Phil

Shelvey touched the ball on its way through, so they were all onside. Mbappe benefited from it recently against Spain.

So your not a xenophobe if you say something xenophobic, but stick an * at the end. Got it. Meanwhile....

Prejudice definition: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Do I have to paint you a picture. You linked the kneeling restraint to Israel based on nothing but your own xenophobic prejudice. How on Earth we are at fault. That is some bat shit crazy statement. Please read up on the two-state solution before you pretend to know a single iota about the conflict and who is trying to resolve it peacefully.

You've seen something bad and linking it to Israel. Subconscious or not, xenophobia is not ok. It mental to suggest they use it. And it highlights your prejudice.

Advocating Xenophobia? Nice. New low Alex.

Because they are the best in the world. Lookup krav maga. Fyi, Krav maga get a bad reputation because of its no nonsense approach. But, it categorically does not advocate kneeling on a neck as a restraining technique. Krav maga would mandate you restrain (handcuff) and remove the threat (put in back of the van). Most special forces are taught it as it highlights things like when you are fighting 4 vs 1, step a foot behind a doorway to reduce the threat vector. Simple but effective.

It's highlighted in bold in the quote you are replying to. "I mean, I could believe that it's an Israeli police technique" fyi, the Israeli police dont enforce law in Palestine, the military do.

You are literally spouting the xenophobic trash the Labour party are trying to stamp out. To suggest the Israeli military have a restraining technique of kneeling on Palestinians necks shows you have no clue of the spot light they are under on a daily basis.

We might as well add it to the list. Johnson is starting to sound a lot like Corbyn talking about anti-semitism, so i guess it must be Corbyns fault in some way.

There is literally nothing that adds up. If me and the missus suspected we might have corona virus, the last thing we would do it get in a car with the kids - all breathing the same air for 3 hours. He took the virus from one end of the country to another.

Matt Hancock has regularly said in the daily briefing. "No test is better than a bad test" https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-a-bad-test-really-is-worse-than-no-test-9pdvsxmrd I think he was referring to the antibody test s we bought that were 5 to 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/europe/coronavirus-antibody-test-uk.html

I wish the government would stop saying they are following the science. Scientists have to publish their papers, open them up to be scrutinised by other scientists. I believe Sage are being paid by the government, so how can they claim to be independent? It's an absolute shambles. Herd immunity was clearly a mistake, it was based on China's death rate being so low. Sage incorrectly assumed if the NHS didn't exceed its capacity, then the death rate would be low (flatten the curve). The NHS never got overrun and the nightingale hosptials were barely used. The plan was executed very well. Its just the plan was based on the flawed low Chinese death toll data. Checking the data is fit-for-purpose is 100% on the UK government. In early March, the UK government did not role out a nationwide testing program because the testing kits were shoddy, 1 in 5 were accurate, therefore we sensibly advised anyone with symptoms to self isolate. Why was our inability to test accurately not factored into the Chinese data? America pulled China and WHO up on the ridiculously low death toll reporting, and China responded by increasing it's death toll numbers. Think about it. If a test came back negative, China excluded it from their death toll. And we based our entire plan on their numbers. The crazy thing is, we did the exact same thing with our death toll numbers! So why was this not factored into the Chinese numbers?? At the very least Sage should have asked China for it's death toll (regardless of cause) and its average death toll for Feb/March, this would give a much better baseline for the death toll. The plan was only changed when Italy's death toll came in. Currently we are basing our plan on the R value. I do wonder, if we are making similar flawed assumptions.

Its specifically for the Oxford trial which is in phase two of human trials (so doesnt need any further research funding). It'll pay for the pre-production of 30m doses, ready to go in September. https://www.businessleader.co.uk/84m-funding-boost-for-uk-vaccine-programme/89643/

Funny how people try to rewrite history. The choice was between a buffoon and a clown. Labours' failed Corbyn experiment is more to blame for letting the right wing take over the Torys' than the centre voters are for not voting for a clown (and his circus).

Starmer does seem very electable from what I've seen so far. I can see a massive switch to Labour this year. It will take time to undo the feeling of incompetence Corbyn projected, but the Tory's are certainly making it easy.