The Kraken

Winning.

2 shots on target, 1 goal conceded. Sounds about right.

RIP. A totally era-changing band, they were absolutely magnificent.

Graham Lineham is a complete cunt of a human being. And VCTRCRNMTCHLL has got a WNDRFLPRFBRSTS

I think he’s just a fucking idiot tbf. But both things can be true of course.

The money was obviously too good to turn down. But from a footballing perspective I felt and still feel that he’d have been better off “doing a Grealish” and playing for us for a season. It was obviously the much higher risk approach but there’s a real chance that this whole episode puts his development back a good bit. From a financial POV it was a no brainer to move. But given his previous struggles when living away, it was always going to be a big risk. Maybe a sell but with a one year loan back could have been the better option for all parties.

Nah, she’ll always be a reprehensible hag. Bloody awful person.

There’s always going to be some mad opinions. The left of the left will say that it’s inhumane. The right of the right will say that it goes nowhere near far enough. Those in between will think that it’s a start, and I guess we’ll see. I think almost everyone recognises that we’ve got an immigration problem and, while this hasn’t passed anything yet, I think it’s the most forward approach we’ve seen to the problem in many a year.

He probably gets picked in front of Damo tbf

Just turned it on to make sure my stream is stable. ”These two fighting in front of his excellency…..” They’re in Tottenham ffs.

Top 3 club sock puppets: 1) Rupert Lowe employing a whole media company to post positive spin 2) Nathan Jones 3) jrobsbigshorts, but it’s still early, you can move up those rankings yet fella Honourable mention to “call me Mike” Wilde for roping in Keef Legg to do it in open sight. Free trip to Sweden? Cha ching.

Just waiting now for the “I’ve been a lurker on here for ages but decided to sign up, honestly I did” justification. We’ve been here before, this isn’t our first rodeo ffs.

Nicely written and definitely an interesting viewpoint, entirely brand new poster 👍

It shows the toxicity of the man and his lickspittles. MTG is a monumentally terrible hag, but up to now has been one of man baby’s chief cheerleaders. Trump reminds me of one or two morons on here, the likes of who consistently throw out terms like “nazi, socialist, far right” yet clearly don’t have a clue what the term actually means.

He can’t sue in a UK court as there is a 1 year period after initial release of the footage that the claim needs to be made within. That time has come and gone, hence he has filed in Florida. But by everything I’ve read, the law in the US is much less favourable to the claimant than in the UK, and is set up very much to protect the right to free speech for media organisations. Everything I’ve read suggests that Trump has very little chance of winning the case. As you say, the documentary didn’t even air in the US, so its impact to US voters is negligible. I see it as just another example of Trump making a lot of noise and flexing his muscles. As you say his reputation even before the programme was terrible, yet he still went on to win an election; so proving that the documentary materially damaged him would be a big ask.

.

🤣

If only it were the 2004 version of Kelly Brook though.

Go right ahead, you answer my question and I’ll answer yours

You haven’t answered much yet mush. Same question again. Give me a breakdown of the policies in the report you agree with. It should be quite simple to do if you’ve read it.

Stop answering questions with questions. Provide an answer.

I don’t agree with Starmer per se. I’m asking you to provide specifics of things you claim. It’s two different things.

I’m repeating myself because you keep avoiding the question. Have you actually read it? If so, give me a breakdown of the specific policies in the report you agree with.

Have you actually read it? If so, give me a breakdown of the specific policies in the report you agree with. Don’t just say “look at this section”, that is a complete cop out. You're the one claiming that savings need to be made, so you’re the one that needs to be specific. You’ve utterly failed to do that so far, other than point to a multi page report that is no more than a simplistic overview for easily led simpletons