Skip to content

Are the SNP too wee, too poor, too stupid to fight an election? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,616
edited July 2023 in General
Are the SNP too wee, too poor, too stupid to fight an election? – politicalbetting.com

Electoral Commission figures show the SNP took £4,000 in donations in the first quarter of 2023. Both Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems registered more than £200,000. https://t.co/cqrRVK2F2o

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    Kick Australia out of the Commonwealth.

    Fucking disgrace we share a monarch with them.

    Ban them from putting the Union Jack on their flag.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    2nd ball after lunch....Stokes...6.....
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,567
    More than one thing can be true at the same time.

    Australia were unsporting not to withdraw that appeal.

    Bairstow was a muppet for allowing it to happen.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    Gets better.

    Steve Smith drops a Stokes sitter.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    Stokes appears to be trying to do it in 6's.

    DROPPPPPED....LOL.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,808
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Kick Australia out of the Commonwealth.

    Fucking disgrace we share a monarch with them.

    Ban them from putting the Union Jack on their flag.

    Isn’t it more insulting for them that their head of State is British and they have our flag on our flag. Nice reminder to them that they aren’t a real country.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,766
    I thought that counts as a catch, Glenn.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    Stokes doesn't need to try and hit every ball for 6.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,400
    On topic, I suppose they could always flog the campervan if they wanted to fund a few leaflets.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,255
    edited July 2023
    F1 on the TV, Cricket on the laptop, the iPad switching between here & a motorsport forum, and the phone for the F1 live timing. Should be a fun next couple of hours!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    Sandpit said:

    F1 on the TV, Cricket on the laptop, the iPad switching between here & a motorsport forum, and the phone for the F1 live timing. Should be a fun next couple of hours!

    Now you have jinxed it....
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,808
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Gets better.

    Steve Smith drops a Stokes sitter.

    He probably needs to find something to make his hands a bit more grippy, maybe something like sandpaper.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    I wonder if it would be better to have sent out Robinson and just told him to takes swipes and see if can get a very quick 30-40.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    edited July 2023
    Well.

    Suella Braverman’s rhetoric about child sexual abuse and grooming gangs has cost her the support of an influential Conservative backer, Steve Baker, in a sign her hardline approach to culture war issues could hamper her chances of becoming Tory leader.

    Baker, a Tory MP on the Brexiter right of the party, who is now a Northern Ireland minister, was Braverman’s de facto campaign manager when she stood to succeed Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and prime minister last summer.

    While Braverman, now the home secretary, was eliminated in the second round of MPs’ voting, her candidacy was seen as a marker for a possible future contest, one likely if the Conservatives lose the next general election.

    However, it is understood Baker has decided he would not back Braverman again because of serious concerns over the way she has approached the issue of so-called grooming gangs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/02/steve-baker-withdraws-support-for-suella-braverman-over-grooming-gangs-rhetoric-says-ally
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,360
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    I wonder if it would be better to have sent out Robinson and just told him to takes swipes and see if can get a very quick 30-40.

    On the other hand.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,360
    One handed six will do.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    Superman Stokes.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    Remember its the hope that kills you.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited July 2023
    No they are not, but the low level of donations does seem remarkable to me - with so many Indy backers even with some being a bit annoyed with the SNP at present it seems strange.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Remember its the hope that kills you.

    If Australia win by 15 runs or less it'll arguably be because of Lyon's decision to bat with a serious injury.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Trying to knock off 120 in sixes is pretty high risk, but nothing to lose I guess since the rest won't last tucking away for singles.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,808
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Remember its the hope that kills you.

    True but before play this morning I thought it would be a damp squib and over before lunch but even if we lose it’s been a blinder and sets it up nicely for the rest of a series more than if we had just failed meekly this morning.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Remember its the hope that kills you.

    If Australia win by 15 runs or less it'll arguably be because of Lyon's decision to bat with a serious injury.
    Where as England lost the first test by doing the opposite. I still can't work out the thinking, if they wanted to hurry the game along, why they didn't just say play T20 cricket, just swipe at everything, try and get 30-40-50 in a few overs.
  • JPJ2JPJ2 Posts: 380
    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,080
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Remember its the hope that kills you.

