CornwallFox

Thing is, the official report finds that Raynor had declared what she believed to be correct, that her affairs were very complex, and that she's been open and transparent. Farage may or may not have stayed within the law by what sounds like exploiting loopholes and not being straight about it. Yet somehow his supporters think he's the honest one 🤷🏻

What's this news about the trump AI announcement come from? Is that real? I see mandelson has gone on the back of gossip. I really hate the fake moralisation of politics. He knew a bloke who turned out to be a wrong'un but isn't accused of doing anything wrong himself. Seems bizarre to me.

Tbh I think it's fairly obvious that more guns isn't creating safety in America without needing a study.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2759797/ I found this within ten seconds of googling it Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Usually somebody will be quoting something they've read elsewhere - ie a news report on gun crime talking about what studies have found - rather than through having intimate knowledge of those studies personally.

Genuinely not looking for an argument here but I hate it when people write 'source' online, as if an ordinary person will have a list of references for everything they've seen. Now, you certainly shouldn't believe claims made online either, so requiring evidence of the claim absolutely is needed if you're going to reconsider your position, but expecting an ordinary football fan to give you a link to a detailed study is clearly not realistic. I think the only sensible middle ground is not to believe them, but to question whether they're correct by going online to see if I can support what they've said with evidence.

Google is usually your best starting point. It's common sense though. A gun is usually carried by the criminal to give them power so they they can carry out a different crime - a theft or whatever. If the victim simply complies then they run away with the goods, no shots fired. If the victim pulls out a gun, there a high chance they get shot.

Firstly, he's the director of football, not the finance director. Second, do you honestly do you honestly still believe transfer rumours?

Social media and 24/7 news have honestly wrecked the country now than anything else.

On the other hand trump immediately politicised it and fox news literally called for "war". I think most people will have an opinion on him if they knew his work, and will feel that he shouldn't have lost his life and be sorry for his family. But both sides of the political aisle contain people that aren't nice. I think we need the majority to rise above the politics and realise we need calm and less divisiveness, and that includes online political commentators.

A growing problem it seems. I've taken the below from the BBC. If this does turn out to be partisan political violence, as seems likely but not yet confirmed, then there seems to be a trend towards violence across the political spectrum in the US. I think we can probably all see that our own politics has been Americanised - using division to separate us into tribes that oppose each other, rather than a nation that can discuss and agree, so we should think about how we turn that around: Charlie Kirk's death marks a dramatic escalation in rising political violence across the country in recent years. The shooting comes just months after a gunman entered the homes of two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers and their spouses, killing one couple and injuring the other. Between 2016 and 2025, there were 25 attacks and threats targeting elected officials, political candidates, judges and government employees that were motivated by partisan beliefs, according to the Center for Strategic International Studies. For comparison, only two such incidents were reported in the two previous decades. The increase in partisan attacks spans the ideological spectrum but has done little to lower the temperature in political rhetoric. Security, too has become a key concern among elected officials.

When I was a teenager in the 90s I wanted to see Leicester basically knocked down and rebuilt. Under Soulsby that's actually kinda been happening. Jubilee Square huge improvement. Cathedral area looks really good. Lots of improvements across the city. Honestly no idea why people are so anti Soulsby.

Go back 15-20 years ago and councils had enough money for things like xxx in bloom, mowing next to pavements etc. That's all changed and they're all sinking under the weight of less money and more statutory duties.

Yep trivialities. It's gossip. He's sent some embarrassing messages. Unless something else gets reported, that's literally all that's happened.

It's not remotely more than gossip. You're arguing about utter trivialities. Mandelson has done a great job. If he's done something terrible then the book will be thrown at him but there's no suggestion of that.

If mandelson himself turned out to have done something terrible, it's still political theatre to somehow expect that a PM should be able to guess that. It's the sort of nonsense British papers churn out so people never talk about the serious stuff - like how capitalism has utterly failed to lift all boats, the rights and wrongs of nationalisation etc. If we're all messing about with what is basically gossip, and then working really hard to explain it's relevance, we don't talk about those other things.

It's this sort of nonsense that bores me with politics. It's a non story. Just political theatre.

Blimey, fair play my man! That's some going!

I've been going to city matches for the best part of 35 years. Aside from when we were winning the premier League the atmosphere has always been crap. People that claim otherwise live in a made up yesterday imo.

.

Indeed, but they're certainly behind GB news. Clearly just don't gaf what happens after they've gone

big oil is funding all of this

Oh right, yeah tbh every party fits that and it's equally annoying I agree. I often think labour would be better if they explained themselves better. The GB energy/net zero thing, for example, the right has been very good at building anti net zero sentiment. But it would be easily crushed off labour were competent at explaining its policies.

So if it's not delivery you want, what do you want? Almost everything they have planned is individually popular: stopping boats and immigration hotels, more money into health and education, GB energy etc So if you don't want them to deliver that stuff, what do you want them to say?

That's one thing, but I'm talking about the whipping up of hatred towards asylum seekers by reform, GB news and similar. Then the mobs you complain shouldn't be treated as far right. Strangely you never answer the question about who is further fight and the parallels between reform policy and bnp policy. I'm going to leave the conversation now.