hypochondriac

Tbf that's not an insult, he genuinely is.

Everyone knows the Conservative's stance on trident. They've won the election so they get to lead the country and make those decisions.

I think you're right there.

The country doesn't agree with you and its a democracy so the decision would be put of your hands if it came to it.

Lol.

It's times like this that I think of the tweet by Tyler the creator: I think the social media generation genuinely think there is no alternative to being on certain social media platforms. Its very sad.

You laugh but that's actually a thing.

I think it's more to do with the generation that have been brought up on social media. Those who remember what it was like beforehand can on average put things in perspective more and have more of a take it or leave it approach to the likes of Facebook or twitter. I've got a Facebook but I rarely use it other than to update some family a couple of times a year and to buy things on the marketplace.

Tbf though it was the EU themselves who mentioned Canada. We obviously are very different from Canada which is why we need a bespoke deal which takes that into account and a compromise needs to be struck between giving the EU some level playing field safeguards and allowing Britain the manoeuvrability to strike other trade deal and change things to give themselves some advantages. Surely that's just common sense?

Yes I'm aware. The point is you can't call for safeguards that aren't present in other trade deals and also deny the UK a bespoke deal. If there are unique geographical and economic circumstances with the UK then there needs to be a unique deal that factors that in. Understandably the EU wants to protect themselves but for us to make some level playing field commitments we would need to get something out of it too. Why would we agree to essentially give up any competitive advantage for nothing in return when gaining that competitive advantage was one of the whole reasons for brexit? Hardly mutually satisfactory. In an ideal world, the UK would agree to some level playing field commitments- as long as they don't remove our ability to do trade deals with the rest of the world- and a generous deal on fisheries and in return the EU will agree to a bespoke deal that allows good market access to some of the sectors most important to the UK. The question is will the EU prefer to deny the UK that reasonable option and potentially have a country on their doorstep determined to use their newly gained powers to gain an advantage over them or would they prefer to curb the powers of the UK in return for a deal that the UK actually wants?

"you can't have a bespoke deal, you have to have a pre-existing deal but you can't have that pre-existing deal you can only have the one we choose" isn't exactly a reasonable stance in a negotiation. Either we are distinct enough from other countries that we need something bespoke or we aren't. Sounds a fair bit like cake and eating it from the EU.

Surely that's a factor that should help us in negotiations?

Both of these statements are very true

Oh darn you've absolutely destroyed the point I was making. I don't really watch the BBC nowadays so really have little idea who works there.

Bin off the likes of Lineker, Graham Norton, Chris Evans, Claudia Winkleman etc and their obscene salaries and I'll feel a tad more sympathy for Auntie.

Yep. It's possible for us to go down but very unlikely. Even if we get 7 points from our next ten games which would be awful we'd be virtually safe with a couple of games to go.

I haven't been to a live game for a while. I thought we were pretty poor, albeit in awful conditions. Second half we got a lot worse when I thought we would kick on. I thought djenepo was poor when he came on, seems he's a bit of a disappointing buy to be honest. Stephens looked good on the ball and ings took the goal well, otherwise not that many positives where we barely challenged the keeper. Still we should still have enough to stay up comfortably.

Not a chance will we need three wins to be secure. Not a chance.

Exactly. Believe whatever the hell you want as long as you're not harming other people. No one has the right to judge. When those beliefs lead to violence or abuse however is when I'm going to have a problem with it.

Good attempt Raging Bull but you'd be better off smashing your head against a wall. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

A rare moment of consensus. Refreshing to see.

Seems reasonable to me. Maybe we could do all three- increase funding, make clubs pay for their own policing and look at poor allocation of existing funding. Agreed?

Policing disorder at football is an entirely legitimate use of resources though. Given the history of actual crimes being committed and hooliganism etc, using the police to prevent violent disorder at the football seems like a sensible thing to do. Do you have some actual comparable examples of police resource waste? On top of cuts, there's been a train of thought that I've seen from commentators and the media for a while that some forces have strayed from what the public want which is to be more of a visible presence and to concentrate on crime that the general public care most about. This is one small example of that (and you could argue the rise of community policing is at least partly due to this) and it points to a wider issue so not as trivial as you claim.

It's not hard to understand. Resources are at breaking point and any reallocation of existing resources would be a good thing, even if it's only a relatively small amount. I'm more than happy to look at how the police deal with other crimes more generally as well - and there's a discussion to be had about funding- but this is an example of inefficient use of police resources which is relevant to the discussion. The only reason I've made more than a couple of posts about it is because you and aintforever consider it to be controversial for some reason. Anyway it seems you agree with me that this sort of thing is largely nonsense so it seems we can move on.

Recognising that is racist. Because you didn't mention all the other races and religions that are evil as well. You aren't allowed to discuss things without that caveat.