Search results

….good?

Why are people taking regular courses of injections if they don’t want to change their lifestyle or improve their health?

I don’t think people should be given drugs that they don’t want to take, or that will have no positive impact on their health. (That goes for all drugs doesn’t it?) But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

You can do all of this as well (and should!) but it won’t stop people from developing obesity-related medical problems that will cost us money to deal with, and if you have a medication that can help with that, why not use it?

I’m not a doctor but I would expect any doctor to only prescribe medication that had been rigorously tested and wouldn’t jeopardise someone’s health further by using it. Clearly in many cases Ozempic etc would fit the bill. It’s all well and good saying that people should just work harder and...

Does it not take discipline to administer a regular course of medication? If it nets out as a cost-effective way for the NHS to mitigate the costs of dealing with obesity-related health issues then of course the state should pay for it imo.

Reminds me of that famous Emmeline Pankhurst quote, “It’s a fair cop guv, maybe we should all spend more time worrying about ourselves a bit?”

I thought there were widespread calls to shut down pro-Palestine demonstrations on the grounds that there were terrorist elements to the marches, weren’t there?

And so there’s no mechanism by which anyone can disagree with the government on who counts as a terror group?

Surely this is hyperbole? The fact this crash happened so soon after takeoff suggests to me that the pilot suicide theory may not be all that likely.

So we’re not allowed to ever ask similar questions if a government decides something’s a terror group? Strikes me as a very obedient way to live. How come all your legal curiosity has just melted away here?

Well to use your favourite rhetorical device, when a woman was sent to prison for racist hate crimes you were up in arms about it for months (still are, probably). But all of a sudden it’s now “really simple” and if the government says so, that’s how it goes right?

This is a pretty stunning level of obedience for someone who I thought liked to question the way the law was applied. Whatever happened to two-tier Kier?

What reason is there for you to lump this group in the same basket as ISIS, other than the fact that the government has told you to do so? Or do you genuinely believe they should be treated the same?

The sheer levels of restraint here to not mention Dear Tommy! Apropos of nothing, how should the government respond if a supporter of this group were to murder a member of parliament while shouting “Palestine Action”?

So what? Do you blindly go along with every consensus position held by Starmer, Macron etc?

Why are you hiding behind the likes of Starmer on this one? Are you afraid to share your own opinion?

Not that it ever will be me, but if I was hosting the Israeli ambassador and they told me that a documentary was “top of mind” for them in this current climate then I doubt I’d be grinning so widely in the smiley photo shoot afterwards.

I’m personally surprised that with everything going on, they found the time to discuss - much less release a statement on - the BBC’s coverage of the third biggest stage at Glastonbury.

Happy anniversary! 🥳