don't read this.

Craig Gordon, Hearts legend ❤️

This is a list of English strikers who will be below the age of 30 at the Euros with at least one appearance in a top 5 league this season: Liam Delap Eddie Nketiah Dane Scarlett That’s it.

after studying a little sociology, if given the leverage, the elite would gate keep wealth and power with what leverage? in the past, they were vulnerable to riots, they were vulnerable to unions of specialized labor that was necessary, soon, they wont be scared of anything

🚨 NEW: Keir Starmer says Scotland and Wales fans should come together to support England against Argentina tomorrow "I would very much encourage unity"

Important detail in the new National Security Act. I see the government is to designate the IRGC as an organisation under the new National Security (State Threats) Act 2026. The designation notice has not yet been published but will be shortly. They are not proscribing the IRGC as a "terrorist" group. Instead in the new legislation they are using language similar to that found in the Terrorism Act 2000. Here is (S17a) of the new legislation (1) A person commits an offence if the person— (a)invites support for, or expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of, a designated body, and (b)does so for a prohibited purpose. This contrasts with the Terrorism Act 2000 which said: A person commits an offence if— (a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation. This was extended by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 by adding the following language: 1A)A person commits an offence if the person— (a)expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. The "supportive" language was added because it was so difficult to gain successful convictions with the tighter language. Thus we see this opaque and frankly risible "supportive". How is that defined? Take the statement "The IRGC was successful in hitting all of its targets last night." Is that "supportive" even if true? Note also that there also provisions in 17(b) on "assisting" a designated body. This included: Conduct that may be likely to materially assist a designated body includes providing, or providing access to, information, goods, services or financial benefits (whether directly or indirectly). And in 19(c) on "Obtaining etc material benefits from a designated body", there is the following language, which on the face of it is the most worrying: (2)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person agrees to accept— (i)a material benefit and: (3)Material benefits may include financial benefits, anything which has the potential to result in a financial benefit, and information. The inclusion of information here is the critical thing. Reporting a statement by a designated body could fall foul of this, regardless if it was true or false. There are, however, two defences worth noting. In relation to information : "it is a defence to show that the person had a reasonable excuse for that conduct." One would imagine that journalism is a reasonable excuse, but let us see. A second defence is that: (4)A material benefit is an excluded benefit if— (a)it is provided as reasonable consideration for the provision of goods or services, and (b)the provision of those goods or services does not constitute an offence. So, presumably, providing goods and services to the designated body is not forbidden? There are other defences available but these are to my mind the most important. [Links to legislation in replies]