    If Australia win by 15 runs or less it'll arguably be because of Lyon's decision to bat with a serious injury.
    Where as England lost the first test by doing the opposite. I still can't work out the thinking, if they wanted to hurry the game along, why they didn't just say play T20 cricket, just swipe at everything, try and get 30-40-50 in a few overs.
    They wanted a few overs at them before the close of play. If they had picked up a couple everyone would have said how clever.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,641
    kle4 said:

    No they are not, but the low level of donations does seem remarkable to me - with so many Indy backers even with some being a bit annoyed with the SNP at present it seems strange.

    Would you hand over cash to that bunch of grifters, £660K missing , accounts a disaster with no idea how much money they received or where it went etc. People have finally understood they are at it, their goose is cooked.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    DavidL said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Andy_JS said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Remember its the hope that kills you.

    If Australia win by 15 runs or less it'll arguably be because of Lyon's decision to bat with a serious injury.
    Where as England lost the first test by doing the opposite. I still can't work out the thinking, if they wanted to hurry the game along, why they didn't just say play T20 cricket, just swipe at everything, try and get 30-40-50 in a few overs.
    They wanted a few overs at them before the close of play. If they had picked up a couple everyone would have said how clever.
    I understand that. But I think they got quite a few overs. I don't think another 3 overs of T20 would have made much difference on getting overs during that tricky period.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,635
    JPJ2 said:

    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)

    You can find information about donations online. Looks like the Scottish Parliament, some form of short money?

    https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk//?currentPage=1&rows=10&query=Scottish Liberal
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    You certainly can't get a decent Winnebago for £4k....
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,490
    @TSE
    Good article, thank you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,641
    JPJ2 said:

    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)

    Yes they are all funded from London and are basically English sockpuppet organisations, with lickspittles who are happy to take cash under false pretences.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited July 2023
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    No they are not, but the low level of donations does seem remarkable to me - with so many Indy backers even with some being a bit annoyed with the SNP at present it seems strange.

    Would you hand over cash to that bunch of grifters, £660K missing , accounts a disaster with no idea how much money they received or where it went etc. People have finally understood they are at it, their goose is cooked.
    I wouldn't, but it doesn't take many idiots to get more than £4k - people give more than that to far more direct grifters.

    That they had to rely on a 6 figure loan from their own chief executive is very telling. That is not what well run organisations do.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,490
    see also
    https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Donations?currentPage=1&rows=10&query=snp&sort=AcceptedDate&order=desc&tab=1&open=filter&et=pp&et=tp&et=perpar&et=rd&et=ppm&isIrishSourceYes=true&isIrishSourceNo=true&date=Received&from=&to=&quarters=2023Q1234&prePoll=true&postPoll=true&donorStatus=individual&donorStatus=tradeunion&donorStatus=company&donorStatus=unincorporatedassociation&donorStatus=publicfund&donorStatus=other&donorStatus=registeredpoliticalparty&donorStatus=friendlysociety&donorStatus=trust&donorStatus=limitedliabilitypartnership&donorStatus=impermissibledonor&donorStatus=na&donorStatus=unidentifiabledonor&donorStatus=buildingsociety&register=gb&register=ni&register=none&optCols=Register&optCols=CampaigningName&optCols=AccountingUnitsAsCentralParty&optCols=IsSponsorship&optCols=IsIrishSource&optCols=RegulatedDoneeType&optCols=CompanyRegistrationNumber&optCols=Postcode&optCols=NatureOfDonation&optCols=PurposeOfVisit&optCols=DonationAction&optCols=ReportedDate&optCols=IsReportedPrePoll&optCols=ReportingPeriodName&optCols=IsBequest&optCols=IsAggregation
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,046
    JPJ2 said:

    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)

    I suspect Reform has plenty of money and wealthy backers and people still give money to the Conservative Party which is an ever greater lost cause.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,635
    malcolmg said:

    JPJ2 said:

    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)

    Yes they are all funded from London and are basically English sockpuppet organisations, with lickspittles who are happy to take cash under false pretences.
    Don’t let the facts, conveniently posted just before your comment, get in the way of a good rant.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,255
    Lewis with a penalty already. He’s going to have a long day if that car won’t stay on the track.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    edited July 2023
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    More than one thing can be true at the same time.

    Australia were unsporting not to withdraw that appeal.

    Bairstow was a muppet for allowing it to happen.

    Sorry but after Broad did not walk when clearly he hit it (ashes series a few years ago) then england cannot accuse Australia of being unsporting - Broad rightly or wrongly that day set the dial to play by the strict rules and therefore that works both ways occasionally
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    edited July 2023
    Another positive thing is we're back to all 5 days of a test match being usefully employed. A year or two ago many of them were ending on the 4th day.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,438
    edited July 2023
    FPT
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Leon said:

    Where is the evidence that Sunak is “very intelligent”?

