egg

No signs of injury apparently, but deemed the deaths "suspicious enough" to investigate and have not ruled out foul play. Interesting.

He's not wrong. Ukraine repaying aid monies following Russia's invasion is simply wrong. To be paying significantly more than that, and ongoing in perpetuity, is beyond scandalous. I'm not even sure what they're buying if the US aren't giving them security guarantees. It ts a shameful carry on.

Ditto. We nicked them, but need Diego Garcia. Giving back what we don't need and being able to use what we do seems entirely sensible.

All this labelling people as narcissistic (it's not just you) is properly pathetic. It's a forum FFS. People agree with each other, and disagree. Some views of people are strong, but labelling people as narcissistic has become a really unpleasant feature and imo has no place here.

I deem suspicious to mean nobody else involved

It's just fecking pointless. I don't think anyone gives a monkeys.

Jeez SoG, this is not your finest hour mate.

Probably, yep. I hadn't appreciated he was that old either. Seems to have been a bloody sad ending though - not many explanations if nobody else involved.

Can one stand behind the other and catch the bullet on the way through?

Him, his wife and dog all found dead at home. His wife was only 63. Very sad, whatever the cause. Great actor. RIP.

That video was appalling. Alas I think it will happen. If there's a bonus, hopefully the Russians will flock there and leave other tourist areas for civilised people and Germans.

Gotcha. Any suggestion of that sort is unnecessary. I was referring to the smoke in connection with lifting the travel ban.

There's a lot of smoke here so there could well be something in it. It's unsurprising that the Romanian PM would deny doing as he's told.

He's constantly moaning about labours broken promises, but champions the cause of a party who's financial policies are so mental they will have to be broken. There's a logic there which is illogical.

Bladder

First you jumped on the 'equivalence'' bandwagon, now the 'child like '. You're better than that. Possibly. You've talked up reform, ergo you're a supporter. The economic policies of a political party affect us all every day if they are elected. Why you'd vote for that if you don't want it only you know.

If you're a reform supporter, it follows that you support their program. If you're not a reform supporter, I've lost track of who/what you support. Apart from waspi 'birds'.

Amen to that. We want equality. But we don't.

Angela Rayner gave her support in 2019. 6 years ago. The world has changed a wee but since then, and our economy has slumped. 6 years ago my missus wanted us to retire by now and enjoy life more. I supported that. 6 years on we can't afford to, so we won't. Things change, so decisions need to change accordingly. That's life.

As is said, they supported the campaign. What did they pledge to do as a government? Regardless, we can't afford to address the issue.

Was the waspi support not more implied by supporting the campaign, rather than a pledge or commitment? I agree with the sentiment though.

I'll continue the theme. That is quite restrained from you Whelk.

Let's get this straight. You're saying that it's "child like" to believe that a ruling party is being sensible rowing backwards on a pledge when they deem it unaffordable? Feck me.

I've never voted Labour mate. Not my party. The rest is too stupid to acknowledge.

Just picking up on this Duck. You criticise Labour for not delivering on things that will have cost a lot of money. You then highlight that spending will have to be cut, which suggests that you acknowledge that we're overspending. No wonder you're loving reform's "spend more and tax less approach". Madness.