety.

It now couldn't be clearer: ANYONE supporting Trump to become president is a TRAITOR willing to imperil the security of the UK and our European allies: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-encourages-russia-to-attack-non-paying-nato-allies/ar-BB1i6j4D Donald Trump says he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its bills as part of the Western military alliance. He said he had once told a Nato leader he would not protect a nation behind on its payments if it came under Russian attack, and would urge the aggressors to "do whatever they hell they want".

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2024/feb/10/brexit-border-checks-and-badly-planned-farm-subsidies-could-plunge-the-uk-into-a-food-crisis?CMP=share_btn_tw Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/disastrous-truss-budget-forced-uk-councils-to-take-out-massive-50-year-loans-at-soaring-rates/ar-BB1i4W6Y?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=a8e724a15b49474796b99e0d0ac97954&ei=10 Disastrous Truss budget forced UK councils to take out massive 50-year loans at soaring rates

Sadly, it won't. But then I think that because I'm an elitist.

Not a Brexit issue, hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha!!!!

Are the new Brexit border checks going as brilliantly as certain individuals on here would have you believe, or are they as shi*te as many of us expected. Perhaps Dover Council can discuss that question at their next meeting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-68183854

Herman is spot on in his observations about you. The give away is your crass comment "I simply get tired of all the faux outrage." It simply doesn't occur to you that people could genuinely be disgusted by attacks on transgender people, asylum seekers, and other minority groups. Because you don't find such attacks disgusting, you think you can dismiss the objections of people who despise such bigotry as mere "faux outrage". Such an attitude is typical of the far-right who wish to avoid addressing the hatred engendered by the sort of divisive bigotry that the likes of Sunak intentionally employ. Very obviously, Sunak's jibe was aimed to undermine Starmer. However, equally as obvious, the jibe depended entirely on transphobic assumptions to give it its content (The utterly puerile "Oh look everybody! Starmer thinks women can have a willy"). It gave the entirety of the Conservative benches a damned good laugh; but not the parents of Brianna Ghey, nor the small community of transgender people in the UK who are victims of violence and abuse on a daily basis. Sunak could have reeled off his prewritten jibe about Starmer's putative U-turns without employing any mention of transgender issues, it would have made no difference to his political point. That he didn't, even when he knew that the mother of a transgender murder victim was visiting parliament that day, says everything about his grotesque moral judgement, and his willingness to employ prejudice in his personal cause. The disgust is real, not faux. You might receive politer engagement if you simply accepted the fact that the people responding to you on this site hold their opinions sincerely. If you wish to continue to describe their deeply held values as "faux", then expect them to respond to you appropriately (as Herman has done).

A dire warning from two of the best legal minds in the US that a Trump presidency could bring an end to democracy in America: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/how-to-steal-a-presidential-election-review-trump-and-the-peril-to-come/ar-BB1i49Ww?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=4032fcabd42c455c9a334b11df2a8ffc&ei=11 Lessig is a chaired professor at Harvard Law School. He views a second Trump term as calamitous. “He is a pathological liar, with clear authoritarian instincts,” Lessig writes. “His re-election would be worse than any political event in the history of America  –  save the decision of South Carolina to launch the civil war.” Seligman is a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford, focused on disputed presidential elections. He too views Trump uncharitably. “Former president Trump and his allies attempted a legal coup in 2020 – a brazen attempt to manipulate the legal system to reverse the results of a free and fair election,” Seligman has said. “Despite all the attention on 6 January 2021 [the attack on Congress], our legal and political systems remain dangerously unprotected against a smarter and more sophisticated attempt in 2024.”

Indeed! Born with male genitalia and assigned a male gender. Changed her gender to fit with her lived experience, and opted to have surgery to reflect that. The choice was NOT determined by her biology but by her self-perception of what her gender truly is. The issues are extraordinarily complex, and not helped by those who think biology is the only issue that matters. What rights should be given to transgender people who retain their original biological genitalia needs very careful consideration. For example, I happen to be one of those who thinks if you have male genitalia then you shouldn't have access to women's changing rooms. But the issues deserve calm rational debate and the people concerned need showing respect. The numbers involved are miniscule, completely disproportionate to the level of hate that has been generated.

You've missed the point. Caroline Cossey was born with a biology that did not determine her gender. The point is she is a woman. Would you treat as not a woman?

Not a woman according to some experts on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey

I see you are getting back to the level of abuse when you sent me that stream of DMs repeatedly calling me a f***ing c**t and many other things. Well done you!

Your ignorance and bigotry is the only consistent thing in your posts. If you had an ounce of intelligence or curiosity you would seek to understand the massive amount of literature produced by scientists and social theorists that debates the distinction between biologically determined sex and socially constructed gender. But of course, you wouldn't dream of wasting your time questioning your well established set of prejudices. Hence your pathetic quip at the end. very sad.

There is a very obvious reason why Sunak refuses to apologise for his hideous transphobia yesterday. If he did, that would be an admission that transphobia is wrong. But that would then make it impossible for him to continue to attack Starmer with his favourite transphobic line about women with willies. As the election looms it is very clear that divisive culture wars is pretty much all the Tories have left as a campaign strategy. Sunak will be desperate to repeat his transphobic tropes and jokes ad infinitum to engender hate against a extremely small group of abused people. I experienced a perfect example of this just a couple of days ago talking to someone in a hotel bar in Norwich. "Don't get me started" he said when I mentioned something about transgender people, and he launched into the usual tirade of populist tropes about biology etc. Keeping calm (Yes I can do it face to face), I asked him in what ways his life had been personally affected by the existence of this very small group of people. He admitted that it had affected him personally not one bit. Then I asked him whether his life had been affected by sky rocketing mortgage rates, massive utility bills, high inflation and interest rates, huge food price rises, 7.5m NHS waiting lists, crumbling schools, etc, etc, etc. I followed with the question "Why do you think the Tories want to get you furious about a tiny group of people that you have admitted yourself don't affect your life personally, when all these other things are making your life a misery?" TBF he got the point pretty quickly.

This is probably the best explanation I've heard for why so-called presidential immunity does not protect presidents from criminal prosecution. It makes particularly good use of the example of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. In the case of the pardon and Nixon's response to it, both men acknowledge that a president is NOT immune from prosecution for illegal acts.

After I had made it very clear that I would no longer respond to his very obvious trolling posts in public he sent me a DM too. Unlike you I wasn't "generous" enough in spirit to respond to his DM. Personally, I have no problem with people who want to use robust language when discussing genuinely held beliefs. I do, however, have a problem with insincere people whose only purpose is to wind up others by spouting extremist bigotry. It seems that since I decided I would no longer respond to him he has decided to latch on to you as the person to make a variety of unfounded accusations against. Your very polite and considered response here is typical of the tone in which you contribute on this site (certainly not a style I can replicate), however, I have little doubt it won't be reciprocated. I can only recommend that you follow me in refusing to engage; it leads to a lot more peaceful life.