Search results

4,371 seats across 150 councils in England are up for election tomorrow, along with six mayoral elections. At a national level, Labour's support has slightly dipped over the last few weeks according to the polls, and the smaller parties have received a slight boost. This is likely to have an...

He selectively posted his favoured poll earlier today :lol:

Live football matches could be shown exclusively over the internet in the UK for the first time after Sky lost the rights to broadcast Spain’s La Liga. Eleven Sports, founded by the Leeds United owner, Andrea Radrizzani, has acquired exclusive rights to the Spanish top flight for three years...

It didn't say the reason why you would boo - my belief is that Brighton fans as a whole will be viewed to have booed JR on the basis that he is racist. If you are thinking logically, then of course you can't categorically determine the reason for every single fan booing, but logic or sensible...

Your ability to dodge the pertinent points is surprising given your stature.

Are you high?

If fans boo JR, then BHA fans will be viewed to be booing JR for being racist, despite this not being proven, and that won't reflect well on the club. It's a serious accusation, and so I think it's unfair to treat JR in such a way based on personal feelings. Under different circumstances, I...

The lip-reading argument is one of various issues that I have seen Burnley fans misrepresenting. The lip readers couldn't make any decent suggestion of what was said, because JR's mouth was covered. Here's what the FA said: The "essential issue for us boiled down to one question - are we...

I didn't say he was found 'not guilty', I said he wasn't found guilty of anything, since the case was not proved. They are two different statements. It can't be compared to a criminal case as the only judgements available were 'proven' or 'not proven', based on probability rather than...

What are you on about? One thread was about bringing attention to the Windrush scandal, which has made national headlines and has been declared disgraceful by large parts of the country, whilst another thread was about bringing attention to the very local issue of a Tory candidate standing in...

Apart from the merging of threads about two completely different topics which was a very obviously partisan decision. :facepalm:

That doesn't exclude the possibility that people may have posted on this thread about it before you merged the threads though, does it? Anyway, before that post it appears only two people made reference to it - ManOfSussex and ThunderBolt - not the seven that you stated.

The clue's in the quote - if Labour didn't know about the decision, how's it got anything to do with the previous Labour government? It only became an issue after Theresa May changed the rules in 2014. Everyone who's followed the situation closely knows this. I'm sure you do to, but you can't...

No they didn't. It's hard to tell what's what now you merged the threads, but only a couple of people made reference to the specific case of Matt Lynch on this thread. The other Tory campaigns are unrelated to that particular discussion, which is why there was a thread dedicated to it. Grow...

I didn't say he was found 'not guilty'. I said he was not found guilty of anything, as in the case was not proven, so he wasn't found guilty of anything - not that the judgement was 'not guilty'. They are two different statements.

So it was you who merged the threads then? Sounds about right. Splatterings of comments on a thread about unrelated topics occurs all the time - that doesn't mean you should merge threads which are dedicated to two completely different topics.

Not sure why the 'Matt Lynch Tory Candidate' thread has been merged with this one. It's got nothing to do with the Windrush situation.

Yep, she played Corbyn superbly.

Given the context of the complicated situation, and that he was not found guilty of anything, no. He does, however, come across as a complete bellend.

991279334982934530 :facepalm: