bickster

Actually Corbyn / Williamson / Galloway were far worse in my opinion. What they were doing were producing propaganda for and legitimising the Iranian regime. Russia too in the case of at least two of them. That’s a whole few levels up from being lobbied by someone.

That isn’t a reason. That’s your choice in whether to answer a question. It’s fairy nuff as a response to the question but that’s all it is.

Not convinced that’s to fund anything, he's got a surplus to play with now. Cutting benefits to the poorest is just scummy ideology

Be afraid, very afraid….

He's trying to walk it back He’s also threatening to sue Warners / Disney and anyone else who pulls their advertising. I’m not sure what he thinks he’s going to sue them for but hey, I’m sure it'll be amusing.

Yeah that really isn’t a scandal

Was the donation to Starmer's campaign fund a one off? How many times has Starmer become leader of the Labour Party? What are you perceiving to be a scandal here?

I think you’ve joined two dots and drawn a pentangle. And yet again you’re straying into AS conspiracy territory.

Bought off by whom / what?

Yep that makes sense, mine was Tryst too

Disown him

It's a day later I can't even remember what the word was let alone the guesses

Wordle 881 4/6*

Well there is one prominent VT Off Topic poster who I first met when he came to our office and we didn't realise we knew each other on VT at the time

Voluntary, Involuntary (which has two subtypes) and Corporate

Yep that'll win them the votes of all the people they need to vote for them that currently aren't It'll certainly strengthen the resolve of an awful lot of current Labour voters to actually vote

I'm not wrong, you do not need intent to prove a manslaughter charge Just a scenario as I have no idea if this is a thing in Ice Hockey or not. Say there are rules of the sport about the skates and the player who kicked the poor dead guy in the throat had done something outside the rules to his skates (a bit like players used to do to studs on football boots), if it can be proved that that grossly negligent act resulted in or contributed to the death of the player, then this would be a case of gross negligent involutory manslaughter. He didn't intend to kill or harm anyone but his actions still resulted in the death. I doubt that's the line being followed (or even if its a thing) but it's just to illustrate the point

And the reason they were able to cross the Dnipr River? Some stupid f***wits blew up the Dam

There you go again. No, not true Draycott Browne Solicitors (I could have used literally hundreds of definitions that all say the same thing)

You keep describing voluntary manslaughter like its the only sort, it isn't there's involuntary manslaughter which again is further divided as I've already described in other posts

Yes, that's voluntary manslaughter

And as I keep saying, there needs to be no intent to harm to be convicted of manslaughter

That is what the court will decide if the CPS think the evidence points to that When I watched the video, sticking his leg up in the air as he did seems to be something of an unnatural movement and it'll all focus around that and whether that was a reckless act

More realistic, similar trends