Completely off topic for now just something I was thinking about.
The first weekend of the month I normally have my father, his girlfriend and my ex stepbrother round on sunday for a meal. Out of curiousity because we keep getting told eating properly is too expensive for the poor I looked at my bill for the meal especially given the cost of living rise.
Ingredients cost me 40£ This will give 4 adults a 3 course meal today and all will take home enough left overs for a main meal tomorrow. That means 5£ a head for 2 days food.
If you take out the 3 course part the cost of ingredients according to my receipt is 25£. So for 4 adults to have a decent main meal for 2 days comes to £3.12
Prep time is about half an hour for the main meal and I think if you compare £3.12 to a big mac meal (£6.09) it comes out pretty decently. The claim the poor can't afford to eat well sorry doesn't stack up
Not everyone has the skills and confidence you do in the kitchen. And people make poor decisions when stressed and overworked.
And if I may say so, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it were so easy to eat well, why do you think so many do not? Your "analysis" seems to show that food is cheap enough, so what are the reasons?
Laziness. I left home at 16 unable to cook and this preinternet as it was 1983.
Today I am serving up pomegranite and goats cheese mousse drizzled in balsamic glaze, traditional spaghetti bolognese and an orange chocolate cheesecake.
If I can teach myself to that level from scratch I think its fair to say anyone could learn to make basic meals if they can be bothered. My point is the problem for the poor is not the cost of eating decently it is the motivation to do so.
Keep going. Where has this "laziness" come from?
Simply put too many prefer to sit on their ass watching Jeremey kyle etc and tap a phone to order deliveroo. Then complain they can't afford to eat properly. How hard is it to make mashed potato, grill a few sausages and make some instant gravy......A meal that costs little compared to a big mac?
People need to help themselves a bit not just whinge that they need more money and its not their fault they don't eat healthily.
You're just restating the point. I get it. People are lazy. Why are they lazy? Were they always this way or was there... how can I put this?... some golden age when you were younger when people were better?
There was indeed, back in the mists of time if you did not work you did not eat, there was no free money for gazillions of reasons, no free rents, council tax, tax credits , and the million other stupid ideas since. They are indulged to be lazy by free money.
So would you say free money is morally corrosive? Is that where you're coming from?
Yes , if long term and not just a short term safety net.
Does it matter whether the free money is from the state, or does the same apply to rent, interest, dividends, and capital gains?
That is not "Free money", you are putting up your own earned money and risking losing it, no clue on capital gains mind you as never made any. Have paid interest, lost money renting and on shares etc where dividends rarely cover loss of capital unless you are lucky.
Only the feckless risk their own money. The true winners sit on rent and dividends from money that their ancestors "hard earned".
Still, money for nothing is a thing. Cash ISAs and savings. And even in products where your capital is at risk, you're still getting free money most of the time. If you've got enough money, you can sit there and live on the interest, which puts your idea that "if you did not work you did not eat" into the shade. Capital accumulation is a real thing, and nothing brings in the cash quite like being rich. But I guess there's a big difference between good free money and bad free money.
Few people have enough money though and only a few are left enough to live on the interest etc. We were discussing poor diet and obese burger eaters , not many of them will be people left millions by parents etc. There are also issues at the top end where people really get shedloads of free money from dubious sources including government etc. Different topic though and diametrically opposite of the discussion that was taking place, even if it encourages similar but very different topics and worse at the rich end even if at the poor end it costs us a fortune in health care etc. The two points would not in any way have the same resolution.
So the thing I don't get is why we're talking about money at all. Pagan2 pointed out that raw ingredients are cheap, so I asked where the problem truly is. "Laziness" is the reply. Where does the laziness come from is the natural question. And the answer seems to be because people get money for nothing and that's what makes them lazy.
Quite apart from the diversion (my fault, I was being provocative) into the fact that money for nothing is wider phenomenon, it still doesn't really answer the question, because a lot of poor diet is associated with people who are stressed and overworked.
So laziness doesn't even seem to be the driving force. A couple of people have chimed in with other dimensions that are worthy of consideration: preference (crisps are tastier than apples) and the effect processed food has on the feeling of being sated. I think it's even fair to say that processed food is addictive, but I haven't checked the literature on that so I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong.
