Weston Super Saint

This is our 'attacking' one.

Football superpower legacy right fucking there. Things can't get better than that.

You're going to shit your pants when you realise that definition can also apply to the current Labour Govt as well as the previous Tory one. The rest of us have managed to figure out what a stonking majority means.

A 'football superpower legacy'. Jesus wept 🤦‍♂️

Good grief no, otherwise Boris wouldn't have had a sniff.

We've seen them play in games?

Maybe a follow up question would be - how has Rachel Levine managed to father two children?

To be fair, Hamas do have some pretty atrocious ethics, so a bit of 'ethic cleansing' is probably a good thing.

I've highlighted a word that might help you out.

I can confirm he has no idea. Anyone elected that he doesn't like is a far right Nazi sympathiser that got there by hoodwinking people.

Sure, that makes sense. Spend this year's transfer fees on next year's players for the Championship. Great plan. I think you've also forgotten about the 'scar' tissue they will all gain during the relegation - something that Russell was keen to make sure no one had when we signed them this summer. Makes sense to sign them without scar tissue, just so they can gain some of our own! Now explain why we spent upto £25m on Ramsdale, plus what, £100k per week, when we could have just put McCarthy between the sticks with Lis as back up and saved millions. That makes no sense at all, unless you sign him with the hope he will be good enough to keep the team up, whilst hoping the other signings come good. Talk about re-writing history to make it look like we have some sort of coherent plan!

Just to clarify, you're now saying (and saying it as if it was definitely true and there could be no other possibilites!), that the only reason we signed Archer and BBD was so they would be great for us NEXT season in the Championship? Despite PSR constraints that you've been parrotting for the last 3 months, the club decided the BEST thing they could possibly do was spend this year's transfer allocation and an entire years worth of wages on not one, but two players who will be useless for us this season, but absolute blinders for us next season. This also means that the club entered the summer transfer window being 100% certain that we would be relegated (which makes the signing of AR look fucking weird, especially given 'PSR innit'). I imagine asking you for a source for this will be fruitless. I also imagine you've made it up to suit your narrative. You don't half make up some absolute bullshit.

Does that mean that Farmer Giles has made up a load of old bollocks about the clubs finances. Again? He wouldn't do that twice would he?

So you agree, we spent money because of awful decision making. PSR innit.

Apart from about a month of you proclaiming our business model was to be a 'yo-yo' club, I've no idea why anyone would think you've said that. None. Not a clue. PSR innit.

It's a wonder we can afford to play evening games where the lights are needed, let alone consider buying / loaning / swapping any players.

As opposed to now where we recruit average Championship players that Champions League teams don't want? I think I see the cracks appearing in our master plan.

Whilst a doctor has to prescribe the lethal dosage, the patient has to administer it themselves (whilst still of sound mind), so this would not have been an option for your Grandmother. It would still be illegal for anyone else to administer the final injection (I'm assuming injection rather than pills?). This would also rule out anyone who doesn't have use of their limbs.

No, I can't. But that is what's on the table now. I can only consider what is being proposed right now. To take away the opportunity for terminal patients to ease their suffering now because a law may be changed in the future seems heartless.

If that is the wording, I agree. It will need to be changed and should be 'consultant' I'd assume - not something a first year nurse of doctor should be dealing with.

And a judge...

Are you saying someone will undertake the process if it isn't their 'free choice'? I get what you are saying, there are heartless twats in the world who will want to get their hands on the inheritance, but if their family are diagnosed with a terminal illness and have less than 6 months to live, is that really relevant? Whilst the argument will be that the loved one may want to end their life sooner so as not to be a 'burden' and may feel pressured to do so, isn't that their choice to do so?

If a doctor is not as certain as they can possibly be that someone will have six months to live, then they won't give that diagnosis. As Lighthouse says, the ability to choose only comes once that diagnosis has been received. Frankly, in my humble opinion, anyone who is given the horrendous news that they are going to die within the next six months, has every right to chose whatever they want to do during the time they have left. If that involves undertaking a process (that will take at least a month) to end their suffering sooner, then that is their right. If they want to live on until the end, again, that's their choice to make. Coercive behaviour becomes irrelevant when someone has only 6 months to live, surely?

Does Tim, nice but dim, realise that this only applies to people who have been diagnosed with less than 6 months to live? Somehow, they aren't going to be realising 'years later' that they have been co-erced, even if that were true. Not sure he's entirely understood the bill. A shame really that people like him will get to vote on it!

Get up to £7500 towards a heat pump