hypochondriac

I didn't mention Galloway you spanner.

Also worth mentioning that those who are first to shout about Jo Cox are then the same ones using this sort of language and violent rhetoric. You can't have it both ways.

Absolutely hilarious coming from you of all posters given your habit of misrepresenting something and then running away when challenged. Still waiting for your answer about if it's reasonable to ban people discussing the possibility of a Wuhan lab leak prior to 2023 by the way.

I wasn't suggesting this is the start of him being good, simply saying that if this does signal a turnaround, it would be very like saints to ship him off and watch him tear it up elsewhere.

The idea that we should withhold judgement on Starmer for five years is absolutely hilarious. We should hold our politicians to the same standards regardless of political affiliation.

I don't like her. It hasn't got anything to do with her being working class or a woman but it does have a lot to do with her disliking men, dismissing their concerns as lesser because of their sex and her contribution towards the general coarsening of politics with her language and demeanour. I don't think Rayner is similarly unpleasant, she just seems pretty thick and unqualified for the position she finds herself in but a lot of MPs meet that description. International Men’s Day supporter and Guardian contributor, Ally Fogg, added his voice to the debate on Friday: “Phillips is neither ignorant nor stupid. She knows full well what International Men’s Day is for, why it exists, and what the related issues are. She knew full well that in laughing at the suggestion that Parliament might need a specific occasion to discuss issues like those above from a gendered perspective, she is in fact laughing at male suicide. She is laughing at men’s unnecessarily early deaths.” In amongst all of this furore, Phillips made a statement that doesn’t appear to be have made its way into the media. She said: “I hate fools who think men don’t have equality”.

Jess Phillips has laughed at male suicide, routinely used disgusting language online towards people she dislikes, is quite clearly a misandrist who favours one sex over the other, claims to support women yet seemingly doesn't know what one is and she's turned down a national grooming inquiry at least in part because she doesn't want to rile up her constituents. I don't think the things I care about align with Starmer at all but I wouldn't describe him as vile.

It would be just like saints to finally get Sulemana to a place where he can contribute positively only to sell him at the end of this window.

Of course the economy wasn't in good shape but let's not pretend that the political choices Labour have made haven't contributed to what we are seeing now. To suggest that what we have now was unavoidable is a fantasy.

TBF I listen to that podcast all the time and rort Stewart has some really odd takes. He totally embarrassed himself over the US election.

We've gone from modest and pretty uninpressive growth at the tail end of the tories to some of the worst economic performance in years with perhaps only Truss' short tenure rivaling it. Let's not pretend that this situation would have happened whoever was in charge or whatever decisions anyone took. This wasn't inevitable.

The last time I saw her she was making a decent contribution to trying to prevent assisted suicide so she's gone up in my estimation-albeit the only way was up.

You are completely correct but potentially interesting if he has a bit of sustained success. We may then have to ask the question how much of his crap performances were down to Russ ball.

If this comes to pass, would be interested in your thoughts @whelk. Not exactly a sign of a government doing well. In my opinion very unlikely she makes it till June.

What's the point in focusing on a negative when we've actually won a game for once and performed reasonably well? We're getting relegate regardless, might as well enjoy a win whoever it's against.

A decent performance and a win. Cool.

Good to see that Labour councils have their priorities in order. As I said though, Streeting used the more correct term Pakistani rape gangs earlier in the week so hopefully this an anomaly.

Has he played this season do we know?

Pathetic non answer that doesn't answer the qiestion. You've seemingly accepted that now it is a reasonable thing to discuss because we've had what you describe as legitimate reports in 2023. Presumably before 2023 it is not a reasonable thing to discuss by your logic. People were being banned and censored for merely discussing the possibility of a lab leak prior to 2023. In your view this is legitimate yes?

So in your mind it's now reasonable to discuss the possibility of a lab leak because the FBI have said it is the most likely scenario? So anyone expressing that view prior to 2023 should have been censored or banned from social media? Yes?

Could do this all day really but the fact remains it is a viable and plausible possibility whether you believe it definitely was or that we aren't certain either way. I don't think that discussing that should have been censored.

The fact remains it's a completely plausible theory supported by the FBI and people were censored from discussing it at the time. They should not have been. It doesn't invalidate the wider point.

Reports have concluded that it is the most likely outcome (and clearly it is). Of course there's no direct evidence because it's not In the CCP's interest for there to be any. They were most likely doing gain of function research and it accidentally got released. That's not the same as Smallpox leaking because Smallpox is an existing virus. This clip from that well known far right conspiracy theorist Jon Stewart is decent: https://youtu.be/sSfejgwbDQ8

You're focusing on one example and it really is about the wider point as I said about censorship and who decides what truth is but clearly at the time people were being censored and prevented from even discussing the possibility of the theory (people were getting banned from social media platforms and YouTube in particular for simply mentioning the lab leak theory or the fact that there's a novel coronavirus lab in the same place where a novel coronavirus showed up). It was dismissed as a conspiracy theory and is now widely viewed as the most likely occurance. There's still no hard evidence though so by your logic we should be censored from discussing it. The wider point stands, there are of course other occurances where people have been censored or prevented from speaking because someone has decided they don't like their speech or because they have decided that they are the arbitors of what is true and untrue and I don't think it's right to give politicians or those in authority that power.

I'm not sure I mentioned anything about the vaccine. I've already said I support vaccines and disagree with the narrative that they are harmful.