egg

Agree with that. Lewis Capaldi was superb, and Numan has much more about him than you'd imagine. I'd recommend Future Islands. Absolutely brilliant live, and the front man is just brilliant.

She's talented for sure, just not my thing. I can see why she's there though, and doubtless she'll be brilliant. I'd be at the other stage going nuts to the Prodigy though - a completely different act for a completely different demographic. Jorga Smith and The Macacbees are ilon at the same time elsewhere. There'll also some random shit going on in a tent somewhere, and all sorts. I just don't get why people judge a festival by snippets they see on the telly, and criticise it if it's not what they want to listen to. Stick to Spotify if that's you, and leave the festivals to people who get it.

They're not my cup of tea either, but, people love them, and those that don't will have had a cracking time at another stage or just chilling out on a warm evening. My point really is that headliners are just a small part of a festival. I've been to the IOW loads of times and been nowhere near the main stage all weekend and had an absolute blast. I've always come away liking a band/singer who I didn't previously rate, and discovered loads of new ones. The highlight has always been on a small stage, or something different.

Yep, I don't get 1975. A nothing band. That said, the pyramid and other stage are only 2 of 12 or so. There's so much other good stuff on the lesser stages and if people get their steps in, they'll having a cracking few days listening to loads of amazing stuff. The people watching on the telly only judge it by the headliners though, and it seems to be that as we get older, they're less relevant to us. Olivia Rodrigo, for example, is massive, but I wouldn't turn up for her.

The focus needs to be on why there is an extreme increase in people being unwell. Just accepting it as the way it is, and cutting benefits, isn't the answer. MH support and therapeutic services need money throwing at them in a big way. There's no prevention, or cure, just financial support which we can't afford. It's a shambles. Re the pic, I just lifted from amnesty or similar. The choice is far from a binary cut benefits or tax the rich, but the latter is an option. My money is on a vat hike though - everyone pays it, including those benefit recipients who keep their money.

Magazine

Taking benefits from people who genuinely need it is wrong. Righting a wrong is right. Nothing wrong with those words.

Cant agree with that sentiment. It's the right decision. Sadly piss takers give genuine people a bad rep, and many people don't appreciate why genuine people need the benefit. Example, my eldest has MH issues. Work is vital for her; financially, socially, and to give her a purpose. She can't drive due to her meds, and she cannot use a bus due to her anxiety (people who don't have anxiety or know people who do mistakingly confuse it with worry). Her PiP gets her in a cab to and from work, and helps her work and live independently . That's what PiP is designed for. Sifting to needy from the greedy is what's needed, not a blanket withdrawal of the benefit.

Pretty much my thoughts. Re Starmer, we agree, but I'd add that he's neither a lefty, nor mildly left of centre, and I think his lack of conviction partly flows from that. When you're unpopular trying to do populism you really are in trouble.

No. Dithering doesn't make them worse than the awful 14 years that lot gave us and the mess they have left us in. No party could clear up that mess.

Agreed. I've been slow to criticise as they inherited a mess and the world has gone a bit sideways since January. However, it's a year next week, and they've had a shocker. Even if your policies are unpopular/stupid, have the conviction to see them through. Don't get me going on Milliband, although I'll be delighted when they climb down from net zero and come to their senses.

Cram

Embarrassingly weak. Leaves Reeves sums in tatters. Tax rises incoming. Vat? Income tax? Mess.

Yep, he did bloody well to avoid the learner and dump the bus where he did. It could have been much worse than it was.

Great contribution as always mate👏

Not sure who the fella speaking is, but I like him. The smug look on the Israeli blokes face I don't like so much. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ABFpiqSHD/

I disagree. The intention was to protect the masses, quickly, from a virus which killed many end left others with life changing conditions. It was nothing more, or less, than that. The comparison to other drugs is irrelevant. None of those were rushed out to address a pandemic. Instead, they were drugs that didn't work as hoped. My sister was a Primodos child (think thalidomide) and has been deprived of a conventional life - education, relationships, family, etc, and lives in daily pain needing constant support and help. What's happened to her is appalling, but my mum took that drug in good faith, and doubtless the pharmaceutical companies launched it in good faith. My sister was on the early list for a COVID vaccine, ditto my mum as her primary carer. My mum gladly took her for the jab, which fortunately helped keep them both well during the pandemic. The vaccine was rolled out for the right reasons, and on the whole, has proved to be a literal lifesaver.

That avoids the question of what do we do with people that land here or are here already. Easy to complain, but not so easy to offer realistic solutions. What risk/reward balances to you suggest?

The alternative? Tents in the parks where our kids/grandkids play? On that little green near your house?

For the vast majority of people the vaccine made a huge difference. I know people who've died or been ruined by COVID. I know someone who had awful hives from the vaccine, but later got COVID and was fine - she's someone who likely will have been very ill from COVID. I think we all accept that the vaccine wasn't perfect, but it's usually only shot down by people who have some ridiculous belief that COVID wasn't a thing and/or that we're all under some sort of control from unspecified people. Those people usually also believe planes fly above us emitting mind/body controlling chemicals, that efficient town planning is all about social control, etc.

If the idiot believes that his actions have stopped Iran in their tracks, great that hopefully puts an end to it. I agree with Whelk that what's happend has shown Iran and Israel who's boss and has aerial dominance. Israel can pop back at anytime and do wtf they want to Israel, so hopefully that'll be a deterrent in itself.

Fair point!!

Short of Nigel standing on a beach near Calais stopping these people coming in, how do you think his lot will stop people getting in their little boats?

Tulsi Gabbard said a few months ago that they were not building a bomb. After her update last week, she still didn't say that they were building a nuke. She actually said that they were "at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months". Similarly, Japan are a "hop, skip and a jump". The conclusion that a) they would build a bomb, and b) would use it, is opinion. The former seems credible though, although the one question for me is whether in the talks they had stated a willingness to roll back enrichment to agreed pre 2018 levels. I wouldn't be surprised if they were but that the US were insisting on nothing at all, creating mutual red lines, and a pretext for attack. Anyways, we seem to have peace for now, so Israel can focus all their efforts on killing hungry people waiting for food.