|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Nov 4, 2019 16:02:56 GMT -5
Hey now, you included the argument from authority as a way to bolster your point. If you didn't want it mentioned, questioned or challenged, don't bring it up in the first place. Just rely on the facts. "But don't be/play naive, and don't equate autism cases and flu vaccination with this. " I guess you misunderstood. The point is, being a doctor doesn't make the doctors opinion right. As is the case with my example. Your position as a doctor is irrelevant and does not lend weight to your opinion unless you have the evidence to support it. Thus there is no reason to include it in your argument ... Unless you're trying to add weight to your opinion.
Absolute certainty is an unreasonable expectation. Reasonable doubt on the other hand is very much obtainable. Considering that a flare up for Liam can happen with or without external triggers such as smoking and alcohol, you can't say that he is necessarily the cause. It might have just been a bad night for him. And we know he will perform through the pain. He's done it before. It must have been quite substantial for him to take off. And he seems to be troubled by Noel's words enough that he felt it was slander and went as far as to sue his own brother. I'd say that lends weight to the idea that his troubles may have been a matter of misfortune and not necessarily a direct consequence of a bender.
Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues,. I don't think it's that unreasonable. I don't fix TVs because I'm not an elecrician, I don't build houses because I'm not a builder, and I don't segue with a technician that fixes boilers that the boiler shoul not be fixed that way, because I don't have the knowlege to do so. And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt. Being a doctor gives you a very interesting perspective.However, without his full medical history and without an understanding of Liam’s day and maybe the days leading up to it, level of consumption etc, your speculation maybe little better than ours.
|
|
|
Post by stillilllife on Nov 4, 2019 16:05:14 GMT -5
Too bad he doesn't have the ability to forgive.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Nov 4, 2019 16:30:02 GMT -5
Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues,. I don't think it's that unreasonable. I don't fix TVs because I'm not an elecrician, I don't build houses because I'm not a builder, and I don't segue with a technician that fixes boilers that the boiler shoul not be fixed that way, because I don't have the knowlege to do so. And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt. Being a doctor gives you a very interesting perspective.However, without his full medical history and without an understanding of Liam’s day and maybe the days leading up to it, level of consumption etc, your speculation maybe little better than ours. I speculate in this case, because it is relatively straightfoward. I'm not some insane gobshite. For instance, if I know someone is obese, drinks and smokes, I won't find it offensive that someone might think that was a possible cause for a stroke. I won't find it weird or unbased to admit this possibility even if at the end of the day the cause might have been a, say... Traumatic carotid dissection. My point is, it's not offensively slanderous to consider it because a priori that is a likely cause. I don't need to know a patient's past medical history to know the most common risk factors for a disease. It's difficult to explain to someone that doensn't work with it on a daily basis, but medicine works with probabilities. And it may be the case that it was completely unrelated, but are reasons to consider this as a realistic possibility.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Nov 4, 2019 16:40:33 GMT -5
Being a doctor gives you a very interesting perspective.However, without his full medical history and without an understanding of Liam’s day and maybe the days leading up to it, level of consumption etc, your speculation maybe little better than ours. I speculate in this case, because it is relatively straightfoward. I'm not some insane gobshite. For instance, if I know someone is obese, drinks and smokes, I won't find it offensive that someone might think that was a possible cause for a stroke. I won't find it weird or unbased to admit this possibility even if at the end of the day the cause might have been a, say... Traumatic carotid dissection. My point is, it's not offensively slanderous to consider it because a priori that is a likely cause. I don't need to know a patient's past medical history to know the most common risk factors for a disease. It's difficult to explain to someone that doensn't work with it on a daily basis, but medicine works with probabilities. And it may be the case that it was completely unrelated, but are reasons to consider the this possibility. I accept that, you understand the common risk factors. Had it gone to court what might have been asked? How much he’d drank in the previous 48 hours? How much he’d smoked? What is the severity of his condition, do we know any of these things?
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Nov 4, 2019 16:43:58 GMT -5
Hey now, you included the argument from authority as a way to bolster your point. If you didn't want it mentioned, questioned or challenged, don't bring it up in the first place. Just rely on the facts.
