I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.
It is NOT a conflict of interest to have a spouse with their own opinions, and I'm afraid people misunderstand what a conflict is.
If I were to guess, the Judge's husband probably has a negative opinion of of Arron Banks. He's a controversial public figure - lots of people have positive or negative views about him. Carol Cadwalladr is also a fairly controversial public figure, and the same applies.
Because the Judge's husband has stood for election, his views are probably easier to guess than others'. But they aren't necessarily stronger than others'. And they are opinions rather than an interest.
This is a case where allegations were made by a journalist about a public figure's relationship with the Russian state. The judge's job was to establish the facts as best she could, and apply libel law to that. There's absolutely no reason why she couldn't do that.
Had she found for Banks, and had her husband been indelicate enough to raise it over dinner as Paul Staines implies, she'd simply have told him that, whether you like Banks or not, he was libelled without a lawful defence. It's frankly extraordinary that Paul Staines feels that someone who'd risen to the status of a High Court judge would have any difficulty at all in batting away a spouse's enquiry over the spag bol.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.
It is NOT a conflict of interest to have a spouse with their own opinions, and I'm afraid people misunderstand what a conflict is.
If I were to guess, the Judge's husband probably has a negative opinion of of Arron Banks. He's a controversial public figure - lots of people have positive or negative views about him. Carol Cadwalladr is also a fairly controversial public figure, and the same applies.
Because the Judge's husband has stood for election, his views are probably easier to guess than others'. But they aren't necessarily stronger than others'. And they are opinions rather than an interest.
This is a case where allegations were made by a journalist about a public figure's relationship with the Russian state. The judge's job was to establish the facts as best she could, and apply libel law to that. There's absolutely no reason why she couldn't do that.
Had she found for Banks, and had her husband been indelicate enough to raise it over dinner as Paul Staines implies, she'd simply have told him that, whether you like Banks or not, he was libelled without a lawful defence. It's frankly extraordinary that Paul Staines feels that someone who'd risen to the status of a High Court judge would have any difficulty at all in batting away a spouse's enquiry over the spag bol.
It's almost as if you were suggesting that he had an agenda of his own.
I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.
It is NOT a conflict of interest to have a spouse with their own opinions, and I'm afraid people misunderstand what a conflict is.
If I were to guess, the Judge's husband probably has a negative opinion of of Arron Banks. He's a controversial public figure - lots of people have positive or negative views about him. Carol Cadwalladr is also a fairly controversial public figure, and the same applies.
Because the Judge's husband has stood for election, his views are probably easier to guess than others'. But they aren't necessarily stronger than others'. And they are opinions rather than an interest.
This is a case where allegations were made by a journalist about a public figure's relationship with the Russian state. The judge's job was to establish the facts as best she could, and apply libel law to that. There's absolutely no reason why she couldn't do that.
Had she found for Banks, and had her husband been indelicate enough to raise it over dinner as Paul Staines implies, she'd simply have told him that, whether you like Banks or not, he was libelled without a lawful defence. It's frankly extraordinary that Paul Staines feels that someone who'd risen to the status of a High Court judge would have any difficulty at all in batting away a spouse's enquiry over the spag bol.
It's almost as if you were suggesting that he had an agenda of his own.
Shouldn't Staines be rooting for the journo?
He could be next. Someone sues him personally and not his website.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Their NFL coverage is decent and the darts coverage in line with PDC crowds. But, yeah, an awful lot of the rest is sorely lacking.
58 needed from 29, required run rate down to 2.0 per over.
I know it's PB tradition to always downplay England's chances in the cricket but I did think they were a good bet earlier.
I thought the win was a possibility. But I thought it would be eighth/ninth wicket, at about half past six. The hour-and-a-bit since tea has been one of the most remarkable bits of sport by England in any sport.
Apart from today’s Sagan victory in the Tour de Suisse, I’m fascinated by a Dutch series attempting to uncover if items in museum collections are genuine or fake. Respect to the curators that dare pose such a dangerous question! What percentage of items in, for example, the British Museum are fake? 0,5%? 5%? 50%?
I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.
It is NOT a conflict of interest to have a spouse with their own opinions, and I'm afraid people misunderstand what a conflict is.
If I were to guess, the Judge's husband probably has a negative opinion of of Arron Banks. He's a controversial public figure - lots of people have positive or negative views about him. Carol Cadwalladr is also a fairly controversial public figure, and the same applies.
