pink_triangle

I reckon Jenas wants his job so he will be there.

You can be sure Murphy will show up!

I agree. I was saying his pay is the reason I would get rid of him. I am happy for him to have whatever political views he wants.

Sorry meant license fee.

I think BBC should get rid of Lineker as I see his wages as poor use of taxpayer money. I think you could pay a presenter a quarter of the salary and the viewing figures for MOTD or international tournaments would stay the same. I however think what he says about politics is irrelevant, he isn’t a political presenter.

Surely if he is about to get a ban you play him until he is banned?

Good article on the Athletic today about how he won’t play because the audio/visual won’t go away, we all know if it was a Mctominay level player Man U wouldn’t even be considering bringing him back. To me the worst case scenario for Man U is bringing him back and then having to reverse course because of the pressure. The only certain way of avoiding that scenario is not playing him. They probably just need to keep paying him or come to a deal with him

Starmer V Sunak PMQs are very dull, should have gone when Boris was there.

Yes and I was proven correct when he bombed in a general election. I have no doubt you could win the leadership of labour with views outside the mainstream. I think they are so uniform on gay marriage this is one that couldn’t get through. I still have a feeling Forbes will win and I still think a move to the right benefit’s labour in Scotland and nationally.

I also wonder if there are moderate DUP types or if the noisy ones just get the attention.

My attitude was they should have gone for a safe pair of hands like Angus, but that can’t happen now. I think all the options left are bad opposition, I don’t see the good opposition option.

I think she is completely unsuitable to be voted in , her views would make it impossible to win the labour leadership. I hoped SNP would go for safe pair of hands, but they have seemingly gone for 3 poor candidates. If the choice is only between poor candidates than may as well pick the poor candidate who will benefit labour the most.

Agreed, come on Forbes. I think it would be great for labour.

In fairness Scotland aren’t winning anything with any combination of Scottish players.

I thought man Utd deserved to win, but they have better players and spent a lot of money to get them, so that’s not a surprise. When I watch Newcastle they generally look solid, but a bit lacking in terms of end product.

She said she supports buffer zones as long as they are targeted and balanced. I wonder what balance she means here?

While that’s the case I don’t think you would get in that position to be sacked in labour, I think you would struggle to even become an MP. A lot of talk about white Christian people being blocked from holding high office, but it’s bollocks. Loads of Christians don’t hold conservative views and would have no issues. Also she hasn’t been blocked from anything, it is up to voters (first SNP and then wider electorate) to make a judgement on these views. I still think there is a decent chance Forbes will win and that will be great news for labour.

While I don’t know if that is true or not. I would maintain that someone as socially conservative as Forbes couldn’t rise as high in labour, I’m undecided if they could in the Tory’s. I’m not sure if I could make a great argument why, but that’s my instinct.

At the end of the day it’s up to SNP members (and if he wins) the electorate of Scotland to pass judgement if they believe him. Unless you are proposing he takes a lie detector test I don’t see the value of asking the same questions to get the same answers. I do think there will be loads of SNP churchgoers who are not as extreme as Kate. Politically I see them centre ground party with bits of everything, similar to the Lib Dems. I do think if their popularity takes a hit labour would be the main beneficiaries and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

They have asked the man what he thinks and he has said he thinks the mainstream view. Now you can say he is making it up, but if you ask him the question you will get the same answer. I believe if a man had those views and stated them he would be criticised as well. Ian Blackford attended the same church and made the decision not to endorse their views. It’s possible to go to a church and endorse some views and not others.

I don’t think Kate would feel comfortable seeing her without a top, I’m sure that would be against her almighty church as well.

Nicola now weighing in against Forbes without explicitly naming her.

It’s rubbish because Blackford led the party in Westminster attending the church, but showing some critical thinking which views he believed and which not. I have to admit over the years I have felt frustrated that the SNP have pretending to be a left wing party, while I felt in reality they were trying to be different things to different people (similar to Lib Dems in England) and that practice is now biting them on the bum. My only sympathy for Forbes (who’s views i detest) is some in the SNP are acting totally shocked about these views. It was completely obvious from previous statements what her views almost certainly were, why didn’t the people endorsing her get some clarification first? My guess is most of those that endorsed and then changed their mind don’t really care about the views, but have been spooked by the social media backlash, I don’t think they come out of it looking great.

Conversion therapy is a load of bollocks, it’s not real and churches like Kate’s can’t wave a magic wand and stop people being gay, nor is there any issue about being gay. I think when you are talking about people volunteering to undergo this kind of thing we are going down a dangerous route. I agree with Starmer it should be completely banned.

She fobbed the question off and said she didn’t believe in coercion multiple times.