"But don't be/play naive, and don't equate autism cases and flu vaccination with this. "
I guess you misunderstood. The point is, being a doctor doesn't make the doctors opinion right. As is the case with my example. Your position as a doctor is irrelevant and does not lend weight to your opinion unless you have the evidence to support it. Thus there is no reason to include it in your argument ... Unless you're trying to add weight to your opinion.
Absolute certainty is an unreasonable expectation. Reasonable doubt on the other hand is very much obtainable. Considering that a flare up for Liam can happen with or without external triggers such as smoking and alcohol, you can't say that he is necessarily the cause. It might have just been a bad night for him. And we know he will perform through the pain. He's done it before. It must have been quite substantial for him to take off. And he seems to be troubled by Noel's words enough that he felt it was slander and went as far as to sue his own brother. I'd say that lends weight to the idea that his troubles may have been a matter of misfortune and not necessarily a direct consequence of a bender.
Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues. I don't think it's that unreasonable. I don't fix TVs because I'm not an electrician, I don't build houses because I'm not a builder, and I don't argue with a technician that fixes boilers that the boiler should not be fixed that way, because I don't have the knowlege to do so. And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt. "Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues."
Yes, that is blatantly obvious you think this way. Hence why I pointed out the fallacy. Good doctors recognize and acknowledge their own fallibility and they do not rely on their degree to make their point. It's all about the evidence. Bad doctors tell you their opinion because they have medical degrees, like the doctor I mentioned who advised me and most or all of his patients to not get a flu vaccine. And of course, there's no arguing with bad doctors... Because they are experts and we are the lowly peasants who don't have as many years of education and therefore don't know any better. Elitism.
"And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. "
What doesn't fly well? I am no longer sure whether you're still missing the point or if you are now suggesting that vaccines do cause autism. Just in case it's the latter, vaccines do not cause autism. That's the current consensus among researchers. If you believe otherwise, you do so by ignoring the current evidence and or should publish your research for peer review ASAP.
"You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt."
You might change my opinion if you had better evidence and reason than, "I am a doctor and Liam has a history of drug abuse and abused drugs 2 nights before, therefore ..." Which is what your argument boils down to. The fact is, Noel made inflammatory and intentionally misleading statements to defame Liam. And Liam sued as a result. Which prompted a half ass apology, but at least an acknowledgement of the facts behind Liam's claimed reason for a missed appearance. That vindicates him. If you still want to press the issue and claim that Liam's illness is the direct result of something he did a couple days before, you will need to fulfill a burden of proof and provide sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or more specifically, Noel should, since it's his burden). Since Noel backed down from a civil matter, I question his sincerity in his claims.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Nov 4, 2019 17:00:34 GMT -5
Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues. I don't think it's that unreasonable. I don't fix TVs because I'm not an electrician, I don't build houses because I'm not a builder, and I don't argue with a technician that fixes boilers that the boiler should not be fixed that way, because I don't have the knowlege to do so. And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt. "Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues."
Yes, that is blatantly obvious you think this way. Hence why I pointed out the fallacy. Good doctors recognize and acknowledge their own fallibility and they do not rely on their degree to make their point. It's all about the evidence. Bad doctors tell you their opinion because they have medical degrees, like the doctor I mentioned who advised me and most or all of his patients to not get a flu vaccine. And of course, there's no arguing with bad doctors... Because they are experts and we are the lowly peasants who don't have as many years of education and therefore don't know any better. Elitism.
"And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. "
What doesn't fly well? I am no longer sure whether you're still missing the point or if you are now suggesting that vaccines do cause autism. Just in case it's the latter, vaccines do not cause autism. That's the current consensus among researchers. If you believe otherwise, you do so by ignoring the current evidence and or should publish your research for peer review ASAP.
"You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt."