Because the Judge's husband has stood for election, his views are probably easier to guess than others'. But they aren't necessarily stronger than others'. And they are opinions rather than an interest.
This is a case where allegations were made by a journalist about a public figure's relationship with the Russian state. The judge's job was to establish the facts as best she could, and apply libel law to that. There's absolutely no reason why she couldn't do that.
Had she found for Banks, and had her husband been indelicate enough to raise it over dinner as Paul Staines implies, she'd simply have told him that, whether you like Banks or not, he was libelled without a lawful defence. It's frankly extraordinary that Paul Staines feels that someone who'd risen to the status of a High Court judge would have any difficulty at all in batting away a spouse's enquiry over the spag bol.
It's almost as if you were suggesting that he had an agenda of his own.
Shouldn't Staines be rooting for the journo?
He could be next. Someone sues him personally and not his website.
If he were to be sued, I'd be surprised if he dropped defence of truth.
McCullum: "Look, when I said that if this was a one day match, you'd back yourselves to chase down that 299 in fifty overs nine times out of ten... I didn't mean that you literally had to do it in fifty ov... actually, never mind. Whatever works."
58 needed from 29, required run rate down to 2.0 per over.
I know it's PB tradition to always downplay England's chances in the cricket but I did think they were a good bet earlier.
I thought the win was a possibility. But I thought it would be eighth/ninth wicket, at about half past six. The hour-and-a-bit since tea has been one of the most remarkable bits of sport by England in any sport.
To think back to the winter with the Ashes tour and the tour of the Windies and apart from Root England couldn't bat to save their lives.
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Fair enough, I'll put you in the thinks it's a good thing column.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Fair enough, I'll put you in the thinks it's a good thing column.
Do you think those taking part actually want murder catholic women, or be up to their knees in blood? And if it’s so bad why isn’t it banned?
Got to say, what a phenomenal day's cricket. And a superb Test overall. I was picking my daughter up from uni in Nottingham today so drove past Trent Bridge twice and the place was absolutely rocking.
58 needed from 29, required run rate down to 2.0 per over.
I know it's PB tradition to always downplay England's chances in the cricket but I did think they were a good bet earlier.
I thought the win was a possibility. But I thought it would be eighth/ninth wicket, at about half past six. The hour-and-a-bit since tea has been one of the most remarkable bits of sport by England in any sport.
Ah so I think if it had got tight we'd have zipped up and gone for the draw and probably lost.
Sounds great anyway, betting win aside. I'll be watching the highlights show.
I'm tempted to say that they could have chosen a better judge to preside over the Banks v Cadwalladr case, but then I suspect many judges would have such conflicts of interest.
It is NOT a conflict of interest to have a spouse with their own opinions, and I'm afraid people misunderstand what a conflict is.
If I were to guess, the Judge's husband probably has a negative opinion of of Arron Banks. He's a controversial public figure - lots of people have positive or negative views about him. Carol Cadwalladr is also a fairly controversial public figure, and the same applies.
Because the Judge's husband has stood for election, his views are probably easier to guess than others'. But they aren't necessarily stronger than others'. And they are opinions rather than an interest.
This is a case where allegations were made by a journalist about a public figure's relationship with the Russian state. The judge's job was to establish the facts as best she could, and apply libel law to that. There's absolutely no reason why she couldn't do that.
Had she found for Banks, and had her husband been indelicate enough to raise it over dinner as Paul Staines implies, she'd simply have told him that, whether you like Banks or not, he was libelled without a lawful defence. It's frankly extraordinary that Paul Staines feels that someone who'd risen to the status of a High Court judge would have any difficulty at all in batting away a spouse's enquiry over the spag bol.
It's almost as if you were suggesting that he had an agenda of his own.
Shouldn't Staines be rooting for the journo?
He could be next. Someone sues him personally and not his website.
If he were to be sued, I'd be surprised if he dropped defence of truth.
It’s up to the claimant wether to sue the author or publisher.
Whoever it is though, Guardianista or Staines, there’s filthy rich backers who will pay the million pound damages for them, makes it meaningless really.
It was different for Banks, stories spread about of his closeness to the Putin operation makes him out to be some sort of third rate oligarch, and they are not popular in world right now, so what the two judges have given him it was right for him to go and try to get imo.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Fair enough, I'll put you in the thinks it's a good thing column.
