pap

What a reactionary bunch you Tory voters are. I still haven't seen a cogent defence of any policy you're voting for. "Don't vote Labour because the Mirror printed an article!" Because that's politics.

That's political dirt that you can't throw about without covering the whole House in shít. If you don't know that, you've no business in the discussion.

You are a leaf on the wind, Bognoramus. A leaf on the wind.

News to the rest of the city

Opens up more job opportunities. I think you can now join the Unsullied or work in a harem. I'm sure I have that right

Birra balance

Whaaa-t?

Ah, the old "have enough kids to get a council house" routine! I hear from the right wing press that it works quite well. Very clever of you to grab both ends of the market. Let's hope she doesn't fk it all up by wanting to better herself academically or something, thus avoiding the multi-scoop jackpot. I jest of course, and used more straw than the entire run of Worzel Gummidge.

This is why non-verbal media skills are so important.

Yeah, I think I'd take the Amy Pond line on this (as established by Richard Herring). I'd do the character, but not the actor who plays her. Scarlett would have to remain in character throughout as Natasha Romanov, and not sell her soul for money she doesn't need hawking Soda Stream products produced in the occupied terrorities.

Yeah, but as I said, property is cheaper and more people lack opportunity. You could have ten housing benefit cheques coming your way instead of just the one. Just no big-picture thinking, UJ, even when applied to yourself.

Got to know some to rewrite it. Have a klovley ekveng.

That's what it was when I read it. Credit to you. Already changed back by time I'd replied. Those dialing wands, eh?

Some people can type without a dialing wand.

And I suppose right-wingers take complete fúcking left-wing idiots into their weaving communes (or whatever the devil it is they do). You are looking at one incident and making it representative of the whole. It's fkn Jamie, dude. You should be amazed he doesn't get more shít. I think that on the whole, the site is pretty tolerant of others' opinions. When you can evidently see that someone doesn't give a clean fúck about what others have written, or indeed, what he writes himself, why shouldn't he be immune from criticism when ably demonstrating both points?

Careful now. I know the context.

Liverpool, la.

Nah, it's the semi-regular reminder that Jamie doesn't bother reading anything anyone says. Not that it was remotely due a refresh.

You're not sure of much mush, least of all the conflict raging in your own posts.

A bit like being in the Navy and never being able to do a job at sea? FFS, Jamie. Put the keyboard down unless you are genuinely digging to Australia.

I think they'll believe your second sentence. But'choo done yerself up there, nipper. Right up.

Don't try and dismiss it just because you're not very good at it. You wanted us to value your opinion when you were talking politics, right?

Nah, I think this is your general level of effort for all of life.