    He married the daughter of a billionaire.

    You cannot get more very intelligent than that.
    A nice British girl not good enough for him? :lol:
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    state_go_away said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    More than one thing can be true at the same time.

    Australia were unsporting not to withdraw that appeal.

    Bairstow was a muppet for allowing it to happen.

    Sorry but after Broad did not walk when clearly he hit it (ashes series a few years ago) then england cannot accuse Australia of being unsporting - Broad rightly or wrongly that day set the dial to play by the strict rules and therefore that works both ways occasionally
    Yes, that was far worse than the Bairstow incident today.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,046
    Sandpit said:

    F1 on the TV, Cricket on the laptop, the iPad switching between here & a motorsport forum, and the phone for the F1 live timing. Should be a fun next couple of hours!

    Clearly not as you've omitted the real sport this afternoon from The Curragh.

    9 go in the Irish Derby, five are trained by Aidan O'Brien and one each by his sons Joseph and Donnacha so it's a bit like the private sweepstakes of old. AUGUSTE RODIN is 3/10 to follow up from Epsom and probably wins - he has a fair bit in hand on WHITE BIRCH and SPREWELL.

    Nine means three places so one at a big price to crawl in the frame - the money has come for SAN ANTONIO from 40s to 22s but I'd have a small amount on PROUD AND REGAL at 40s - he's a full to a couple of decent stayers and I'm sure it all happened too quick in the Irish 2000 Guineas last time.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,224
    state_go_away said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    More than one thing can be true at the same time.

    Australia were unsporting not to withdraw that appeal.

    Bairstow was a muppet for allowing it to happen.

    Sorry but after Broad did not walk when clearly he hit it (ashes series a few years ago) then england cannot accuse Australia of being unsporting - Broad rightly or wrongly that day set the dial to play by the strict rules and therefore that works both ways occasionally
    Who walks when they hit but were not given out?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    Super Stokes.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    Betfair Exchange - parity.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/england-v-australia-betting-32425691
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    edited July 2023
    You could argue every time a batsman nicks the ball and calls for a review hoping that it doesn't show up on snickometer is against the spirit of cricket, but about 90% of international cricketers do it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,255
    If we win this, Stokes’ performance is up there with Botham Headingly ‘81.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,855
    Stark_Dawning said:

    state_go_away said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    More than one thing can be true at the same time.

    Australia were unsporting not to withdraw that appeal.

    Bairstow was a muppet for allowing it to happen.

    Sorry but after Broad did not walk when clearly he hit it (ashes series a few years ago) then england cannot accuse Australia of being unsporting - Broad rightly or wrongly that day set the dial to play by the strict rules and therefore that works both ways occasionally
    Who walks when they hit but were not given out?
    exactly - but who does not attempt a run out when they can?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,641
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    No they are not, but the low level of donations does seem remarkable to me - with so many Indy backers even with some being a bit annoyed with the SNP at present it seems strange.

    Would you hand over cash to that bunch of grifters, £660K missing , accounts a disaster with no idea how much money they received or where it went etc. People have finally understood they are at it, their goose is cooked.
    I wouldn't, but it doesn't take many idiots to get more than £4k - people give more than that to far more direct grifters.

    That they had to rely on a 6 figure loan from their own chief executive is very telling. That is not what well run organisations do.
    That one was debatable , the treasurer could not work the computer and it was only registered when someone publicised it. Seemingly his wife had no knowledge of it either and purely a coincidence that it matched the price of a well known campervan model.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,793
    edited July 2023
    JPJ2 said:

    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)

    It is only because of a specific let-out in the electoral legislation, inserted IIRC by the Blair or Cameron administrations, I forget which, that "Scottish Labour" can call itself that on ballot papers at all without breaching the strict rules on party naming. There is no such separate organization for EC purposes - as seen by central HQ's yanking of the chain when Ms Dugdale seemed well on the way to blow party funds on a court case. SLD and SCUP are slightly more within the spirit of the wider legislation, though.

    Edit: not at all clear to me how one can be specific about how much £££ Slab do or don't receive, in that context, as for instance stated in the header.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    I've just watched the Bairstow stumping. As a village wicketkeeper, I've done that a few times. Nowt wrong with it, it's the batman's one job to not chuck his wicket away cheaply.

