hhledger.bsky.social
I dunno man
201 posts
85 followers
183 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
It's got to have been an attitude thing, surely?
comment in response to
post
Yes it is
comment in response to
post
Cheering that you guys are restoring to this level of desperate stuff.
comment in response to
post
Got what you wanted mate
comment in response to
post
Can you get Ian Dunt to come and explain why both sides of this one are actually right?
comment in response to
post
Why would you let that absolute fucking clown on your podcast? Embarrassing
comment in response to
post
Musk is absolutely 💯 a nonce dude
comment in response to
post
Got to be Mitoma for me. He appeared in nearly every game, scored some important goals and was rarely less than good, and occasionally exceptional. The others not at the same level of consistency.
comment in response to
post
I can see that point of view too, and agree about Potter/Bobby dZ. I really don't know what to expect next year.
comment in response to
post
Haha, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he'd have figured that one out in the end maybe.
It's a fair point that the injuries didn't hurt us as much as they might have though. With a big, untested squad, it forced him to try lots of things. Hopefully we'll see the benefits next season.
comment in response to
post
Yeah that's a very good point
comment in response to
post
A lot of our fans (myself included) aren't fully convinced by Hürz yet, but objectively we probably should be. To his credit he hasn't complained too much about the injuries either.
comment in response to
post
We did alright actually.
(I agree with your point though)
comment in response to
post
He showed his arse over Corbyn and it's been clear he's a pathetic melt since.
comment in response to
post
Thom Yorke is a very stupid man
comment in response to
post
(the tiny green bit in the middle of Italy in that map I guess)
comment in response to
post
I saw bears in the wild in Italy! On a hike in the abruzzo
comment in response to
post
She believed that rich powerful people should act with total impunity, and she delivered on the belief by repeatedly covering up for prolific child sex offenders amongst the elite.
comment in response to
post
In the case of intense battery farming of animals, we should be looking for pretexts to maintain the standards that do exist, so I don't really care if it's 'protectionist'.
I did overstate it though and will correct myself: There's no hard evidence for or against what I said.
comment in response to
post
The argument is that using a chlorine wash at the end of production covers for lower safety standards earlier in the process, and there may be side effects of that.
I've learned tonight though that there's not really hard evidence either way, and also it's not even a commonly used process.
comment in response to
post
Fair.
I'll close on: There are specific concerns on each side that explain the strong feelings.
I am horrified by the ecological and animal welfare impacts of intensive battery farming, and I fear global trade deals will make it worse. That's made stuff I should have questioned easy to believe.
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/jayb...
comment in response to
post
Been through the replies and not seen it. Tbh I think I oversimplified, and Jamelle has done the same. Understandable, he's responding to a lot of people saying silly stuff.
Really doesn't seem like there's a lot of hard evidence either way here.
comment in response to
post
Yeah what I'm concluding here is that there's a lot of strong feelings in this area but a surprising lack of hard evidence either way.
I think there are people arguing on both sides here based on feelings not fact - and admit my original post falls into that category.
comment in response to
post
Which is another interesting fact, that I didn't know, which I think provides interesting context without really validating or invalidating the claim
comment in response to
post
Yeah but reading it this is specifically about whether the washes increase microbial resistance.
The debate is about whether the washes cover for lower standards of production and if that has side effects.
comment in response to
post
Well it says ESFA agrees the chlorine poses no risk, but no one is saying that it does, so that seems suspiciously disingenuous
comment in response to
post
ASI is one of the most sinister groups in UK politics
comment in response to
post
Hmmm, an article that leans heavily on industry lobbying groups and the far right and opaque 'Adam Smith Institute' doesn't really do it for me
comment in response to
post
Apparently yeah, hence I'm prepared to be wrong. I've already learned a bit here. (Seems I've fallen into the trap of believing what I read in the UK press, like an idiot)? But I still want to know what the claim that it is completely debunked is based on?
comment in response to
post
Permission to sell chlorine washed chicken in the UK
comment in response to
post
Fair, I'm relying on what I read in the UK press, which given my opinion of the UK press is maybe strange on reflection.
I find it strange that US agri business is lobbying so hard for it if they don't want to sell much of it though?
comment in response to
post
You got a link? I'm prepared to be wrong but everything I've read says 'you can't say for sure either way as the data isn't comparable'.
comment in response to
post
It literally is though. You have lower food standards. Chlorine washed chicken for instance. It can still be safer than it was historically and slightly less safe than Europe, which has more stringent regulation.
comment in response to
post
I'm sure your position isn't that we should turn a blind eye to the Labour party repeatedly promoting serious sex offenders?
But maybe that we should stick to discussing it as an institutional failure rather than linking to any one individual?
Fair, though I disagree.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, which bit of what I said is not true?
comment in response to
post
He's a very influential figure within a party machinery that has repeatedly failed to spot sex offenders and promoted them to senior positions. I think it's legitimate at this point to ask if they are prioritising loyalty over adequate vetting.
comment in response to
post
Whenever I see a post like this I'm like 'ok what blocklist do I need to be subscribing to to avoid seeing people like this guy'?
comment in response to
post
They're talking about Kneecap I guess?
comment in response to
post
This guy bsky.app/profile/stev...
comment in response to
post
Here we fucking go. Who called the Centrist genital inspectors?
comment in response to
post
Oh yeah, has he said or done anything about building more homes then?
comment in response to
post
Sure he's a nice lad and all, but his 'X' feed is dedicated to building roads, defending rich farmers and retweeting Wes Streeting, so he can do one.
comment in response to
post
I know it's not the point here, but how come Stephen Bush likes the Onion? It's not for islamophobe neolibs mate.
comment in response to
post
Maya Forstater was good enough to clarify the terf position on trans men in that tweet yesterday that's being shared around. Basically: if you made yourself look like a man it's your fault if you're now effectively barred from both single sex spaces.
Even more rank than their opinion on transwomen.