You might change my opinion if you had better evidence and reason than, "I am a doctor and Liam has a history of drug abuse and abused drugs 2 nights before, therefore ..." Which is what your argument boils down to. The fact is, Noel made inflammatory and intentionally misleading statements to defame Liam. And Liam sued as a result. Which prompted a half ass apology, but at least an acknowledgement of the facts behind Liam's claimed reason for a missed appearance. That vindicates him. If you still want to press the issue and claim that Liam's illness is the direct result of something he did a couple days before, you will need to fulfill a burden of proof and provide sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or more specifically, Noel should, since it's his burden). Since Noel backed down from a civil matter, I question his sincerity in his claims.
I offered, in my initial post to point you to some papers regarding the subject. So you don't have to believe my opinion. But, again, as a doctor, I cannot see common, scientifically proven risk factors being overlooked. Because science is science. Regarding your jibe about vaccines and autism, I won't take offence, nor find it slanderous, despite having to, frequently assure patients that vaccines are safe, and often having to take some "extra" time to do so. Anyway... I was done with this forum a while ago, so maybe now's the right time to leave. I won't disrupt any further.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Nov 4, 2019 17:14:15 GMT -5
"Well, I happen to believe that being a doctor and having a medical degree does add some authority to comment on, you know... Medical issues."
Yes, that is blatantly obvious you think this way. Hence why I pointed out the fallacy. Good doctors recognize and acknowledge their own fallibility and they do not rely on their degree to make their point. It's all about the evidence. Bad doctors tell you their opinion because they have medical degrees, like the doctor I mentioned who advised me and most or all of his patients to not get a flu vaccine. And of course, there's no arguing with bad doctors... Because they are experts and we are the lowly peasants who don't have as many years of education and therefore don't know any better. Elitism.
"And you bringing up the flu vaccines argument, I'm sorry, doesn't fly well. There are things that are speculative, others that are well established and based in science and methods. "
What doesn't fly well? I am no longer sure whether you're still missing the point or if you are now suggesting that vaccines do cause autism. Just in case it's the latter, vaccines do not cause autism. That's the current consensus among researchers. If you believe otherwise, you do so by ignoring the current evidence and or should publish your research for peer review ASAP.
"You have your opinion, and I won't change it, but please don't try to make it sound utterly offesive when there are valid reasons to doubt."
You might change my opinion if you had better evidence and reason than, "I am a doctor and Liam has a history of drug abuse and abused drugs 2 nights before, therefore ..." Which is what your argument boils down to. The fact is, Noel made inflammatory and intentionally misleading statements to defame Liam. And Liam sued as a result. Which prompted a half ass apology, but at least an acknowledgement of the facts behind Liam's claimed reason for a missed appearance. That vindicates him. If you still want to press the issue and claim that Liam's illness is the direct result of something he did a couple days before, you will need to fulfill a burden of proof and provide sufficient evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (or more specifically, Noel should, since it's his burden). Since Noel backed down from a civil matter, I question his sincerity in his claims.
Regarding your jibe about vaccines and autism, I won't take offence, nor find it slanderous, despite having to, frequently assure patients that vaccines are safe, and often having to take some "extra" time to do so. Well, at least we agree on something. You share my frustration with bad doctors. But imagine all the people who take that bad advice from that doctor simply because he has a degree and he says so? See the problem with the argument from authority now? It's best to steer away from using it. And it should provoke red flags towards those who do.
