hypochondriac

Again that's describing how climate protestor are treated by large sections of the media and social media and that snippet I posted says very little about the protestor themselves so you've obviously misread it. It's describing how they are treated by certain people and its undoubtedly true that they are treated very differently from other types of protestors that aren't viewed as socially acceptable.

He was clumsy and foolish but his intention was clearly to remove her quickly rather than to cause injury. I doubt it will matter though with the usual outrage mob.

There's almost no description of the people themselves in the snippet I posted other than calling them entitled, rather it was the media portrayal of them and the people shrieking on social media and they are entirely correct.

Which bit did you disagree with?

Good article from spiked on this: Why the double standard? Because these protesters were green. And green protesters can do whatever the hell they like. They have become almost gods in the political pantheon. They are treated as dispensers of humanity-saving wisdom that the rest of us must slavishly listen to. Refuse to do that and you are a ‘denier’ of their gospel truth. Indeed, the only remarkable thing about last night is that climate activists disrupted a posh black-tie dinner. Normally they disrupt the daily lives of ordinary people, whether by blocking runways or motorways or gluing themselves to public transport. Mark Field behaved wrongly in that moment — but the overblown reaction to his behaviour tells us a broader story about the double standards of the left and the astonishing sense of entitlement among climate-change agitators.

Yep. Bbc reporters on twitter were hysterical about how awful it all was. Stupid hippy shouldn't have barged into an event that she wasn't invited to and yes mark acted quite rashly but the world has gone mad if he gets the boot for something like that.

Well that's something at least.

I thought you had me on ignore pal? You couldn't stay away.

Well yes but he will wangle something to prevent it.

If he decides to sit on his hands then Parliament will just do what they did to May and compel him to ask for an extension.

But he won't have any time to negotiate anything of that nature.

You have more confidence than me. If the last few years have taught us nothing, it's that when push comes to shove the vast majority have no principles they just want to hold onto their powerful positions.

Well OK then let's imagine he decides not to take us out in October. All that does is punt the can down the road again. I can imagine that once it gets to October the EU will say that we can have another extension but only if we agree to another referendum. Parliament in its current form won't allow no deal so that will be our only choice other than a general election.

That's not the damaging bit, it's people knowing we will not do anything under any circumstances.

I think he will be able to do some damage but hopefully not enough. Will definitely be concerning if there are any aggressive actions by anyone in the middle East or Russia over that time though. They will be fully aware of our impotence with a Marxist in number 10.

Boris claims we will be leaving 31st of October deal or no deal. How do you think he will be able to achieve that? Whether you want to leave or not, its blindingly obvious that he won't be able to do that and it doesn't matter how much of a leader he is.

I think a huge problem is that loads of these borderline calls are still being argued about after VAR has made the decision. This shows that it isn't removing doubts from these decisions. Ensure that the referee's original decision stands in all case except the ones where it is a clear error and it will improve things immensely. Oh and make sure there are instant bookings for any player doing a VAR box gesture with their hands every time there is a decision they want checking.

Yes most likely. Will probably lead to a corbyn minority government and I'm starting to think that maybe we need that dose of bitter medicine to get that particularly insidious brand of socialism out of our system for a few generations. Let's hope the country isn't destroyed too much in 4 years.

What possible difference can that make at this point? Maybe three years ago but not now.

I was under the impression that VAR would overturn the decision of a referee when it was clear and obvious that something was wrong. If its clear and obvious then it should be no more than thirty seconds to check, if there is any sort of ambiguity then the original decision stands. It really should be that simple.

I'm not sure it is better than nothing when you're waiting almost ten minutes for decisions. You have more faith in the people running football than I do. If they can make a decision within thirty seconds that doesn't disrupt the game then I think I'd be in favour but otherwise it becomes almost like watching a different game and it's going to ruin the spectacle for a number of people.

Probably. Big shame though because it massively weakens a position we've been fairly comfortable with for a while. It's dangerous to lose someone like him and could be something we look back on after a relegation wondering why we did something so foolish.

Does it really matter who gets in? No one will be able to square the circle and a general election is virtually inevitable.

I'd be disappointed with this. Bertrand is probably our best player, certainly our best defender.

I understand that it's correct, my problem is the amount of time it takes to come to a decision. Completely and utterly ruins a large portion of the game and fundamentally changes what you are watching.