So if Pagan2 is right and it's not poverty, and if I'm right that it's not laziness... what is it? Perhaps we should explore the nature of bad food itself, and whether overwork is a factor.
What underlies my view is that I don't think people really change that much one generation to the next. What does change is social and economic patterns, and new products and technologies. Work has changed. the availability of foodlike products has changed.
Find the changes that actually correlate with the problem, than construct a plausible story that links them. And if laziness if your explanation, tell me how overwork correlates with poor diet because I'm fascinated.
The only correlation with overwork is that you are knackered and it is easier to phone deliveroo , justeats or drive through McDonalds than spend time cooking. Cooking from fresh takes a lot of time with shopping, preparation , etc so it can be knackered , lack of time due to overwork , laziness or a combination of them. Modern life is everything must be instant gratification so no surprise that "I want it now" also applies to food and it's consumption. Personally I would suspect laziness is the main factor.
I'm hoping the match is over before the start of the Grand Prix at 2pm.
At least Leon is getting a few hours of cricket to view in between slips of a ice cool glass of vino. He could easily have been packing up to come home before getting through his first bottle.
If someone says that was against the spirit of the game, the problem is in that case they're saying the keeper should never be allowed to do anything about a batsman who habitually wanders out of his crease when the ball is still live. The keeper has two options in those circumstances. He can stand up to the stumps in order to stop the batsman wandering out, or he can do what Carey did. Because it isn't practical to stand up for some bowlers.
The etiquette would be to inform the umpires, Bairstow and Stokes, as captain, that if he does it again he'll run him out. Not sure if that happened. But Australia and etiquette is the problem.
I'm hoping the match is over before the start of the Grand Prix at 2pm.
At least Leon is getting a few hours of cricket to view in between slips of a ice cool glass of vino. He could easily have been packing up to come home before getting through his first bottle.
I'm hoping the match is over before the start of the Grand Prix at 2pm.
At least Leon is getting a few hours of cricket to view in between slips of a ice cool glass of vino. He could easily have been packing up to come home before getting through his first bottle.
It’s fucking brilliant
Are you that enraged bloke in the Long Room?
Incredible atmosphere. Seeing stokes get that fabulous century - after the heinous cheating - was one of the sporting moments of my life
Completely off topic for now just something I was thinking about.
The first weekend of the month I normally have my father, his girlfriend and my ex stepbrother round on sunday for a meal. Out of curiousity because we keep getting told eating properly is too expensive for the poor I looked at my bill for the meal especially given the cost of living rise.
Ingredients cost me 40£ This will give 4 adults a 3 course meal today and all will take home enough left overs for a main meal tomorrow. That means 5£ a head for 2 days food.
If you take out the 3 course part the cost of ingredients according to my receipt is 25£. So for 4 adults to have a decent main meal for 2 days comes to £3.12
Prep time is about half an hour for the main meal and I think if you compare £3.12 to a big mac meal (£6.09) it comes out pretty decently. The claim the poor can't afford to eat well sorry doesn't stack up
Not everyone has the skills and confidence you do in the kitchen. And people make poor decisions when stressed and overworked.
And if I may say so, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it were so easy to eat well, why do you think so many do not? Your "analysis" seems to show that food is cheap enough, so what are the reasons?
Laziness. I left home at 16 unable to cook and this preinternet as it was 1983.
Today I am serving up pomegranite and goats cheese mousse drizzled in balsamic glaze, traditional spaghetti bolognese and an orange chocolate cheesecake.
If I can teach myself to that level from scratch I think its fair to say anyone could learn to make basic meals if they can be bothered. My point is the problem for the poor is not the cost of eating decently it is the motivation to do so.
Keep going. Where has this "laziness" come from?
Simply put too many prefer to sit on their ass watching Jeremey kyle etc and tap a phone to order deliveroo. Then complain they can't afford to eat properly. How hard is it to make mashed potato, grill a few sausages and make some instant gravy......A meal that costs little compared to a big mac?
People need to help themselves a bit not just whinge that they need more money and its not their fault they don't eat healthily.
You're just restating the point. I get it. People are lazy. Why are they lazy? Were they always this way or was there... how can I put this?... some golden age when you were younger when people were better?