    I still think he ought not to have been out.
    He clearly grounded his foot, having returned to his ground, didn’t he (?) - and looked back at it to confirm before stepping away again.

    Technically, he can be said to have started a run, and then returned to his ground ?

    30.1.2 However, a batter shall not be considered to be out of his/her ground if, in running or diving towards his/her ground and beyond, and having grounded some part of his/her person or bat beyond the popping crease, there is subsequent loss of contact between the ground and any part of his/her person or bat, or between the bat and person.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,046
    Sandpit said:

    If we win this, Stokes’ performance is up there with Botham Headingly ‘81.

    I'll have backed an 11/2 winner to clear some of my Ascot losses.

    Come along, Mr Stokes, Papa needs a new pair of everything !!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,641
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    JPJ2 said:

    A more interesting question for me is who the hell has donated £200,000 to the "Scottish" Lib Dems whose number of MSPs (4) does not even constitute an official party in Holyrood. I suppose the truth is that the "Scottish" unionist parties are primarily funded from England.

    I remind anyone who might be inclined to object to my use of inverted commas around "Scottish" that none of the 3 unionist parties are recognised as parties by the electoral commission. They are branch offices pretending to be something else (notable that none of the 3 ruling elements of these parties call themselves English Labour Party etc. etc.)

    Yes they are all funded from London and are basically English sockpuppet organisations, with lickspittles who are happy to take cash under false pretences.
    Don’t let the facts, conveniently posted just before your comment, get in the way of a good rant.
    via Russia as well in many cases. Tories just gotta grift.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,255
    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:

    If we win this, Stokes’ performance is up there with Botham Headingly ‘81.

    I'll have backed an 11/2 winner to clear some of my Ascot losses.

    Come along, Mr Stokes, Papa needs a new pair of everything !!
    The downside, is that we’ll never hear the end of it from @Leon
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    Nigelb said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    I've just watched the Bairstow stumping. As a village wicketkeeper, I've done that a few times. Nowt wrong with it, it's the batman's one job to not chuck his wicket away cheaply.

    I still think he ought not to have been out.
    He clearly grounded his foot, having returned to his ground, didn’t he (?) - and looked back at it to confirm before stepping away again.

    Technically, he can be said to have started a run, and then returned to his ground ?

    30.1.2 However, a batter shall not be considered to be out of his/her ground if, in running or diving towards his/her ground and beyond, and having grounded some part of his/her person or bat beyond the popping crease, there is subsequent loss of contact between the ground and any part of his/her person or bat, or between the bat and person.
    I think it was clever keeping, Bairstow made it easy and the umpires agreed. It'll be argued for years!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:

    If we win this, Stokes’ performance is up there with Botham Headingly ‘81.

    I'll have backed an 11/2 winner to clear some of my Ascot losses.

    Come along, Mr Stokes, Papa needs a new pair of everything !!
    The downside, is that we’ll never hear the end of it from @Leon
    A small price to pay, in these particular circumstances.
    It’s not as though we will ever hear the end of anything else from him, either.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Is Rishi Sunak on his way to Lord's yet?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,779
    edited July 2023
    If being 'intellectually dead from the neck up' disqualified people from winning at next general election, I'm afraid
    virtually our whole political class would face the chop.

    We'd end up with almost no MPs at all and tumbleweed blowing through the Chamber in 2025.
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:

    If we win this, Stokes’ performance is up there with Botham Headingly ‘81.

    I'll have backed an 11/2 winner to clear some of my Ascot losses.

    Come along, Mr Stokes, Papa needs a new pair of everything !!
    The downside, is that we’ll never hear the end of it from @Leon
    He'll claim England only won because of his attendance.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    Sandpit said:

    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:

    If we win this, Stokes’ performance is up there with Botham Headingly ‘81.

    I'll have backed an 11/2 winner to clear some of my Ascot losses.

    Come along, Mr Stokes, Papa needs a new pair of everything !!
    The downside, is that we’ll never hear the end of it from @Leon
    He'll claim England only won because of his attendance.
    Are we sure Stokes isn't an alien ;-)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    edited July 2023
    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    Nigelb said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    I've just watched the Bairstow stumping. As a village wicketkeeper, I've done that a few times. Nowt wrong with it, it's the batman's one job to not chuck his wicket away cheaply.

    I still think he ought not to have been out.
    He clearly grounded his foot, having returned to his ground, didn’t he (?) - and looked back at it to confirm before stepping away again.

