Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, RIP Ms Widdecombe, a character of politics, no 78 year old woman deserves to suffer the horrendous death she apparently suffered, I met her when she was prison minister and she was very staff orientated but also campaigned for prisoners to be treated fairly

7 hours ago, Zico said:

well I watched the video below first, all 39 minutes

then got AI to sum up what the expert says Civil War actually looks like, rather than typing it out myself

and which based on simulation, is 18.50% possible he says, so unlikely to start with

then the next two experts came on and said it was even more unlikely

I'm with them that thinks we will see more civil unrest, maybe worse then we've seen already

but I don't see civil war, based on the expert defintion, happening any time soon

are you just being dramatic and saying "war" when you really mean "unrest"?

what did you rely on to decide it will happen?

I'm guessing not expert opinion are examples of what civil war looks like both in theory and reality

if history is your measuring stick, you must be comparing this cival wars like Sudan, Syria or Yugoslavia

so go on

watch this, and tell us, in your own words - civil war, when, how, what does it look like

its GB News this, so nothing to be suspicious about

No. I won't waste my time. If you wanted to make more of your 'there's always a post' go search.

You might find that the slow descent towards what could become civil war was predicted by someone on here over a decade a go. It's an inexorable march and not necessarily only for the reasons that you and your 'thick, old leftist' friend (his words, not mine) instantly leap on. You may want to consider global over population and diminishing resources too.

This impending Civil War, if it happens within 5 years, as it seems is being suggested....will it be before or after Reform have won the next GE, and fixed all our problems?

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

This impending Civil War, if it happens within 5 years, as it seems is being suggested....will it be before or after Reform have won the next GE, and fixed all our problems?

It won't so that's the end of that.

I liked it better when we were all getting along like on the May bank holiday.

37 minutes ago, Sweep said:

This impending Civil War, if it happens within 5 years, as it seems is being suggested....will it be before or after Reform have won the next GE, and fixed all our problems?

I thought Burnham was going to fix all our problems? He’s going to be our next Prime Minister. Has no one noticed?

No one wants to talk about Labour. Again.😉

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

No. I won't waste my time. If you wanted to make more of your 'there's always a post' go search.

You might find that the slow descent towards what could become civil war was predicted by someone on here over a decade a go. It's an inexorable march and not necessarily only for the reasons that you and your 'thick, old leftist' friend (his words, not mine) instantly leap on. You may want to consider global over population and diminishing resources too.

will this civil war start before or after the Brexit benefits?

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

I thought Burnham was going to fix all our problems? He’s going to be our next Prime Minister. Has no one noticed?

No one wants to talk about Labour. Again.😉

Burnham will fix nothing, I'm not sure anybody, currently within the political system has the ability to.

2 hours ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

No it doesn't, there may be a correlation between increased screen time and watching specific content with certain health conditions, but watching news doesn't cause it.

You can take that up with the doctor.

Screen time wasn't mentioned.

Specific content- namely news- absolutely.

No mention of co-morbidities, though I would imagine that they could accentuate any effect.

I would imagine there is a potential cause by way of increased stress hormones causing slow damage to cells, via a number of biological processes.

In short, you may be right, but it was second (iirc) on the list of factors that can lead to it.

Have a watch: it made sense, and anecdotal evidence suggests too much "bad content" isn't good for you.

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

You can take that up with the doctor.

Screen time wasn't mentioned.

Specific content- namely news- absolutely.

No mention of co-morbidities, though I would imagine that they could accentuate any effect.

I would imagine there is a potential cause by way of increased stress hormones causing slow damage to cells, via a number of biological processes.

In short, you may be right, but it was second (iirc) on the list of factors that can lead to it.

Have a watch: it made sense, and anecdotal evidence suggests too much "bad content" isn't good for you.

If you are watching so much news, you are getting too much screen time, which means you are more likely leading a more sedentary lifestyle which will have far more impact on your health.

