hypochondriac

It's not the signing of Ramsdale that made it pointless. It was not competing in virtually every other area of the pitch that made it so.

It was pointless in hindsight because we made very few other signings of Premier league quality so it was a waste of time.

Not sure if it was a parody or something but someone said that goats used to feed on the brush and no longer do as it isn't cost effective which made the situation much worse.

I still like Ramsdale but it was a completely pointless signing in hindsight. Will likely make our money back in the summer and will possibly never even remember he played for us in a few years time.

It's going to be really tough to get that record low points total but with a couple of key injuries, a few more red cards for Stephens and KWP leaving this month I think we could do it.

Or maybe loads of completely separate posters are in unison over one poster because he's such a buffoon that he's the ultimate unifying presence. Just a thought.

Chickens coming home to roost somewhat there.

Voted down as it was always going to be.

I know the tories coukd have called for one earlier and they are culpable for not doing so. Good that they are calling for one now though.

If Labour supported an enquiry there'd be no need for an amendment.

He called Jess Phillips a rape apologist which is absolutely disgusting. I think you've also done the same thing on here but there really is no place for that kind of language in polite society:

What are the reasons for not wanting a national enquiry?

Maybe contribute by offering your own opinions and that might provoke a reasonable debate. Don't just snipe from the sidelines when someone on a wind up gets appropriately mocked.

James O'Brien doesn't want one.

Macron cried about it a bit and some unimportant people in the EU called for banning X.

Maybe but if that's the standard then that would be true for any potential Prime Minister who looks promising.

I agree. He'd have a job curtailing the extremists in his party but I could see a future where I'd consider voting for him if he managed it.

I've always liked Andy Burnham. Always strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to make a positive impact and is prepared to work across party lines and praise his opponents. I can respect that.

He knows what he's doing.

For me, the Democrats lost it more than the republicans won it. Had they not made key mistakes they would have won. Blaming the electorate for Trump will ensure they keep losing.

Democrats only have themselves to blame.

Let's not go overboard. No one is going to attempt to conquer Britain.

I haven't ignored all of human history. You're ignoring the Internet and the fact that it does things that haven't been possible in the rest of human history. You can disagree with me but it's not a stupid argument. He has an awful lot of power and influence, whether you believe it's the most in human history in some ways or not.

You're confusing saying things of value with influence. Just because a lot of what Musk says isn't valuable doesn't mean he has no influence. This is frankly a bizarre take to have. I'm not saying Musk is worth listening to, simply that lots of people do listen him and he has a very large influence and impact as a consequence. It's not a controversial thing to say. The availability of the Internet has changed the reach and power of what someone says and their influence to a degree that I don't think you have quite appreciated. The amount of people that Musk and others are able to reach almost instantly is unprecedented in human history.

Correct. In some ways he does. I wouldn't say more than Musk though given the latter's other business interests and spheres of influence and the technology he is in charge of. Starlink for example has enormous influence.