aintforever

Can't see it making any difference. Surely anyone offended by that wouldn't be voting Harris anyway, and it was pretty tame compared to the language used by Trump's lot. It is a shame Biden made the comment though, I thought Harris speech in Washington was very good, especially the points she made about the other side not being 'enemies'.

Of course there’s a connection, he is a sick fuck who wanted to kill people. What his motivation is appears to be unclear at the moment though, he could well be a radical Islamist or maybe had some other issues.

I can't agree with that, we have a large squad loaded with Championship quality players most of whom no Premier League side would want. I would say we would be much better equipped than last time.

Of course we may have to, that's my point. It's not a great situation to be in, it would be expensive and an emboldened Russia invading Europe is the last thing we want.

I find it incredible that the US is possibly going to elect a convicted criminal as president, especially after all that went on after the last election. For all their faults, I always had the Yanks down as big believers in the constitution and the rule of law. I’m hoping that despite what the polls are saying, when it comes to actually casting their vote, enough people’s moral compass will kick in and Harris wins - who knows though, that place seems to have really lost the plot. Usually I don’t give a monkeys who runs that country, it doesn’t effect me in the slightest but the Ukraine thing is a real concern, having a fan of Putin in charge has to be a bad thing. If military support is pulled then god knows where that leaves Ukraine and Europe.

We were not good at defending with the ball, we were just shit at attacking. Defending with the ball would make sense if we were holding onto a lead, or even a draw, for pretty much the whole game Saturday we were behind.

Covid caused a lot of the issues obviously.

It’s going to need both reform and a lot more money, with the aging population as it is. Reform takes time so it makes sense to increase the funding to try and clear the backlog the Tories left us with.

That’s just fucking weird. He wants it to be a success more than anyone, just has his own views on how the game is played.

Not getting humped feels like a win. COYR

Doesn’t mean it has to happen here. The concerns over mission creep are obvious but I don’t see that as a reason for not easing the suffering of the terminally ill. Anyway, expanding the criteria will only ever happen if the existing legislation is considered successful.

Why would a government expand the law if they didn’t think it was a good one that stopped a lot of unnecessary suffering?

That’s just bollocks. Whatever your views, it is a subject that needs debating in Parliament. I get the obvious concerns but if someone is given an imminent terminal diagnosis and are suffering unbearable pain then it is inhumane to deprive them the choice of going without suffering.

Doesn’t have to. Surely a government would only widen the scope if the law was actually working.

There would be calls for it to widen, there would be calls for it to be abolished, not sure what your point is. As I said, if the Swiss law can remain unchanged then there is no reason why ours can’t. If the law is so bad why do other countries choose to widen the scope? If a future government decides to change in either direction it then that is their right.

I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not allow it, Swiss law hasn’t changed for something like 80 years so there is no reason why we would have to change it. Not allowing a good law just because you think some democratically elected government might change it to a law you don’t agree with some time in the future is nonsense IMO. Give people who are terminally ill the choice to die without suffering, in my opinion it is inhumane to force people to die long drawn out painful deaths. Are you happy to let people slowly suffocate to death vomiting up their own shit when they could go out painlessly and quickly?

I’m not sure what people’s disabilities has to do with it if the law only covers people given a terminal diagnosis.

I would rather take a punt on a lower league or foreign manager than let Lallana take charge. ’goodbye frying pan, hello fire’ springs to mind.

To be fair he took over a Championship side and will leave them in the Premier League (just).

It’s hard to put that down as incompetence. He can clearly see it, he knows the rules, it’s just plain cheating. He was making weird decisions all game, it must be easy money for these refs down the bookies.

You shouldn’t base any law on a bunch of fairytales written centuries ago.

Problem is we have only had one hard game so far, we might look in touch with 17th but we’re in a false position.

Don’t talk nonsense, our whole squad is Championship quality except for 2 or 3 players.

Has to go now, his style is suicidal anyway but when you go in front it just gets worse and worse. We’re going down anyway but might as well roll the dice now.

Except Starmer was chief prosecutor during the 2011 London riots and dealt with it in exactly the same way (when the perpetrators were disproportionately black). As Winnersaint says - the two cases old rubber-face is comparing are completely different.