Do you think those taking part actually want murder catholic women, or be up to their knees in blood? And if it’s so bad why isn’t it banned?
You are meant to make some sort of stab at pretending to moral autonomy, you know. Were you ok with marital rape up to 1992? And would you be happy with chants about Let's kill all the Jews, if the chanters didn't really mean it?
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Had to have the radio on with tv sound off. The classic combo.
What a load of garbage about Sky being bad coverage. Superb coverage of this Test from start to finish. TMS is also great but they are different formats and both have a huge part to play.
Brazil 5/1 France 13/2 England 13/2 Castile & satellite states 8/1 Argentina 9/1 Germany 11/1 Portugal 14/1 Netherlands 14/1 Flanders & Wallonia 16/1 Denmark 33/1 60 bar
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Fair enough, I'll put you in the thinks it's a good thing column.
Do you think those taking part actually want murder catholic women, or be up to their knees in blood? And if it’s so bad why isn’t it banned?
You are meant to make some sort of stab at pretending to moral autonomy, you know. Were you ok with marital rape up to 1992? And would you be happy with chants about Let's kill all the Jews, if the chanters didn't really mean it?
Ok, fair point. So let’s ban it as hate speech. Happy?
What a load of garbage about Sky being bad coverage. Superb coverage of this Test from start to finish. TMS is also great but they are different formats and both have a huge part to play.
Sky does well but I will b3 honest, the sound of the crowd on TMS was something else, and it was much more muted on TV.
What a load of garbage about Sky being bad coverage. Superb coverage of this Test from start to finish. TMS is also great but they are different formats and both have a huge part to play.
In my opinion its got stale. They go through the motions of a perfectly acceptable production, but are lacking innovation e.g when CH4 got the cricket 20 years ago we got snicko, hotspot and of course Hawkeye. Sky, we have the massively flawed Winviz and that's about it.
The game has changed, their coverage hasn't really changed. There are loads of opportunities especially in T20 / Hundred to innovate with really interesting insight. They are still talking about strike rate and if you score 6 an over from here. No T20 analyst things about the game that way.
Brazil 5/1 France 13/2 England 13/2 Castile & satellite states 8/1 Argentina 9/1 Germany 11/1 Portugal 14/1 Netherlands 14/1 Flanders & Wallonia 16/1 Denmark 33/1 60 bar
Castile & satellite states 🤣
Brothers in arms with Catalonia our Scots Nats.
GB and NI at the Olympics seem to have set a trend.
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Fair enough, I'll put you in the thinks it's a good thing column.
Do you think those taking part actually want murder catholic women, or be up to their knees in blood? And if it’s so bad why isn’t it banned?
It's been tried, but obstructed by pols sooking up to the sectarian vote and useful idiots bleating about culture, tradition and heritage.
You can make your own mind up on the motives of the folk singers.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
What about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.
You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental
True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown
It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented
BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet
You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:
@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022
The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner
@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes
Agreed?
Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.
Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.
But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...
Tired of migrants arriving from Africa, the E.U. has created a shadow immigration system that captures them before they reach its shores, and sends them to brutal Libyan detention centers run by militias.
Expenditure is tens to hundreds of millions.
The camps have recently closed, so the numbers this year can be expected to readjust:
Do I have an easy answer - probably not. Does anyone else?
I was just pointing out that Penfold's statement was incorrect.
FWIW, the weekly numbers are currently tracking down year-over-year, so if the end of this deal with the militias is having a negative effective on migrants we've not seen it yet.
Not aimed at you - just pointing out the reasons why they may have fallen.
If I need a *headdesk* moment, I'll start speculating as to why the Scottish Government paper uses GDP data from 2020 - when the UK economy had fallen faster than elsewhere - rather than 2021, when it had recovered more rapidly than elesewhere, in their so-called 'analysis'.
Or look at the selection of countries they have chosen to compare Scotland with this time round, and the ones they have left out, and wonder why there is not actually very much data about Scotland itself .
Because there is no data as London cannot allow the reality to be seen. They have to lie and say we are beggars. Any dumb schmuck should know that.
What a load of garbage about Sky being bad coverage. Superb coverage of this Test from start to finish. TMS is also great but they are different formats and both have a huge part to play.
In my opinion its got stale. They go through the motions of a perfectly acceptable production, but are lacking innovation e.g when CH4 got the cricket 20 years ago we got snicko, hotspot and of course Hawkeye. Sky, we have the massively flawed Winviz and that's about it.
