Just here to let you all know that mine is currently 1. Living in the middle of nowhere has its benefits, at times

Eh, if he’s already saying it, might as well make it true

‘nothing of value’ - I think purplepuppy was suggesting that people/migrants/human lives have value

I think it depends on need vs want. Does she need her cats, friends and most of the crew? No, she just wants them. Most large venues are able to povide staging crew, for instance. I can see a ‘need’ for a stylist or lighting director for example, since a local placeholder just wouldn’t be able to re-create the exact style or look that they want.

But that’s not enough people to warrant a private jet. I think it’d be more justifiable for the plane to be fitted with regular passenger seating and for those seats to be sold to the public as commercial travel

Well certainly but the Brits tend to ignore that part of the UK - it’s a little uncomfortable so we just pretend that NI doesn’t exist

Eh, we don’t really use Britain. UK is more inclusive

What a great idea! Let’s call it The Final Solution

/s

I saw a tall man in a leather jacket in a supermarket and ran up and hugged him because all tall men in leather jackets are my dad. 5 year old me forgot that he was passed out at home from some drug/alcohol concoction so how could he be in the shop?

Traumatised me for life.

What happened at age 5?

Nah, that’s taking it a bit far. The Madagascar Plan is enough, surely.

It would certainly solve all of Israel’s problems, though

Migrating a whole group of people, whatever could possibly go wrong?

What’s 20? 100? 1000?

UK here; hiccough is definitely what I’ve seen and been taught, perhaps it’s a geographical thing?

Yes, because no other country experiences famine

You need a subscription to read it

Sometimes it’s not a big difference. Using several different quotes in one article, all of which use the word ‘terrorist’ or other emotionally loaded words, is a clear indication that they think he’s a terrorist whilst technically remaining ‘neutral’ because they’re only quoting rather than forming a position

Well sure, I agree. But the BBC isn’t taking the moral high ground here. They have previously and will again use the word ‘terrorist’ to evoke an emotional response for international attacks.

It’s a decision that senior lawyers are criticising - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/11/bbc-not-calling-hamas-terrorists-ofcom-top-lawyers/

Interestingly, on their Bitsize page, they describe the Palestinian Liberation Front as a terrorist group, which is true. The mere fact that they have a page on ‘terrorism’ indicates that they don’t take a moral position against the word, just against calling Israel (and Israeli factions/allies) terrorists - https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zy7nqhv/revision/1

Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?

They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to

No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.

The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all