egg

Ditto. Very much a tactical thing.

Semantics. Shit musicians, no. Shit music according to my ears, yes.

Wrong. There's no right or wrong. It's all personal choice. I can admire their success, just not their music.

Ditto. My music preference is mostly British guitar bands - new wave and indie mostly - but someday's it has to be Springsteen, others Miles Davis, sometimes northern soul, Hip Hop, or a bit of classical. Your missus Bon Jovi rivals my missus Jack Savoretti. That's the beauty though, each to their own.

I got a sense of that - a big but mobile lump up top possibly leans towards Quarshie.

He did say "for me" - clearly his opinion. Music is so ridiculously subjective. I want to love the Beatles but I think they're shit. Ditto Queen, Oasis, and others. I adore Joy Division, but my missus would prefer to leave the house when I pop Closer on the turntable than hear it. The only facts when it comes to music is commercial success - everything else is opinion.

Courteeners, agreed, superb band. Falcon is one of the best debut albums from an indie band. St Jude is arguably better. They've also done one of the best Christmas songs that nobody knows. Superb live room. They should be big. As decent as Blossoms are, they have gone too poppy for my taste.

Not in the promotional sense, but to some people, the quality of their music is exaggerated.

They didn't get the unspecified bloke that you wanted, but they hired a bloke who's won 5 from 6, and who plainly has the players support. It's a results business. That's it. Whining about someone who's delivering results isn't logical.

Reckless

It matters a lot when you want to be PM. For the average bloke in the street, irrelevant.

Final word from me. ChatGPT is pretty malleable. If someone asked whether there's more of a focus on SoG than his focus on Robinson or Hopkins, it'd say this.

The context isn't lost on me, and that others focused on them names after they were mentioned amongst others in that context.

Chicken/egg. It's not just this thread, but the issue doesn't excite me as much as others so I won't debate it. I just repeat my point that the obsession with him is odd. I'm out.

Yep, although it's arguable that we're seeing a correction following the pre budget fear/ leaks / rumours as much as anything else. Whatever it is, I'll take it.

Lore

You rightly invite ridicule from various posters mate.

He invites reaction, and is often invited to react. The "he's obsessed with X or y" is mentioned more than his mentioning of X and y for example. Each to their own, but seems a bit odd that people want to follow an old bloke around a forum.

My only comment is that the obsession with the bloke is a tad odd. Seems to pop up on multiple threads.

On that we agree. Floyd are phenomenal, the others not far behind.

Talented, diverse, great characters, yep, and although some songs are amazing, I can't listen to an album without getting bored or irritated by weird sounds. Just not for me.

Ditto. I love indie music, but I've never got the appeal. Liam's whiney voice and their persona's irritate me too. The Beatles don't float my boat either.

Bake

I'm aware that rape is crown court only, but the male/female single judge point remains. A judge conferring with another judge re a decision does not and will not happen. Precedent and legal research is entirely different. The magistrates will confer, in the same way as the judge and specialist members do in Tribunals. That's not the same as the trial judge phoning his mate to chat things through.

Judges suffer conscious and unconscious bias. Just one of them trying you is just one person's approach being taken. On your rape example, that's just one man or woman. In a magistrates system you've got 3, and probably both genders. In a jury, there's 12, and it won't be just men or women. There's a wider dilution of individual views in a jury system, and none at all in a one judge process. On the latter point, Judges will not and cannot confer with judges not involved in the case. Wrong to suggest otherwise. Any decision will be made independently - judicial independence is part of the role. Where we do agree is that some jurors can't give a monkeys, and take no real interest in the case. That's not, imo, a reason to remove the right to elect trial by jury though.