aintforever

You've just proved my point - your opinion is just based on ignorance of the science. I'm not surprised Greta Thunberg gets up your nose, no one likes to be shown up by a 16 year old girl.

Sounds like you're just irritated that a 16 year old girl has a better grasp of climate science than you do.

An injury or two would be nice

To be fair "don't know" is an answer. Usually the stock Bexiteer answer to any question regarding the Irish border.

No, but it would stop them harking on about beating a team two divisions below them.

To be fair the carbon footprint of the average Royal is probably not very little.

It’s been a ****e window but the club are hamstrung by not being able to shift too many poor high-earners. Until we get shot of players like Forster, Hoedt, Boufal, Corillio, Mo, Stephens, Cedric etc we are never going to free up enough space on the wage bill for decent replacements. It’s going to be a good few years before we get over what Les Reed has done to this club, we just have to hope we can stay up long enough for them to see out their contracts.

That ******, if it’s windy you take that into account and take a few steps back, a school kid could be forgiven for something like that, not a Premier League player. Vestergaard gifted them two soft goals and could have done better for the third with his half arsed attempt to get across.

I disagree, throwing a 20 year old centre back into the Prem is obviously risky. Typical Saints signing, might make us a few quid long term, probably do nothing to prevent another season fighting relegation this year. You mentioned Virgil Van Dyke - at his age he was struggling to break into Groningen's first team.

Or the fact that Adams coming in is the only change to the starting XI shows what a sh!te window it has been. I thought this was supposed to be the summer of rebuilding?

Because we need a decent centre back now, not one who might be good in a few years that we can flog for a profit.

The motive for the Ohio shooting is unclear, the El Paso shooter posted an anti-immigration manefesto online. The Link with Trump’s ant-immigration rhetoric is obvious.

The motive for the Ohio shooting is unclear, the El Paso shooter posted an anti-immigration manefesto online. The Link with Trump’s ant-immigration rhetoric is obvious.

No one is suggesting he is the sole cause, just that his hate filled rhetoric makes the situation worse. **** me it’s not rocket science.

This. Plus Trump's rhetoric making it worse.

If there was a second refurendum remain would win comfortably IMO.

I don't think it was right he attended but you can agree with the Palestinian cause without being racist. Why does attending that mean he hates all Jews?

Exactly

His words and actions are that if someone who hates Israel, having racist friends doesn’t make one a racist.

I've yet to see one anti-semitic quote from Corbyn, he's anti-Israel, that's why he gets so much grief. He's handled the whole situation very badly as usual though, should have quit long ago if he really cared for the country.

They obviously had to make comprimises, all the above would probably have been more severe if it wasn't for the Lib Dems.

You do understand that if the people of the UK still want to leave the EU a second refurendum would not stop that happening? Not sure what you are so scared of.

This. If anything it is more undemocratic to plough ahead regardless and just ignoring the fact that public opinion may well have changed in light of many new facts, especially if it is a Tory No Deal type of Brexit.

I don’t have a clue how the legal side of it works but the bbc seem to think you can have a legally binding refurendum that automatically takes effect: 3. Another referendum A further possibility is to hold another referendum. It could have the same status as the 2016 referendum, which was legally non-binding and advisory. But some MPs want to hold a binding referendum where the result would automatically take effect - like with the 2011 referendum on changing the voting system for UK general elections. One widely discussed option would be for a "confirmatory vote" on whatever deal is finally agreed where the public would be given the choice between accepting the existing deal (or an alternative plan) and remaining in the EU. Makes sense to me. 1. Boris comes back from Brussels with his new Super Deal (no scapegoats anymore - this is as good as it can get). 2. The house approves it subject to a public vote (even the remainers will approve that) 3. Vote happens, the day after we are out of the EU or Brexit is toast.

That wouldn’t matter, if you get Parliament to back a deal subject to another binding referendum, it wouldn’t have to go back to the commons for a vote. If May had done that last December we would be out the EU by now, if the people still wanted it.