There was indeed, back in the mists of time if you did not work you did not eat, there was no free money for gazillions of reasons, no free rents, council tax, tax credits , and the million other stupid ideas since. They are indulged to be lazy by free money.
So would you say free money is morally corrosive? Is that where you're coming from?
Yes , if long term and not just a short term safety net.
Does it matter whether the free money is from the state, or does the same apply to rent, interest, dividends, and capital gains?
That is not "Free money", you are putting up your own earned money and risking losing it, no clue on capital gains mind you as never made any. Have paid interest, lost money renting and on shares etc where dividends rarely cover loss of capital unless you are lucky.
No free money isn't morally corrosive. What I was trying to get across is continually making excuses for why people act the way they do is morally corrosive.
person A :I am obese because I live on take aways and ready meals
Farooq : Thats because you can't afford to buy ingredients, you dont have time to cook, you cant cook and can't be expected to learn.....take your pick of excuses as its definitely not your fault and you can't change it
person A: thanks Farooq now I feel better its not my fault I am fat its the governments and societies....heads off to mcDonalds
Easy come easy go , if it is free it is not respected
The BBC is free and respected. The NHS is free and respected.
Only a lunatic would respect the BBC, it is merely a state mouthpiece and robs people whilst pushing out limited garbage, ie it is shit and it is NOT free. NHS is not as respected as it was and whilst still a great ideal it is abused by lots of people because they do not have to pay anything at point of service but once again is NOT free, some people pay lots for it , ie over 100 Billion a year in tax for it.
Bairstow has no one to blame but himself. I really don't think that Carey or Australia did anything wrong. They could have done things differently but they were under no obligation to do so.
But Stokes' response has been absolutely magnificent. This is box office.
Bairstow has no one to blame but himself. I really don't think that Carey or Australia did anything wrong. They could have done things differently but they were under no obligation to do so.
But Stokes' response has been absolutely magnificent. This is box office.
It acceptable in the way a Mankad is. You do it, and you should then expect the other wide to play to the rules, and only the rules, as well. Cricketers should be better than this, but then they are Aussies.
The Australians will say only fair because they were cheated last night (or something like that).
They were a bunch of crybabies about that. McGrath in particular is a joke, basically whinging that he doesn't understand the rules and that is unfair to enforce a rule he apparently has never looked up.
This is a little different, in that the rule itself is a bit more ambiguous and there is a judgement call to be made about when the ball is dead, but the call is at least understandable.
Umpires and decisions clearly correct on both. Unusual cases but sloppy cricket from Starc and Bairstow, both their own faults.
It’s not a blow to Sunak, but rather another example of our offshoring the benefits of U.K. research and development.
Free market, open investment, and zero effective industrial policy, together regularly mean we lose businesses overseas after they start up here. In a similar manner to that in which we’ve allowed much of the benefits of running privatised monopolies to go offshore.
Clearly the opposite if all this - statist policies - isn’t really the answer either. But the consensus Thatcher established has proven economically malign for much of the country. Those at the center of power have done fine out of it, so I’m not sure many of them are really even fully aware of the process - or they don’t give a damn.
That's not quite fair. The Thatcher model mandated low taxes and light regulation to attract investment. We don't do that bit - we're highly regulated and have high taxes. Combining that with an orthodox laissez faire approach to mergers and takeovers is the worst of all worlds.
The utilities clearly aren’t highly regulated. Tory MP on R4 this morning suggesting that several of the water companies have issued debt paying well over market rates - to connected companies. So they have been reducing reported profits artificially - and thus paid less U.K. tax - while remitting them overseas via debt interest payments.
If this is the case with Thames, there is an excellent opportunity (and overwhelming case) to take it down, rather than allowing it to refinance at the expense of its customers - which is what the industry is proposing.
And of course tech companies aren’t leaving because of regulation, but the massively greater availability of capital - from both the market and government - in the US.
None of which undermines the central point - if we were the best and most economical environment for business in the (at least Western) world, ..
That is a perfect illustration of 'begging the question'.
Bairstow has no one to blame but himself. I really don't think that Carey or Australia did anything wrong. They could have done things differently but they were under no obligation to do so.
But Stokes' response has been absolutely magnificent. This is box office.