Maintaining high levels of stress and anxiety will also impact your health, so content will have a contributing factor, but then watching anything which induces those feelings would have the same correlation.

There will soon be quacks on other platforms claiming that watching to many quack videos on YouTube lead to diabetes.

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

I thought Burnham was going to fix all our problems? He’s going to be our next Prime Minister. Has no one noticed?

No one wants to talk about Labour. Again.😉

Some controversy in the house today, around the (lack of) scrutiny of the incoming man.

Dunno what the reality of the situation is, but he is masterful at directing the narrative.

May change in high office of course.

4 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

If you are watching so much news, you are getting too much screen time, which means you are more likely leading a more sedentary lifestyle which will have far more impact on your health.

Maintaining high levels of stress and anxiety will also impact your health, so content will have a contributing factor, but then watching anything which induces those feelings would have the same correlation.

There will soon be quacks on other platforms claiming that watching to many quack videos on YouTube lead to diabetes.

Once again, you are making assertions that weren't covered, nor commented on.

To much screen time etc, as you say, is bad.

He was referring specifically to news, not to other output, nor quantity.

As I said, find it, watch it and see what he says.

It makes complete sense to me, as cells need a rest from insulin exposure or they become resistant.

In much the same way science now says only eat two or three meals, and not frequent small amounts, as any event that leads to frequent blood sugar spikes leads to constant insulin exposure, and higher chance if resistance.

High blood sugar as a result of adrenaline release or food intake is still high blood sugar.

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Once again, you are making assertions that weren't covered, nor commented on.

To much screen time etc, as you say, is bad.

He was referring specifically to news, not to other output, nor quantity.

As I said, find it, watch it and see what he says.

It makes complete sense to me, as cells need a rest from insulin exposure or they become resistant.

In much the same way science now says only eat two or three meals, and not frequent small amounts, as any event that leads to frequent blood sugar spikes leads to constant insulin exposure, and higher chance if resistance.

High blood sugar as a result of adrenaline release or food intake is still high blood sugar.

So how are they getting exposure to this news?

I want to see the controlled study where this data has been taken from that these conclusions have been drawn. Or is it sensationalist nonsense to drive traffic to his page and gain clicks/views. "News causes insulin resistance" is a big bold claim. There must be clear data showing this.

Over exposure to stimuli will cause resistance, that is well known, but just watching news is not the cause, it will be a correlation based on many other factors. He has selected a correlation with watching news to create and exciting story.

The well established and documented risk factors of insulin resistance are weight, inactivity, diet and age.

7 hours ago, Zico said:

will this civil war start before or after the Brexit benefits?

I predict at half time in the 2038 World Cup final.

Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ln31g8gvo

7 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ln31g8gvo

SNP, Greens or Labour supporter? It will be one.

Hopefully banged up and loses her job. Sick fucker.

4 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

SNP, Greens or Labour supporter? It will be one.

Hopefully banged up and loses her job. Sick fucker.

I thought you lot were massively against people being arrested for internet posts?

9 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I thought you lot were massively against people being arrested for internet posts?

That's you buggered.

Me? I've lost my chance of becoming a Reform candidate (phew)

4 hours ago, Cheese said:

I thought you lot were massively against people being arrested for internet posts?

I was just about to say the same thing! 😁

.

Edited Thursday at 21:301 day by Lt. Aldo Raine

On 16/07/2026 at 16:23, bolty58 said:

SNP, Greens or Labour supporter? It will be one.

Hopefully banged up and loses her job. Sick fucker.

A strange situation this.

We have had worse on here.

Not sure it should be viewed as a crime, and there is far worse daily elsewhere that seems to go unpunished.

Public naming/humiliation should suffice- maybe a caution. Not sure it's worth the time in the courts, when they're stretched enough.

I'm not sure a uni would have the balls to sack her, and will probably have a mass protest on its hands if it did.