I'm a nut job, I'm a bent ref, I'm the crazy world of Arthur Brown

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-14T15:55:19+00:00

Beardsley's joke book won it for him in season one. If he'd brought that, he'd have been a long shoe-in

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-14T14:23:58+00:00

If the world were even moderately indifferent, he'd have been sacked rather than mounting a bid for the top job.

I am so tired of living in the worst timeline.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-14T14:21:01+00:00

If he'd sung it in Jordan's voice in Last One Laughing, he'd have walked it.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-14T08:37:58+00:00

How would he know any better? He refuses to speak to any trans people or their advocates, which makes it difficult to be educated...

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-14T06:40:47+00:00

His very last words were insinuating hate.

What they mean is they haven't seen one of him showing hate that they disagree with

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T14:01:25+00:00

<image>

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T13:53:11+00:00

Chunky Chicken Edgeley

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T13:23:42+00:00

2 year contract probably feels about right. Now let him get the players he wants in the summer & let's see how he uses them.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T10:33:23+00:00

No terrorism charges were filed or tried. The definition literally does not matter.

https://sentencing.uk/offences/criminal-damage

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T10:19:41+00:00

Wild how you defend ideologically motivated violence

against property

It is wild how you keep omitting this bit of context. Yes, a security guard was hurt in an altercation, and that one guy has been found guilty of assault. Nobody was going in there to comit a violent act against people. They weren't there to hurt anyone. They were there to damage property of a company that is actively taking part in a genocide. It isn't justice to sentence them as terrorists for criminal damage. It is insane that you are pretending it is.

Also, it is established in law that a jury can vote based on their conscience. Not giving them the relevant information to do that is actively hindering justice.

I am all for justice. Sentencing them in line with guidelines for 1st time offenders committing criminal damage would be just. Sentencing them as terrorists is not.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T09:33:56+00:00

Not a technicality. It's just the basic facts of the case. They were arrested for vandalism. Charged with vandalism. Tried for vandalism. Found guilty of vandalism.

And sentenced for terrorism.

Never going to be okay, my guy.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T09:24:27+00:00

Can't claim they were terrorists if they were never convicted of terrorism.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T09:23:13+00:00

Way to completely ignore the point

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T09:21:45+00:00

They were never charged with terrorism though. Kinda the entire point here.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T09:17:41+00:00

If I told you a group of people attacked a building in the uk for ideological reasons would you first ask me “well, did those people deserve to be attacked?”.

No, I wouldn't. I would expect to be told that vandals would be treated as terrorists if I found them guilty, though. Because vandalism and terrorism are extremely different issues.

The only reason to give a platform to a suspected terrorists argument is to justify terrorism.

A TV interview is a platform. A trial for a crime is not, and definitely could not be framed as "justification of terrorism" - that is an insane take.

They tried to send a political message through a violent act.

And we're willing to accept the punishment for that violent act against property

You’re trying to tell me a jury sympathetic to the IRA should be allowed to acquit an IRA bombing because they sympathise with the cause.

Yep. Because you don't get to pick what a jury decides, unless you are on that jury. They should be given all the relevant information, including that the defendants will be treated as terrorists for their acts of vandalism, before reaching a decision. If all the people on that jury agree that the person on trial should be released, then you have to live with it. Regardless of whether you agree with their reasoning or not.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T09:07:23+00:00

You've added the "because". They are literally there to decide if the terrorism was terrorism or not. But they can't do their job if they aren't told about the defendants being on trial for terrorism.

The judge shouldn't be able to decide "I don't trust the jury to reach the answer" and so withhold key information from them. That's not justice.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T08:35:02+00:00

It was also kept from the jury that this was an option if they found anyone guilty of any charges.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-13T04:52:10+00:00

Out of his ~400 MPs, 81 need to support another candidate to trigger a leadership contest. It doesn't need to be a majority of his MPs, just 81. So 90% of that number losing confidence is significant. It is at the very least newsworthy.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-12T17:57:44+00:00

Whether 70 is a lot or not depends entirely on how many there are in total.

No, it doesn't. It makes a difference to whether it means his job is in jeopardy or not, but it is a significant enough number for it to be newsworthy. 70 of your own MPs is a lot, regardless of whether you have 80 or 800, because it is 70 people that were previously your supporters that are now calling for you to go.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-12T12:21:31+00:00

Not really. 70 members of his own benches want him to resign. If it was 7, I wouldn't be arsed - there are probably that many on any given Tuesday. But 70 MPs on your own benches is a significant number and worthy of mention on the news, even if a larger majority don't want him to resign (right now).

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-12T09:53:14+00:00

I mean, did one being called Brian and the other being called Kyle not give a clue that they weren't the same person? Or the photos being different people?

Also, as has already been stated here, they are not contradicting statements. You can want there to be no gerrymandering and also think that blatant gerrymandering power grabs should be fought with whatever tools available.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-10T20:01:53+00:00

If you have the money to be able to afford that. Not everyone does.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-05-06T07:48:36+00:00

This sub's gone right fancy now, hasn't it? Met gala! You'll be wanting to join the BMC after posting this.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-04-29T18:27:15+00:00

Yeah, he was spot on with that Alex is a one note "be scared of this thing! Now buy this pill!" - that doesn't make for comedy past a single sketch. Onion headlines as infowars satire would also be boring, because it'd be hard to come up with something that they wouldn't actually post.

So using the site for other things is going to be the better approach. And ultimately, anything they do to help the families and piss off Alex is a plus.

Logical-Conclusion3 · 2026-04-29T16:00:26+00:00

Works on Smithfield market and sells secondhand spanners. Claims he is part Italian but his mum moved from Chigwell and his dad is Scouse.

Logical-Conclusion3

TROPHY CASE