I mean, I also remember ‘the news’ telling the truth. The question isn’t ‘Does the news always tell the truth?’ (No), but ‘What are the actual facts in this case?’

I could just as easily say it makes most sense that it came from bats which we know carried the virus and were sold at the market. But the criteria here isn’t which of us can put together a sentence that sounds plausible and coherent, but what the people who actually study this stuff say, and they mostly believe that it’s unlikely it came from the lab (different source this time, just to be clear!).

I like a lot of Brazilian music, so I’d pick something Portuguese. ‘Tropicalia’, by Caetano Veloso, ‘Parabolicamara’ by Gilberto Gil, or ‘Tudo Que Voce Podia Ser’, by Milton Nascimento are all fantastic.

No.

This is almost definitely correct.

I do think it leaked from a lab in Wuhan, but not that it was on purpose.

This, however, is possible, but probably false. The consensus among virologists is that the virus crossed to humans at the Wuhan animal market, not the lab. As I say, it’s possible and scientists are still looking into it. We don’t know the exact mechanism by which the virus first infected humans, but the market is more likely.

There’d be a shit ton of heatwaves called Donald. Actually, we should do that: Donald, Donald Jr., Donald III…

Nigel, this is your lawyer. I’m advising you to keep saying this shit.

Lots of rumours going around but nothing confirmed yet.

I really don’t think it will be her. She’s very unpopular with the members, has no economic background and has very little treasury experience (briefly a shadow junior treasury minister, but that’s it). There are half a dozen or so choices that would be obviously better.

I’ve been gritting my teeth and staying a member of the party just to vote against him in the leadership contest. Now, it was all for nothing.

I assume it’s a done deal, but probably Chancellor, maybe Home Secretary.

Whoa.

He says he’s backing Burnham. Coronation time for the King in the North.

Yeah, I still think of it as a spread, mainly, but it has loads of applications.

I don’t have it on me right now, I’m afraid, but it’s in Melissa Thompson’s book Motherland, and possibly online somewhere!

I do this Jamaican-style peanut butter stew, which sounds mad but is delicious.

I only mentioned the 999 call as you brought it up.

Yes, and I brought it up because it’s a key piece of evidence. You seem to agree; however, it doesn’t demonstrate what you claim it does. Indeed, that’s why I brought it up - it supports my point, not yours!

Before I continue, have you watched the police footage?

I haven’t and I don’t intend to. I have read several accounts of what happens in the footage, including the judge’s description from the sentencing remarks. As long as those descriptions are accurate to what happened, it won’t effect my line of argument that I’ve not watched it.

I’ve made several 999 calls, unfortunately, both as a witness and a victim, and I’m fairly sure I mentioned the race of the individuals concerned in all of them. Ask me now what they were wearing and I don’t remember in detail: the simplest facts about them, like skin and hair colour, are what come to mind. So, no, I don’t imagine it’s unusual to focus on that. In fact, I would think that ‘a [insert skin colour here] man is attacking me’ is quite a common thing to hear on a 999 call! Those are very salient and easily memorable details, and they’re the kind of thing you can spot even in poor light conditions or when there’s a great deal of confusion.

In any case, you seem to be conflating the behaviour of the murderer and his brother, who did lie about a racist attack (but no one’s denying that), with that of the police, who you’re claiming only handcuffed Novak because of that accusation (or only handcuffed Novak because he was white, which is what you would actually need to prove in order to sustain the claim that the police were racist). But, again, there’s no reason to believe this, unless you think it is unusual for police to arrive at a scene and handcuff the person who multiple witnesses are pointing at and saying: ‘that’s the guy who attacked us’. Imagine if the racial aspect of the situation were inverted, or if all three had been the same race. Would the police have behaved differently? I find that doubtful.

Do you think it’s unusual for people to describe their attacker when they make a 999 call?

No, because the actual murderer had a witness - in fact the 999 caller - who backed him up. The police believed two witnesses over one, until it became apparent that they were lying. Race was irrelevant to that error.

That is not true. The false accusation of assault is what got him handcuffed. Unless you believe that the police don’t restrain people suspected of violence unless they’re also accused of racism, which is an absurd suggestion.

There will always be people who look at this and still say he should’ve been Prime Minister.