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Nov 4, 2019 17:19:53 GMT -5
I speculate in this case, because it is relatively straightfoward. I'm not some insane gobshite. For instance, if I know someone is obese, drinks and smokes, I won't find it offensive that someone might think that was a possible cause for a stroke. I won't find it weird or unbased to admit this possibility even if at the end of the day the cause might have been a, say... Traumatic carotid dissection. My point is, it's not offensively slanderous to consider it because a priori that is a likely cause. I don't need to know a patient's past medical history to know the most common risk factors for a disease. It's difficult to explain to someone that doensn't work with it on a daily basis, but medicine works with probabilities. And it may be the case that it was completely unrelated, but are reasons to consider the this possibility. I accept that, you understand the common risk factors. Had it gone to court what might have been asked? How much he’d drank in the previous 48 hours? How much he’d smoked? What is the severity of his condition, do we know any of these things? I'm not a lawyer, I cannot predict how the questions would be asked. I don't think Noel would have 'won' the case, or that it would justify the hassle to go to court, because it would be difficult to prove without a margin of a doubt the causal effect. Anyway, if the questions were did you drink and did you smoke and the answer was yes, or if it was possible to prove so. And if then if any doctor, as an expert was called to answer wether smoking and drinking can cause or worsen a chronic laryngitis, then the answer would be yes. What you would be unable to prove is if, for instance a virus causes the exacerbation, then, the end cause is the virus, even though other factors increased the likelihood of this happening. I'm not arguing the case in itself, I'm questioning how slanderous it is for someone who didn't avoid risk factors for an exacerbation, ends up with the consequences of said exacerbation, even if some unrelated event might have tipped the balance. Anyway, like I said to the person whose posts you've liked, I genuinely think it is time for me to leave the forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 17:22:45 GMT -5
I always just assumed Liam drank and smoked his way to the laryngitis that sidelined him. Based on his track record, it seems kinda silly to speculate otherwise, especially with the photo evidence that emerged.
|
|
|
Post by Bonehead's Barber on Nov 4, 2019 17:23:25 GMT -5
Noel shouldn't be allowed to talk about politics. He is asked about everything going, yet doesn't ever seem to vote.
Fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Bellboy on Nov 4, 2019 18:40:31 GMT -5
Good interview. Finally the point about the family inevitably meeting or having already met has been approached.
|
|
|
Post by darmin on Nov 4, 2019 23:24:51 GMT -5
I accept that, you understand the common risk factors. Had it gone to court what might have been asked? How much he’d drank in the previous 48 hours? How much he’d smoked? What is the severity of his condition, do we know any of these things? I'm not a lawyer, I cannot predict how the questions would be asked. I don't think Noel would have 'won' the case, or that it would justify the hassle to go to court, because it would be difficult to prove without a margin of a doubt the causal effect. Anyway, if the questions were did you drink and did you smoke and the answer was yes, or if it was possible to prove so. And if then if any doctor, as an expert was called to answer wether smoking and drinking can cause or worsen a chronic laryngitis, then the answer would be yes. What you would be unable to prove is if, for instance a virus causes the exacerbation, then, the end cause is the virus, even though other factors increased the likelihood of this happening. I'm not arguing the case in itself, I'm questioning how slanderous it is for someone who didn't avoid risk factors for an exacerbation, ends up with the consequences of said exacerbation, even if some unrelated event might have tipped the balance. Anyway, like I said to the person whose posts you've liked, I genuinely think it is time for me to leave the forum. But it was a lie and slander. He could tell the truth "we cancelled that gig because of Liam'laryngitus" and his assumption "probably his laryngitis was caused by drinking and smoking". But he didn't. Apparently this didn't sound bad enough for him. So he lied about hangover for the maximum effect.
|
|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Nov 5, 2019 0:50:46 GMT -5
I can't stand his interviews since that ''''press conference'''' for the first album (and the AA album ) why doesnt he just play 2 songs. bring the acoustic, why not.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Nov 5, 2019 5:14:51 GMT -5
Without getting into it all again, both sides lied. Remain's arguments were crap. They were underprepared (yet over-funded) and arrogant. It's not that people can't change their minds. It's that you set a very strange precedent by just saying a vote doesn't count. Under normal circumstances you’d be right. But three years down the road with the lies of both sides exposed it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask people if it’s what they want, especially when a deal has been negotiated in that time, the details of which were unknown at the referendum. Personally, I'd have a vote to get it 'done with' (for lack of a better term) if I knew it would resolve the matter. But let's face it, ardent leavers (even less-ardent leavers) would have an argument that if Remain got a majority this time around, then why should this result be respected? Because people are predicting the same things that would happen (but haven't yet happened) for something which hasn't yet gone ahead? Where do you stop? Best two out of three, three out of five?
|
|
ee
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 240
|
Post by ee on Nov 5, 2019 5:15:29 GMT -5
Liam had several health issues at that time. Oedema on his vocal chords, laryngitis, thyroid disease (he said he was first diagnosed with the hashimoto’s around DOYS era).