    Technically, he can be said to have started a run, and then returned to his ground ?

    30.1.2 However, a batter shall not be considered to be out of his/her ground if, in running or diving towards his/her ground and beyond, and having grounded some part of his/her person or bat beyond the popping crease, there is subsequent loss of contact between the ground and any part of his/her person or bat, or between the bat and person.
    I think it was clever keeping, Bairstow made it easy and the umpires agreed. It'll be argued for years!
    It was poor umpiring, IMO, and pretty pathetic from the keeper.
    No doubt it will be argued over, but the facts look quite plain to me - unless you can point out how I’m misinterpreting the laws ?
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    Nigelb said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    Nigelb said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    I've just watched the Bairstow stumping. As a village wicketkeeper, I've done that a few times. Nowt wrong with it, it's the batman's one job to not chuck his wicket away cheaply.

    I still think he ought not to have been out.
    He clearly grounded his foot, having returned to his ground, didn’t he (?) - and looked back at it to confirm before stepping away again.

    Technically, he can be said to have started a run, and then returned to his ground ?

    30.1.2 However, a batter shall not be considered to be out of his/her ground if, in running or diving towards his/her ground and beyond, and having grounded some part of his/her person or bat beyond the popping crease, there is subsequent loss of contact between the ground and any part of his/her person or bat, or between the bat and person.
    I think it was clever keeping, Bairstow made it easy and the umpires agreed. It'll be argued for years!
    It was poor umpiring, IMO, and pretty pathetic from the keeper.
    No doubt it will be argued over, but the facts look quite plain to me - unless you can point out how I’m misinterpreting the laws ?
    I can't fault your logic or interpretation. It's what makes Test Cricket so good, so human, even with all the cameras and sensors.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    First 150+ ever made by a number 6 in the fourth innings of a test.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    Why light tanks aren’t really a thing.

    Ukrainian commander warns French tanks are inadequate for counteroffensive
    https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/02/ukrainian-commander-warns-french-tanks-are-inadequate-for-counteroffensive
    …"They are used for supporting fire, because of their light armour," he said. "Their armament is good, their observation instruments are very good. But unfortunately it's light armour, which makes them unsuitable."

    In January, French President Emmanuel Macron promised the delivery of these highly mobile reconnaissance armoured vehicles on wheels, equipped with a formidable 105mm cannon. Four months later, they were already in service on the front line, according to the Ukrainian government.

    But in this high-intensity war marked by constant heavy artillery strikes, their thin armour is proving to be a major weakness, according to Major Spartanets.

    "There have been cases where a 152mm shell has exploded nearby and the shrapnel has pierced the vehicle," noted the 34-year-old officer, who said this has already resulted in the death of the crew on one occasion.

    "A shell exploded next to the vehicle, the fragments pierced the armour and the stock of ammunition (on board) was detonated", says the Ukrainian officer. "The crew of four, unfortunately, remained inside; they were killed in the armoured vehicle."…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,255
    edited July 2023
    Will 11 runs, of a 111 partnership, be something of a record?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Spanish_general_election

    Three more Spanish polls today, one shows the race quite close with s tightening lead for the right of just 3% but the other two see healthy larger leads. With 3 weeks to the poll it could still go either way.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,695
    Can we stop talking about SNP donations as cash? That's not £4k, its 4% of their next motorhome.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    "Statement from the MCC: “After this morning’s play, emotions were running high, and words were unfortunately exchanged with some of the Australian team, by a small number of Members.

    "We have unreservedly apologised to the Australian Team and will deal with any Member who has not maintained the standard we expect through our disciplinary processes.

    "It was not necessary to eject anyone from the ground and I am pleased to say that there was no repeat of this as the players resumed the field for this afternoon.""

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/65033457
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    Bollocks.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,198
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Well.

    Suella Braverman’s rhetoric about child sexual abuse and grooming gangs has cost her the support of an influential Conservative backer, Steve Baker, in a sign her hardline approach to culture war issues could hamper her chances of becoming Tory leader.

    Baker, a Tory MP on the Brexiter right of the party, who is now a Northern Ireland minister, was Braverman’s de facto campaign manager when she stood to succeed Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and prime minister last summer.

    While Braverman, now the home secretary, was eliminated in the second round of MPs’ voting, her candidacy was seen as a marker for a possible future contest, one likely if the Conservatives lose the next general election.