It's like a Mankad, it's technically legally but I would be outraged if my team tried it.
Completely off topic for now just something I was thinking about.
The first weekend of the month I normally have my father, his girlfriend and my ex stepbrother round on sunday for a meal. Out of curiousity because we keep getting told eating properly is too expensive for the poor I looked at my bill for the meal especially given the cost of living rise.
Ingredients cost me 40£ This will give 4 adults a 3 course meal today and all will take home enough left overs for a main meal tomorrow. That means 5£ a head for 2 days food.
If you take out the 3 course part the cost of ingredients according to my receipt is 25£. So for 4 adults to have a decent main meal for 2 days comes to £3.12
Prep time is about half an hour for the main meal and I think if you compare £3.12 to a big mac meal (£6.09) it comes out pretty decently. The claim the poor can't afford to eat well sorry doesn't stack up
Not everyone has the skills and confidence you do in the kitchen. And people make poor decisions when stressed and overworked.
And if I may say so, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it were so easy to eat well, why do you think so many do not? Your "analysis" seems to show that food is cheap enough, so what are the reasons?
Laziness. I left home at 16 unable to cook and this preinternet as it was 1983.
Today I am serving up pomegranite and goats cheese mousse drizzled in balsamic glaze, traditional spaghetti bolognese and an orange chocolate cheesecake.
If I can teach myself to that level from scratch I think its fair to say anyone could learn to make basic meals if they can be bothered. My point is the problem for the poor is not the cost of eating decently it is the motivation to do so.
Keep going. Where has this "laziness" come from?
Simply put too many prefer to sit on their ass watching Jeremey kyle etc and tap a phone to order deliveroo. Then complain they can't afford to eat properly. How hard is it to make mashed potato, grill a few sausages and make some instant gravy......A meal that costs little compared to a big mac?
People need to help themselves a bit not just whinge that they need more money and its not their fault they don't eat healthily.
You're just restating the point. I get it. People are lazy. Why are they lazy? Were they always this way or was there... how can I put this?... some golden age when you were younger when people were better?
There was indeed, back in the mists of time if you did not work you did not eat, there was no free money for gazillions of reasons, no free rents, council tax, tax credits , and the million other stupid ideas since. They are indulged to be lazy by free money.
So would you say free money is morally corrosive? Is that where you're coming from?
Yes , if long term and not just a short term safety net.
Does it matter whether the free money is from the state, or does the same apply to rent, interest, dividends, and capital gains?
That is not "Free money", you are putting up your own earned money and risking losing it, no clue on capital gains mind you as never made any. Have paid interest, lost money renting and on shares etc where dividends rarely cover loss of capital unless you are lucky.
Only the feckless risk their own money. The true winners sit on rent and dividends from money that their ancestors "hard earned".
Still, money for nothing is a thing. Cash ISAs and savings. And even in products where your capital is at risk, you're still getting free money most of the time. If you've got enough money, you can sit there and live on the interest, which puts your idea that "if you did not work you did not eat" into the shade. Capital accumulation is a real thing, and nothing brings in the cash quite like being rich. But I guess there's a big difference between good free money and bad free money.
Few people have enough money though and only a few are left enough to live on the interest etc. We were discussing poor diet and obese burger eaters , not many of them will be people left millions by parents etc. There are also issues at the top end where people really get shedloads of free money from dubious sources including government etc. Different topic though and diametrically opposite of the discussion that was taking place, even if it encourages similar but very different topics and worse at the rich end even if at the poor end it costs us a fortune in health care etc. The two points would not in any way have the same resolution.
So the thing I don't get is why we're talking about money at all. Pagan2 pointed out that raw ingredients are cheap, so I asked where the problem truly is. "Laziness" is the reply. Where does the laziness come from is the natural question. And the answer seems to be because people get money for nothing and that's what makes them lazy.
Quite apart from the diversion (my fault, I was being provocative) into the fact that money for nothing is wider phenomenon, it still doesn't really answer the question, because a lot of poor diet is associated with people who are stressed and overworked.
So laziness doesn't even seem to be the driving force. A couple of people have chimed in with other dimensions that are worthy of consideration: preference (crisps are tastier than apples) and the effect processed food has on the feeling of being sated. I think it's even fair to say that processed food is addictive, but I haven't checked the literature on that so I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong.
