diable rouge

Early days but current voting intentions... Khan (LAB): 51% (+2) Bailey (CON): 25% (-3) Porritt (LD): 8% (-2) Berry (GRN): 6% (-3) Via @RedfieldWilton, 6-8 March Changes w/ 13-14 Jan

On the subject of prejudice and predictability (out now in paperback), at the start of this thread I could've drawn up a list of the anti-Meghan posters and would've been spot on bar one. Surprise, surprise, they all have one thing in common...

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I guess keeping a running tab on people's > identity is more important so some than > others....:) > > But seriously...I would hope that short of doing a > concerted search through my posting history to > remind yourself of these tidbits to make your > point above.....this isnt front of mind when you > respond to my posts? > I can only speak for myself of course (my > truth?)...but much like Data protection > requirements, I genuinely dont really retain > anyone's personal circumstances/identity info when > making comments. I quite like it that way, as > theoretically this forum should allow all comments > to be taken in good faith and at face value. Of > course the theory and practice rarely align, with > this thread being a good example.... No need for running tabs or in-depth searches, that was all top of the head stuff, the Plough reference was fresh from Sainsbury's in-store bakery this morning! As for the passport/nationality stuff, you have to admit that's fairly unique, which is probably why it stuck in the memory bank. I think it's quite common for people to build up a mental picture of a poster from what they write, over time developing the 'character', no different to say from reading a book or listening to a radio play. I also think what a poster writes does influence how people react to their posts, just like it would in the 'real world'. It would be na?ve to think that everyone gets a clean slate with each post. Dare I say it, it's a form of prejudice. > ............. To then claim that I take > this view because racsism and misogyny is > exemplifying the very laziness that you have > bemoaned. I didn't have your posts in mind when referring this afternoon to the casual misogyny in this thread. See what happens when you carry prejudicial thoughts...;-)

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tell me....can any criticism of someone's > behaviour always be boiled down to their race and > gender? An alternative question could be...can anyone be sure they are not capable of casual racism/sexism, unintended or otherwise?...

If people can't see some of the casual misogyny and lazy stereotyping in this thread then they need to head to Barnard Castle. There are two people in the H&M relationship yet from some of the comments in this thread you'd think it was only one. The narrative by the press and again by some comments in this thread is that of a scheming, manipulative woman out to get her ''15 minutes of fame''. In case people have forgot, M had a career before she met H, and let's be honest, you don't get to choose to have a relationship with a prince, they choose you. If you want to know what scheming and manipulative looks like, look no further than H's mum Diana, chosen purely to be baby machine while Chazzer carried on knobbing Camilla in the pantry. The Royal Family was a bunch of dysfunctional inbreds way before M rocked up...

No one is as anonymous as they like to think they are Cat. Have you heard about the middle-aged Australian bloke who holds an EU passport due to his Italian heritage, also a UK passport holder after marrying a Brit, has kids, lives near the Plough, and recently changed jobs?...;-)

Any different to the 'goals' that Prince Andrew had in mind?...

I haven't been keeping up with this thread but upon reading binky's comment I've just read through it in it's entirety, it does indeed stink in parts...

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard (an actual adult) say that the cotton wool > on the end of the testing stick for COVID isn?t > actually cotton wool, it?s nanobots that get into > your blood stream and they?re there to track you > through the phone lines. I raise your cotton wool nanobots...

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth is so slow and boring to get to... Politicians have caught on that you can tell a lie and it firmly becomes embedded in their base, as well as going half way round the world, by the time it gets fact-checked, and as with Trump, the viewings of the lie far outnumber the fact checking...

You see it a lot in modern day 'journalism', especially contrarians like the spiked-online mob, who instead of working through context and nuances towards a conclusion, they start with a conclusion that fits in with their culture war narrative and work back from that. A distinct lack of original, critical thinking...

Any coincidence that Hammers perform much better without their fans? Meanwhile, another piece falls into place of Gerrard becoming Liverpool manager, Low quitting Germany job after the Euros...

You need to look much closer to home than that Morag...ye ken

''I didn't watch it but I'm going to comment anyway despite not knowing the full context of what was said, and instead will form my opinion from the comments of assorted cultural keyboard warriors'' What a fooking bunch of gossiping fishwives...:)

1/10...

Week 24 fixtures... Saturday 6th March Burnley v Arsenal Sheffield United v Southampton Aston Villa v Wolverhampton Wanderers Brighton & Hove Albion v Leicester City Sunday 7th March West Bromwich Albion v Newcastle United Liverpool v Fulham Manchester City v Manchester United Tottenham Hotspur v Crystal Palace Monday 8th March Chelsea v Everton West Ham United v Leeds United Wednesday 10th March Manchester City V Southampton

Week 23 points... Week 23 table...

It's not only the Scots who are revolting... https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-04/is-the-united-kingdom-on-the-brink-of-a-break-up

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont want to speak for spartacus...but to be > fair Alan...the title of this thread suggests he > doesn't really need a reason:) Ah, but he's trying to rationalize it...;-)

Halve your budget!...:)

Only in your world...

It's not about wanting or not wanting media attention, it's about who controls it, and in that respect the Sussexes are doing a good job of putting the media's nose out of joint, so fair play to them...

He's not going to go away while his grifting Big Lie makes him so much money, most of the dosh raised for 'legal funds' will have ended up in his own coffers. The GOP have enabled this and continue to do so. Maybe their thinking is that Trump eventually ends up in court (now looking very likely)and that's a way of getting rid of him but without alienating his base, but even if that happened they've pretty much become unelectable...

100...