egg

I'd recommend a lie down @hypochondriac.

I'm not sure who you're debating with here. Starmer has fucked up. Accept that people accept that. And trying to convince people how other people may, hypothetically, have reacted is absolutely pointless.

Yep. I can't see where he can go from here. If he'd done reasonable due diligence and nothing was disclosed, fine, but having done so only to ignore something highly relevant, his judgement cannot be at the level needed of a PM.

Adderley's approach, and others, is that the Russian links is the line being fed, seemingly based on one pic of him wearing a cossack hat, but not the reality. There's a lot of conjecture, but I do find it very odd that a nobody burst into the scene as this fella did, became unfathomably rich without any clear source of wealth, and became so well connected. Let's see what comes out.

Whilst correct, people who devour all or mostly MSM, are dangerously ill informed.

Kevin Bridges nailed it in 2018 https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1JAWZL1qXX/

Indeed. The bloke somehow built a network like nobody else, the money to seduce and influence, and enough dirt to assert pressure. He came from nowhere to do that. It'll be interesting to see what's in the yet unseen files, although I suspect we'll never know.

This. I voted Lib Dem, but labour were considered as the Tories simply had to go after their destruction. Labour had very little to work with, but the dithering is not the sign of a decent government, and putting faith in Mandelson knowing the Epstein link was naive at the very best. But yep, Tories still ain't the answer, Reform would be an epic disaster, Labour are failing, the Libs aren't making many credible noises, and the Greens are madder than a box of frogs.

Pop him in ignore mate, makes thread feeds much better. Until someone quotes him.

There's still a lack of open media discussion about who this bloke was. Mark Adderley (hardly neutral I appreciate) is pushing the line about him being a mossad agent, and essentially being a honey trap, them compromising people. I've no idea what the truth is, but the only commentary is about him being a dead nonce, not what he actually was.

Completely different situations, approaches, and methods. Obama's policies turned most people back from or near the border, whereas we're now seeing people dragged out of cars, chased down the street, etc. Google AI mode will give a better answer than I can - just punch in "what's the difference between ice under trump and obama" and take it from there, ie follow up with "did Obama's approach mostly turn people back from the border" or whatever". The approaches and motivation are so far apart they're incomparable.

Great post, and a welcome injection of common sense. He's been signed to give cover, and when he does play, to annoy defenders, give us an outlet, hold the ball up, bring others into play, and score the odd goal. He ain't going to be a poor man's Drogba, but given where we are in the league, we wouldn't have had many (if any) better players beating our door down. Let's see how he gets on, but I'd imagine (hope) he'll be a significant upgrade on DD.

I think the plan was always to play this way, but DD was so dire, and Stewart crocked, so we couldn't. Playing AA up top and trying to play as if he were a big man has been tried countless times this season, and failed. Understandably so. Playing with a little man up top, coming short for the ball, laying it off, running channels, etc, is a million miles away from playing a big man who can hold it up, and give an outlet The simple point is that if we're playing 4231 with a big man up top, AA just doesn't fit. Who the alternative to Stewart should be is a separate issue - people are conflating those 2 points.

I think he's the wing option in place of AA.

We're "short" in the physical sense up front if we play AA. The starting point is whether AA should be our man up top. We all seem to agree it shouldn't be, and that it should be a big man. Yes? AA doesn't suddenly become that big man if he stays. What's needed is someone else to do the Stewart job - bullying, holding up, etc - if there's no Stewart. Your focus is a naive focus on AA or a replacement for him, not Stewart cover. We're playing a new way and need to be able to continue that when Stewart comes off/is crocked. AA coming in to replace Stewart changes how we play. Another big man doesn't. It's not difficult, if you stop flapping and think about what they're trying to do.