The game has changed, their coverage hasn't really changed. There are loads of opportunities especially in T20 / Hundred to innovate with really interesting insight. They are still talking about strike rate and if you score 6 an over from here. No T20 analyst things about the game that way.
What's wrong with looking at the run rate needed to win? That's surely a relevant stat to work into your punditry.
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Hahaha. What a load of absolute tripe. The BBC commentators have probably forgotten more than the Sky team ever knew. Nothing comes close to TMS coverage. Period.
UNS would see 3 holds xand 37 losses. VI in line with Redfields national swing too, a shade better for both Lab and Con if anything (40 to 33 on same swing nationally) but only a shade
You think televising marches by an organisation that forbids membership by Catholics and loves a good folk tune about being up to their knees in Fenian blood or murdered Catholic women is a good thing?
Cultural tradition and heritage. If it’s that bad why is it legal?
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Hahaha. What a load of absolute tripe. The BBC commentators have probably forgotten more than the Sky team ever knew. Nothing comes close to TMS coverage. Period.
They probably have, but the problem is the modern game is very different to when players like Botham or Tuffers were playing.
What % of the Red Wall fairly or significantly trusts (the Conservatives | Labour) to deliver on:
National Security (43% | 41%) The NHS (33% | 50%) Taxation (30% | 40%) Housing (29% | 46%) Levelling Up (26% | 43%)
Those are terrible numbers for any party looking to hold these seats
Given the pretty recent legacy of Corbyn it's remarkable that Labour are only 2% behind on national security. Even more so during a period of conflict in Ukraine where the UK has generally done a good job. It just shows how much damage the Tories have done to themselves across the board.
Far more important the Scots are finally getting their act together. If the Eu have given a provisional nod to Ukraine that their request to join Scotland (and Northern Ireland) must be a shoo-in.
Circumstances have never been better. The UK economy is going pear shaped Johnson is less popular than Thatcher and the Ruanda policy is sucking Scotland into something reputationally so damaging it'll take years to recover from.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Hahaha. What a load of absolute tripe. The BBC commentators have probably forgotten more than the Sky team ever knew. Nothing comes close to TMS coverage. Period.
They probably have, but the problem is the modern game is very different to when players like Botham or Tuffers were playing.
Test cricket hasn’t changed that much. I think @FrancisUrquhart is right about T20 coverage, and that won’t change until they get more recent, or active players much more involved in coverage.
Cricket sounds so sedate on sky, but RAUCOUS on TMS.
Sky don't really appear to much care about sport.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it. I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
Sky's coverage of sport is becoming very stale and outdated, including football.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
The Test Match Special coverage on the BBC has been absolutely spot on. Great to listen to.
Depends...do you want informed analysis or "entertainment". Its not informed analysis, its morons, totally clueless about modern cricket.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Hahaha. What a load of absolute tripe. The BBC commentators have probably forgotten more than the Sky team ever knew. Nothing comes close to TMS coverage. Period.
They probably have, but the problem is the modern game is very different to when players like Botham or Tuffers were playing.
Test cricket hasn’t changed that much. I think @FrancisUrquhart is right about T20 coverage, and that won’t change until they get more recent, or active players much more involved in coverage.
Test cricket hasn't?
That hour after tea would have happened in Boycott's day would it?
Test cricket absolutely has evolved thanks to the developments in the very short game.
Comments
Going to be over soon.
And all free for the lucky sods at Trent B.
If I were to guess, the Judge's husband probably has a negative opinion of of Arron Banks. He's a controversial public figure - lots of people have positive or negative views about him. Carol Cadwalladr is also a fairly controversial public figure, and the same applies.
Because the Judge's husband has stood for election, his views are probably easier to guess than others'. But they aren't necessarily stronger than others'. And they are opinions rather than an interest.
This is a case where allegations were made by a journalist about a public figure's relationship with the Russian state. The judge's job was to establish the facts as best she could, and apply libel law to that. There's absolutely no reason why she couldn't do that.
Had she found for Banks, and had her husband been indelicate enough to raise it over dinner as Paul Staines implies, she'd simply have told him that, whether you like Banks or not, he was libelled without a lawful defence. It's frankly extraordinary that Paul Staines feels that someone who'd risen to the status of a High Court judge would have any difficulty at all in batting away a spouse's enquiry over the spag bol.