    However, it is understood Baker has decided he would not back Braverman again because of serious concerns over the way she has approached the issue of so-called grooming gangs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/02/steve-baker-withdraws-support-for-suella-braverman-over-grooming-gangs-rhetoric-says-ally

    Not that Steve Baker fancies the top job himself?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    Its the hope that kills you....
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,174
    Arse
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Well.

    Suella Braverman’s rhetoric about child sexual abuse and grooming gangs has cost her the support of an influential Conservative backer, Steve Baker, in a sign her hardline approach to culture war issues could hamper her chances of becoming Tory leader.

    Baker, a Tory MP on the Brexiter right of the party, who is now a Northern Ireland minister, was Braverman’s de facto campaign manager when she stood to succeed Boris Johnson as Conservative leader and prime minister last summer.

    While Braverman, now the home secretary, was eliminated in the second round of MPs’ voting, her candidacy was seen as a marker for a possible future contest, one likely if the Conservatives lose the next general election.

    However, it is understood Baker has decided he would not back Braverman again because of serious concerns over the way she has approached the issue of so-called grooming gangs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/02/steve-baker-withdraws-support-for-suella-braverman-over-grooming-gangs-rhetoric-says-ally

    Not that Steve Baker fancies the top job himself?
    He's losing his seat whatever happens.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    Damn.
  • MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Shit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited July 2023
    Fun while it lasted. Can't say the same about this government of course.

    Broad bash to try to unsettle the Aussies?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    If he could have got it down to 40, it was on.
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    There's glory to be had by this tail end.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,255
    Feck!
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,174
    edited July 2023
    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    There's glory to be had by this tail end.

    I reckon they'll get 10 more max.
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    Flatlander said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    There's glory to be had by this tail end.

    I reckon they'll get 10 more max.
    Quite possibly, but they're under no pressure. No one expects them to do it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,025
    Flatlander said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    There's glory to be had by this tail end.

    I reckon they'll get 10 more max.
    Optimistic.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited July 2023
    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    There's glory to be had by this tail end.

    It's 3 number 11s! They can't bat in a sensible manner for 70 runs, so they need to swing, be lucky, and hope the Aussies bowl and field very poorly.

    Going at 2-3 an over wont' cut it, even though there is technically time.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,455
    That’s it, I fear!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,684
    edited July 2023
    I don't think you can play Broad, Anderson, Robinson, Tongue....that tail-end is far too long. Its 4 rabbits.

    If it had been say Ali, Woakes, Broad, Anderson. Stokes wouldn't have had to hide Ali and Woakes away from the bowling, thus the pressure would have really been Australia.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,080
    Robinson really didn't need to do that. He should have left it to Broad who has his eye in (sort of).
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    kle4 said:

    twistedfirestopper3 said:

    There's glory to be had by this tail end.

    It's 3 number 11s! They can't bat in a sensible manner for 70 runs, so they need to swing, be lucky, and hope the Aussies bowl and field very poorly.
    I was typing about hope. But Robinson just ripped the words from my mouth!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Two entertaining matches, but still going to be 2-0 - a whitewash not out of the question. Statisticians won't be able to tell it was an entertaining series.
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    kle4 said:

    Two entertaining matches, but still going to be 2-0 - a whitewash not out of the question. Statisticians won't be able to tell it was an entertaining series.

    Yup, losing is losing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    I am now running the ECB's social media accounts.


  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,070
    Been out today. Have I missed much?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    And that ends one of the greatest knocks in Tests, and not even Ben Stokes best.

    Like imagine playing that innings and it not being your best in Test cricket.

    https://twitter.com/ajarrodkimber/status/1675508640193601541
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,229
    Rats. I nearly cashed out. But held on...
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,641
    There's a lot of bat wafting going on.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,175
    tlg86 said:

    Been out today. Have I missed much?

    Same old Arsenal Aussies, always cheating.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,815
    Stokes has got more than 50% of England's runs.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Might not even make 2 runs after Stokes went - try not to make it too obvious he was carrying things today lads!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,455
    Broad’s gone now. Tongue and Anderson to get 69 between them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited July 2023
    I fear the first match will be as close as the series gets - needed to win that one to get under the Aussie's skin.

    Still, imagine the hilarity if Anderson nurdled his way to a 50 and shocked the world.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,704
    It was gone about 20 to 30 mins before Stokes got out. We had stopped scoring, and when you are not scoring that is when wickets happen.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025