So if Pagan2 is right and it's not poverty, and if I'm right that it's not laziness... what is it? Perhaps we should explore the nature of bad food itself, and whether overwork is a factor.
What underlies my view is that I don't think people really change that much one generation to the next. What does change is social and economic patterns, and new products and technologies. Work has changed. the availability of foodlike products has changed.
Find the changes that actually correlate with the problem, than construct a plausible story that links them. And if laziness if your explanation, tell me how overwork correlates with poor diet because I'm fascinated.
The only correlation with overwork is that you are knackered and it is easier to phone deliveroo , justeats or drive through McDonalds than spend time cooking. Cooking from fresh takes a lot of time with shopping, preparation , etc so it can be knackered , lack of time due to overwork , laziness or a combination of them. Modern life is everything must be instant gratification so no surprise that "I want it now" also applies to food and it's consumption. Personally I would suspect laziness is the main factor.
Like I said previously, I disagree that cooking from scratch is hard or time consuming (although I take on board the issue of washing up). I think people lack the knowledge, experience and confidence. However when you're *very* poor, additional. Ingredients than can make simple meals more palatable, eg stock cubes, herbs and spices are massively overpriced, especially when bought in smaller quantities sadly, bulk buying is often also beyond the reach of those in poverty.
Is cricket the only spectator sport where you can have a totally brilliant time even tho you know you’re gonna lose?
I like myself some ice hockey....if you are going to lose big, always time for drop of the gloves and 2 massive blokes knocking seven bells out of each other with all the refs can do is stand and watch pretending to be trying to convince them to stop, all while the crowd go wild.
Bairstow has no one to blame but himself. I really don't think that Carey or Australia did anything wrong. They could have done things differently but they were under no obligation to do so.
But Stokes' response has been absolutely magnificent. This is box office.
It's like a Mankad, it's technically legally but I would be outraged if my team tried it.
It's similar to what happened to Ian Bell against India several years back, but India felt uncomfortable about it and allowed Bell to continue his innings.
I notice that although I live a long way from Selby, the emails from Labour are now ignoring Uxbridge and urging me to pitch into the "marginal" of Selby. I've yet to receive a request to go to Somerton and think that the party is concentrating entirely on winning the other two.
LDs focusing on Somerton, so Labour focusing on Selby and on that Opinium poll putting them not the LDs ahead in Mid Beds will push there too if Dorries does stand down.
Uxbridge it seems Labour now taking for granted as a gain. Yet with a strong pro Rishi Hindu vote there, still a Tory held council and the Tory candidate a local councillor and the Labour candidate from Camden sounds a bit complacent
Yes, soon after I wrote that I did get a separate email urging me to help in Uxbridge. Dead slience on Somerton though.
No prizes for 2nd places and under FPTP Labour and Lib Dems should recognise who has the best chance of defeating the Tories. Luckily they seem to be doing that at the moment.
Is cricket the only spectator sport where you can have a totally brilliant time even tho you know you’re gonna lose?
You people on here who are into cricket are ridiculously and permanently pessimistic when it comes to England matches.
Ok so I know it's mainly superstition but screw that because I think we're going to win this test. Thought that yesterday, and this morning, and I still think so now.
I'm on at 7 and not even contemplating laying back.
It does say something about lack of Aussie confidence that this is the way they are seeking to win. See also sending Nathan Lyon hopping out to the middle at No. 11.
Completely off topic for now just something I was thinking about.
The first weekend of the month I normally have my father, his girlfriend and my ex stepbrother round on sunday for a meal. Out of curiousity because we keep getting told eating properly is too expensive for the poor I looked at my bill for the meal especially given the cost of living rise.
Ingredients cost me 40£ This will give 4 adults a 3 course meal today and all will take home enough left overs for a main meal tomorrow. That means 5£ a head for 2 days food.
If you take out the 3 course part the cost of ingredients according to my receipt is 25£. So for 4 adults to have a decent main meal for 2 days comes to £3.12
Prep time is about half an hour for the main meal and I think if you compare £3.12 to a big mac meal (£6.09) it comes out pretty decently. The claim the poor can't afford to eat well sorry doesn't stack up
Not everyone has the skills and confidence you do in the kitchen. And people make poor decisions when stressed and overworked.
