hypochondriac

They've been by far the better team. Subs on half time please.

This is the best a team has played against us in a long time.

Huddersfield looking decent. By contrast we don't look ourselves.

When Bree is back you'd assume he'd make the bench over Dibling.

And if we get promoted he may never play for us again.

He doesn't currently fit into our style of play and isn't getting into the team regularly. He's a luxury player that we can't afford in our current position.

I watched the first hour last night and then went to sleep. It was deathly dull.

I bet the victims of Isla Bryson give a shit.

I find it bizarre that some people on here think you can't care about multiple things at once. There's all sorts of things I'd like labour to sort out. Starmer protecting women's rights and sorting out the GIDS scandal is one of many.

What is it about the brown skinned Prime Minister that first repelled soggy?

It's not particularly depressing IMO. Last summer I expected everyone to go. The fact we kept hold of exceptional talent like KWP and had Alcaraz for a decent chunk of this season is great. The fact there is even a chance that we could get him back next year is a decent bit of business.

This is simply extraordinary. Surely, surely they have to run someone else? If they don't and trump wins, you'd have to say the Democrats will take a large portion of the blame for failing to act.

Breaking news. Hypochondriac "an outside shout" for Liverpool job.

Those types often make the best coaches. Being a good person is just as important imo so he will be great with that aspect.

Right so you support woman only spaces and women's sports then so we agree on that point. You seem happy to separate people based on their sex which is what i support too. The only real difference appears to be that you believe that someone can identify as a woman but without being able to define it. I'm not trying to be antagonistic but I genuinely don't understand why you can't see the contradiction with that. I get that for you the concept and word woman isn't particularly important but equally you must accept that for a number of people it really matters. I totally understand the frustration felt by many women when they talking about being erased or when male rapists are reffered to as she, put in women's jails or when obvious men enter female toilets and young women and girls feel extremely intimidated by their presence.

I assume you can answer the question then. Given you're keeping score that's 13 now.

It's a current topic of conversation given what Sunak said yesterday. I've responded to some who consider the question to be irrelevant. Personally I'd like a PM who can sort out as many of the things I care about as possible and that includes safeguarding the rights of women and children. Being unable to coherently articulate what a woman is matters because it shows that he will largely say what he knows to be an incoherent argument if he thinks it will get him into power. This is one example but there's plenty of other times he has come up with a policy and then completely changed when he doesn't think it's fashionable or if something is remotely controversial. There's loads of his policies I have an issue with but in a weird way I'd rather he stuck by what he actually believed in even if it's not something I'm a fan of. At least then we can be more confident of what we are voting for.

Hard to disagree with that. My issue is when there's a trampling on the rights of others or mandated language. Otherwise do whatever you like as long as you're not affecting others.

I wasn't going off on anything, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the argument. Being unable to define the word woman without referring to the word itself or providing a circular definition is absurd. Putting aside any of the politics of it, you must see that it is nonsensical. The thing is, it's an important issue to many because it does have actual real world consequences. It's largely easy for some men to dismiss the issue as unimportant because it often doesn't affect them.

"someone who identifies as a woman" What are they identifying as? It seems to me that the people who think this question is an irrelevance are largely those who cannot adequately answer it themselves.

Out of interest - and not as a gotcha - can you answer the question?

What is going to happen and what you would want are twe different things. I would have thought that was obvious. To use a recent analogy, I could be a south africa fan who lost in the afcon last night. Nigeria or ivory coast are going to win the thing but it doesn't mean i want it to happen even though one of them winning is a certainty.

He referred to his daughter as he during an interview which could suggest you are incorrect but I accept this may have been a simple slip of the tongue. I agree this won't lose him an election but his inability to answer definitively is a clear weakness that the Tories are going to continue to exploit - even if the faux pearl clutching from some of the more me tall challenged MPs will attempt to ensure that he can't bring it up again:

Yeah good point I'd forgotten about that. I don't spend an awful lot of time thinking about Corbyn to be fair.

I don't think it's odd at all. Many people consider it extremely odd that he won't answer as it says much about his mindset which is why it continues to be mentioned. I think there's a chance that Starmer has a child who believes they are trans and this will have an impact on his decision msking if true. Other than that though I agree with your post, Starmer doesn't really stand for anything and he basically picks and chooses policies that he thinks will win him the election rather than having any principles (Corbyn was a fool but you could never accuse him of that.) I too would like PR, it's shameful that alternative parties are popular across the country but get no representation.