Not.
I know this is a ridiculous statement. I know sport is their raison d'etre. But - unless its football - they just don't seem that excited about it.
I remember the first time Sky had the Ryder Cup coverage, and what, on the BBC, had always seemed one of the most fun-packed and eventful sporting events of the year was presented with all the enthusiasm of a traffic count.
https://www.growbyginkgo.com/2022/06/13/strange-loops-in-mirror-world/
He could be next. Someone sues him personally and not his website.
Wow!
The hour-and-a-bit since tea has been one of the most remarkable bits of sport by England in any sport.
Apart from today’s Sagan victory in the Tour de Suisse, I’m fascinated by a Dutch series attempting to uncover if items in museum collections are genuine or fake. Respect to the curators that dare pose such a dangerous question! What percentage of items in, for example, the British Museum are fake? 0,5%? 5%? 50%?
A question worth asking.
How many hours of prime time are they giving over to this visual feast?
McCullum: "Look, when I said that if this was a one day match, you'd back yourselves to chase down that 299 in fifty overs nine times out of ten... I didn't mean that you literally had to do it in fifty ov... actually, never mind. Whatever works."
What a turnaround.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283122.html
Unbelievable cricket.
Not bad.
One thing that is good on Sky's coverage of T20, they actually get current T20 elite players in the commentary box, rather than bloody Vaughan, Tuffers, etc who are absolutely f##king clueless about T20. Sadiq Mahmood the other night was really interesting basically putting the established commentators right about things like no you don't run a single there.
He wouldn't be allowed to be a member.
Sounds great anyway, betting win aside. I'll be watching the highlights show.
Whoever it is though, Guardianista or Staines, there’s filthy rich backers who will pay the million pound damages for them, makes it meaningless really.
It was different for Banks, stories spread about of his closeness to the Putin operation makes him out to be some sort of third rate oligarch, and they are not popular in world right now, so what the two judges have given him it was right for him to go and try to get imo.
Sky to their credit have realised they had too many who were clueless about modern cricket and shuffled them off (Botham, Holding, Bumble), replacing them generally with much more informed individuals.
Sorry I missed that.
Brothers in arms with Catalonia our Scots Nats.
The game has changed, their coverage hasn't really changed. There are loads of opportunities especially in T20 / Hundred to innovate with really interesting insight. They are still talking about strike rate and if you score 6 an over from here. No T20 analyst things about the game that way.
You can make your own mind up on the motives of the folk singers.
https://twitter.com/Mully1892/status/1532469239587692544?s=20&t=7Na0ZWVpMtdbNHDosdKYcA
[img]https://i.imgur.com/9MMHCMy.jpg[/img] https://imgur.com/9MMHCMy
..
https://pressgazette.co.uk/gb-news-audience-growth-2022/
@bigjohnowls please explain?
Boris Johnson 37% (+2)
Keir Starmer 37% (+1)
Don't know 25% (-3)
Changes +/- 6 June.
..
I still can’t get imgur pasting here since their upgrade 😫
Free Pic of Tory Leader favourite in her swim wear to anyone who gives me a solution 😋
Approve 30% (+2)
Disapprove 33% (-2)
Net -3% (+4)
Changes +/- 6 June
I thought he was hated
Approve 32% (+2)
Disapprove 50% (+1)
Net -18% (+1)
Changes +/- 6 June
What % of the Red Wall fairly or significantly trusts (the Conservatives | Labour) to deliver on:
National Security (43% | 41%)
The NHS (33% | 50%)
Taxation (30% | 40%)
Housing (29% | 46%)
Levelling Up (26% | 43%)
Those are terrible numbers for any party looking to hold these seats
Circumstances have never been better. The UK economy is going pear shaped Johnson is less popular than Thatcher and the Ruanda policy is sucking Scotland into something reputationally so damaging it'll take years to recover from.
Just do it. This time there is no downside.
Aaaaaaaaand back to UFOs. One for @moonshine
Whatever you think of Tim Peake, British astronaut, he is not mad. This is quite something
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1536243721490075648?s=20&t=XGBEQxeKlUT4xml0_hT6oQ
Is he also in this American group-think paranoia-fest?
WTF is going on?
That hour after tea would have happened in Boycott's day would it?
Test cricket absolutely has evolved thanks to the developments in the very short game.