And if I may say so, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it were so easy to eat well, why do you think so many do not? Your "analysis" seems to show that food is cheap enough, so what are the reasons?
Laziness. I left home at 16 unable to cook and this preinternet as it was 1983.
Today I am serving up pomegranite and goats cheese mousse drizzled in balsamic glaze, traditional spaghetti bolognese and an orange chocolate cheesecake.
If I can teach myself to that level from scratch I think its fair to say anyone could learn to make basic meals if they can be bothered. My point is the problem for the poor is not the cost of eating decently it is the motivation to do so.
Keep going. Where has this "laziness" come from?
Its a luxury because people aren't going hungry, so there's no "need" to learn as much as people had to in the past.
That's not such a bad thing.
A bag of apples costs less than a bag of crisps but people like crisps so choose to buy them.
Right, now we're getting somewhere. So people are driven to choices by things other than cost and effort. We also have preference on the table now, as well as the subtler point of convenience undermining the motivation to learn to do things the "hard" way. This is good work.
I'd say "Big Food" is the problem. A handful of transnational companies industrially manufacture all the edible products that supermarkets sell as food and advertise them as the perfect food for our lifestyle. It's chock full of cheap substitutes for natural ingredients that provide less nutrition than fresh cooked food and doesn't sate you as much. It's almost addictive as it hits the bliss point of salt, fat, and sweeteners to make you want more. And it's cheap, colourful and might even say the words "healthy" "low fat" "light" and "sugar free " on the labels. It's quick to prepare and eat, with little fibre in it and made to be soft so you eat quicker and want more. That's why poor people eat bad diets.
No analysis of the problem of poor diet is complete without including what you've just said. Thank you.
I think too that we cannot ignore that a lot of people lead pretty bleak lives, of relentless grind to make ends nearly meet, and simple pleasures are desired at the end of the day. Much the same reason poor people also smoke more, are more often addicts, have worse mental health, more STDs and unplanned pregnancies etc.
Working class motivation for self improvement, and upward mobility still exists as it always has, but has never been universal.
To quote Orwell :
“Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.”
On the laziness issue, I think as humans, we are genetically hard wired to be "lazy", otherwise known as conserving energy. For millennia our hunter gatherer species has lived in times of food uncertainty if not scarcity. Even when we moved to agriculture, crops could fail. We are programmed to conserve energy (I read recently that analysis of existing hunter gatherer groups shows they don't expend much more energy than those in modern societies) and also to stuff our faces in times of plenty, because until the last couple of centuries, while many would not be able to predict when the next famine/food shortage would be, we knew it would happen at some point. Stored fat would help us through it.
I can't remember his name, but I remember a professor from St Andrews university saying "that guy at the caveman campfire, the one who got up and said 'I'm just off to put in a 10K run before I sleep' - he's not the one who survived to pass on his genes!"
There are any number of great quotes saying similar things.
Robert Heinlein - “Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things.”
Agatha Christie - "I don’t think necessity is the mother of invention – invention, in my opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save oneself trouble."
My favourite seen recently (messing with JFK's great quote) but unsourced
"“We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy”
There's a Bill Gates quote along the same lines, which I've always found annoying because I've had to spend so much time making up for lazy people.
"I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."
Bairstow has no one to blame but himself. I really don't think that Carey or Australia did anything wrong. They could have done things differently but they were under no obligation to do so.
But Stokes' response has been absolutely magnificent. This is box office.
It's like a Mankad, it's technically legally but I would be outraged if my team tried it.
It's similar to what happened to Ian Bell against India several years back, but India felt uncomfortable about it and allowed Bell to continue his innings.
More sympathy with Bell as from the distance both looked like a boundary and the fielders actions looked like it was a boundary too. Bairstow just not paying any attention.
It does say something about lack of Aussie confidence that this is the way they are seeking to win. See also sending Nathan Lyon hopping out to the middle at No. 11.
Some good news for Rishi, Nigel Farage considering emigrating after he is denied a UK bank account. '"I've been considering over the course of the day, my options, I've spent time talking to lawyers, I've been considering legal action. I've been asking myself whether frankly, it's even worth staying in this country," he said." https://www.euronews.com/2023/06/30/brexit-leader-nigel-farage-considering-leaving-britain Perhaps a pad in Florida, near Mar a Lago?