The thing is, it wasn't the first time that Liam had laryngitis issue during DOYS tour. When Liam visited my country at the end of July 2009, he’d already been suffered from it. And as you know, the cancelled V Festival was on 23rd August. Yeah, it was a month ago. He had to call a doctor because of the pain from laryngitis (he performed with that pain anyway). You may wonder how I knew this - the concert promoter revealed this in their twitter when tweeting the news that Noel was sued after his press conference.
Is there any possibility Noel didn't know this? Definitely NO, and he did know Liam had a doctor's note when the gig was cancelled. BUT he had to lie about it and conveniently called it hangover. Typical Noel, innit?
|
|
|
Post by thomuk2006 on Nov 5, 2019 6:30:31 GMT -5
The interviewer is Norwegian; Fredrik Skavlan, I seem to recall Noel has been on the show before? He is a good interviewer... I get the feeling that he and Noel might be friends? Not saying best mates or anything but you get the feeling they get along....
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Nov 5, 2019 6:42:10 GMT -5
Under normal circumstances you’d be right. But three years down the road with the lies of both sides exposed it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask people if it’s what they want, especially when a deal has been negotiated in that time, the details of which were unknown at the referendum. Personally, I'd have a vote to get it 'done with' (for lack of a better term) if I knew it would resolve the matter. But let's face it, ardent leavers (even less-ardent leavers) would have an argument that if Remain got a majority this time around, then why should this result be respected? Because people are predicting the same things that would happen (but haven't yet happened) for something which hasn't yet gone ahead? Where do you stop? Best two out of three, three out of five? Well this time you would be voting g in a deal you’d seen. The forecasts of a no deal and the government assessments that have come out over the last 12 months. That’s a lot more information, helpful information. The other thing about a confirmatory vote is that it would be legally binding, the last one was advisory:
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Nov 5, 2019 14:40:13 GMT -5
Quite odd that Noel should do an interview for Swedish TV with questions mainly about Liam & Oasis & without any mention of his latest EPs.
I remember in the last months journalists being instructed to stick to the music & not bring Liam into the conversation, with Noel being reluctant to answer questions about Oasis. What a U-turn!
I wonder if he travelled all the way to Sweden to record this talk-show or if Skavlan was flown to England as Noel & Boris' sister both live there.
|
|
|
Post by Zingbot on Nov 5, 2019 14:43:49 GMT -5
His medical history has nothing to do with it. He didn't have a hangover, Noel said he did. That's slander. If you were a lawyer, I might take you seriously.
|
|
emil
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 194
|
Post by emil on Nov 5, 2019 16:09:58 GMT -5
Quite odd that Noel should do an interview for Swedish TV with questions mainly about Liam & Oasis & without any mention of his latest EPs. I remember in the last months journalists being instructed to stick to the music & not bring Liam into the conversation, with Noel being reluctant to answer questions about Oasis. What a U-turn! I wonder if he travelled all the way to Sweden to record this talk-show or if Skavlan was flown to England as Noel & Boris' sister both live there. They shoot from London (to get bigger guests) and from Stockholm. They have also been in New York.