The only time I ever saw Farage in person was when I walked past him, with his minder in tow, outside Coutts on The Strand. I thought he was heading in there. Often thought it wouldn't do much for his man-of-the-people image if that was indeed where he banked.
Is cricket the only spectator sport where you can have a totally brilliant time even tho you know you’re gonna lose?
You people on here who are into cricket are ridiculously and permanently pessimistic when it comes to England matches.
Ok so I know it's mainly superstition but screw that because I think we're going to win this test. Thought that yesterday, and this morning, and I still think so now.
I'm on at 7 and not even contemplating laying back.
#oneall
I'm pretty much always optimistic when it comes to England at cricket, and pessimistic at football. I'm optimistic now. I expect England to win.Rationally I recognise even from here you'd only expect England to win one time in 10. But in my head I expect this to be that one time.
As a fellow Yorshireman, I'm entitled to say Bairstow is a dozy fucker. He'd been wandering like that before, and Carey had noticed. We'd do the same if it were Steve Smith - though Bairstow would be too dozy to notice.
Crucially, Carey didn't wait until Bairstow wandered - he threw the ball straight away, so it was all part of the delivery. Fair cop, I reckon.
Maybe it's Sunak's Falklands moment - war with Australia?
It does say something about lack of Aussie confidence that this is the way they are seeking to win. See also sending Nathan Lyon hopping out to the middle at No. 11.
Those 15 runs could be crucial.
They could. And just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with playing a crocked batsman, in law or in spirit. But it shows a certain lack of confidence.
A thought on that so called polling at Mid Beds. Is this for real or just an interpretation of the company's latest NATIONAL poll. All the evidence suggests that if anyone was going to win the seat in a By Election it is the Lib Dems, they are after all 8-15 on at the bookies whilst Labour are way outsiders. Seems a piece of nonsense by the Telegraph, only logic I can think of is they are trying to scare Conservatives voters there that Labour could win, which they seemingly cannot. In any case there does not seem any liklihood of a by election before the end of the year and then probably only if Nadine is suspended for more than 10 days.
Comments
@Leon's had his money's worth already.
Cooking from fresh takes a lot of time with shopping, preparation , etc so it can be knackered , lack of time due to overwork , laziness or a combination of them.
Modern life is everything must be instant gratification so no surprise that "I want it now" also applies to food and it's consumption. Personally I would suspect laziness is the main factor.
Not sure if that happened.
But Australia and etiquette is the problem.
https://twitter.com/ThatsSoVillage/status/1675459044948017152?s=20
https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/1675479388433838082?s=20
Cheating #######.
...
...
...
Stop Oil Protesters
Australian cricketers
But Stokes' response has been absolutely magnificent. This is box office.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/jun/26/englandvnewzealand2008.englandcricketteam
The stump mic has picked up some of what Stuart Broad was saying once he got out to the middle.
To Alex Carey: "That's all you'll ever be remembered for that."
To Pat Cummins: "That's the worst thing I've ever seen in cricket."
Ok so I know it's mainly superstition but screw that because I think we're going to win this test. Thought that yesterday, and this morning, and I still think so now.
I'm on at 7 and not even contemplating laying back.
#oneall
"I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."
https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-claims-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-without-explanation-12912144
I'm optimistic now. I expect England to win.Rationally I recognise even from here you'd only expect England to win one time in 10. But in my head I expect this to be that one time.
Crucially, Carey didn't wait until Bairstow wandered - he threw the ball straight away, so it was all part of the delivery. Fair cop, I reckon.
Maybe it's Sunak's Falklands moment - war with Australia?
NEW THREAD
Is this for real or just an interpretation of the company's latest NATIONAL poll.
All the evidence suggests that if anyone was going to win the seat in a By Election it is the Lib Dems, they are after all 8-15 on at the bookies whilst Labour are way outsiders.
Seems a piece of nonsense by the Telegraph, only logic I can think of is they are trying to scare Conservatives voters there that Labour could win, which they seemingly cannot.
In any case there does not seem any liklihood of a by election before the end of the year and then probably only if Nadine is suspended for more than 10 days.