|
|
emil
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 194
|
Post by emil on Nov 5, 2019 16:12:07 GMT -5
The interviewer is Norwegian; Fredrik Skavlan, I seem to recall Noel has been on the show before? He is a good interviewer... I get the feeling that he and Noel might be friends? Not saying best mates or anything but you get the feeling they get along.... Yes, he's been on the show before. It's up on youtube that interview I think. I don't find him very good. The best question to Noel came from Boris Johnsons sister. I don't know when this was taped, but his researchers should have brought up the Liam interview where he said he would invite Noel to his wedding. That was pretty recent, and something that would be interesting to get Noels reaction to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 16:30:28 GMT -5
Come on, guys. Liam had health issues yet he chose to drink and smoke, behaviors he had to know were likely to be unhelpful (being generous there). Regardless of the hangover/laryngitis debate, at a minimum, he was selfish. He could’ve chosen not to drink and smoke and stay up all night in order to give him the best chance of being able to sing for the many thousands of fans who paid a shit ton of their money to see him perform, but instead he chose to be selfish. If I’m wrong, feel free to point out how and why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 16:30:54 GMT -5
The interviewer is Norwegian; Fredrik Skavlan, I seem to recall Noel has been on the show before? He is a good interviewer... I get the feeling that he and Noel might be friends? Not saying best mates or anything but you get the feeling they get along.... Yes, he's been on the show before. It's up on youtube that interview I think. I don't find him very good. The best question to Noel came from Boris Johnsons sister. I don't know when this was taped, but his researchers should have brought up the Liam interview where he said he would invite Noel to his wedding. That was pretty recent, and something that would be interesting to get Noels reaction to. Noel already said in another interview that he won't go to Liam's wedding because he wasn't invited to the previous 4 weddings.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Nov 5, 2019 17:31:40 GMT -5
Personally, I'd have a vote to get it 'done with' (for lack of a better term) if I knew it would resolve the matter. But let's face it, ardent leavers (even less-ardent leavers) would have an argument that if Remain got a majority this time around, then why should this result be respected? Because people are predicting the same things that would happen (but haven't yet happened) for something which hasn't yet gone ahead? Where do you stop? Best two out of three, three out of five? Well this time you would be voting g in a deal you’d seen. The forecasts of a no deal and the government assessments that have come out over the last 12 months. That’s a lot more information, helpful information. The other thing about a confirmatory vote is that it would be legally binding, the last one was advisory: They are forecasts. Just like the forecasts/predictions as 2016. Now, the No Deal stuff. I don't want No Deal. I don't think any sensible person does. But all the rhetoric and panic was utter bollocks. The point of putting so much money (stupidly, imo!) into potential No Deal prep was so if No Deal did happen none of the worst-case scenario stuff in Yellowhammer went ahead. There isn't really any more info. Just more and more shouting and debating from over the last three years. So no. You're saying - because you voted remain - that'd settle the matter fair and square. I'm just saying people who voted leave could have an argument (and probably a valid one) that there should then be a third vote to settle it again. And then where do you stop? It was the biggest turnout for a vote in generations. It was promised as a once in a lifetime vote. Also, Labour's policy (until today) has been utterly shite. Remember a few weeks ago when Thornberry, live on the air, said she'd 'get a great deal' and then 'campaign against it'. Aye, gives us loads of confidence, cheers. It's a mess. No side comes out of it well. If another vote goes ahead, personally I'd be happy to respect it either way. But people saying 'it was an advisory one' and coming across as frankly snobbish, which the majority of remain have done for a long time now, isn't gonna cut it for a lot of people unfortunately. Anyway, that's about it for me. Just want the whole thing done with. I personally want this Labour party to be massively overhauled and unfortunately there's no getting through to the cult. I agree with most of the policies. I just don't believe this party would actually deliver on them (they've already gone back on their Brexit stance from the 2017 manifesto) in the way they say they would. Stupid comments like 'there should be no billionaires' won't help convert people who aren't already converted. I won't and never will vote Tory. But I won't vote Labour this time, and the Lib Dems are horrid. So, since I'm in about as safe a Labour seat as you can be in (though my constituency voted overwhelmingly out) I will probably vote Yorkshire Party just so I haven't thrown away my right to vote, because heck, democracy is the most important thing isn't it.... And if you don't like it, then just have round two
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Nov 5, 2019 17:34:28 GMT -5
The interviewer is Norwegian; Fredrik Skavlan, I seem to recall Noel has been on the show before? He is a good interviewer... I get the feeling that he and Noel might be friends? Not saying best mates or anything but you get the feeling they get along.... Yes, he's been on the show before. It's up on youtube that interview I think. I don't find him very good. The best question to Noel came from Boris Johnsons sister. I don't know when this was taped, but his researchers should have brought up the Liam interview where he said he would invite Noel to his wedding. That was pretty recent, and something that would be interesting to get Noels reaction to. He was already asked on another show. Can't remember which one. His reaction was as you would expect. Personally, happy for interviewers to stay away from questions about the other one's brother when it comes to both Liam and Noel. It's better that way.
|
|