Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
Buckfast Powersmash is one of those drinks so awful that it's good. Was in the tattier of the village shops when a guy was in buying a few bottles. And looked like he is a regular drinker of the stuff.
Was then amazed to see a Buckie trade stand at a food expo a few months back. They were pushing the "made by monks" line really hard and getting "ooh that's interesting" responses from trade buyers. FFS no, you really don't need Buckfast punters in your shop. Its like being a proud seller of Lambrini and McEwan's Export.
Buckie punters are actually *upmarket* by the standards of your average jaikie on Union Street or the Sautmarket. Before the alcohol pricing controls came in in particular, you could get smashed far more cheaply on other stuff, and I believe the differential is still there even now if not so marked. (Sudden thought: does the origin of Buckie correlate with its sales in Glasgow to different football club supporters? Never heard of such a thing, though.)
Hard to see how anyone can drink it.
I once tried what was alleged to be Peruvian beer. Disgusting stuff.
I don't agree that drunkenness in the UK is frowned upon. It (drunkenness) is often seen as a badge of honour and the vernacular around getting drunk shows that it is perceived as at least not socially unacceptable.
Yes, but a bit less amongst the youth of today (I gather).
I fully expect the Aussies to bowl underarm and use Mankads in the remaining three tests.
No wonder they play in yellow.
I spoke with a friend who was at Lords, in the MCC at the time (he claims he was asleep at the time of the subsequent incident but he has been known to wear a cream linen jacket and isn't in the first flush of youth so I'll wait to see the charge sheet). He explained what was going on.
Something about transference by England fans for their awful performance in throwing away now two tests and with no one, until that happened, to blame but the England team.
"The third party at Westminster is allowed two questions every week at PMQs. The fourth party gets one every five weeks so this is very important."
Feels like maybe the fourth party should be given slightly more questions.
I wondered who the fourth party has been historically.
1959: the only fourth party was a solitary independent Conservative 1964: no fourth party 1966: Republican Labour (with 1 MP) 1970: Unity (with 2 MPs) Feb 1974: UUP/SNP tie Oct 1974: SNP 1979-2001: UUP 2005: DUP 2010: DUP 2015: LibDem/DUP tie (who got the question?) 2017 onwards: LibDem
And there you have it. Who the hell wants to listen to the DUP more than once a month?
🇷🇺 TV says Prigozhin may have been targeted by a 🇬🇧 psyop:"They gave him a sense of euphoria+meaning. For that you don't even need to get inside someone. You just have to repeat it over+over again, playing on their vanity...It's the 🇬🇧 who are the masters of cognitive operations" https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1675791456773058560
Stalin, of course, believed Britain a greater threat than Germany in the late 1930s.
Of course they defeated Germany, they never defeated Britain.
Not really true, given our efforts in the civil war post WWI.
The Orkney news is being carried by worldwide news outlets, which shows just how much tripe is pumped out by the news media.
It’s silly season stuff.
On one level it silly season, but on another level I can see why they are doing it - they've never really regarded themselves as Scottish, hate the lack of money the Scottish Government gives them and need a whole new set of ferries in a hurry because the old ones are dying
A deracinated Orcadian tweets.
He lives in Glasgow and writes for the Herald - and given thaty he hasn't provided a source for his quote I'll treat it with the respect it deserves.
For reference my family traces it's roots to Orkney / Shetland and still has members there - none of whom can stand the SNP..
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Well that's a specific of the general tension which often arises between what people want to do individually and what's best for society. One of the important functions of democratic politics and government is to resolve this tension in a way that fuses personal freedom and collective responsibility, and is informed by evidence and facts. Oh yes.
What we do to get the lumpen proletariat on board is what the grown-ups have been doing for about 20 years i.e. gradually making the non-oil offer better and cheaper than the oil offer.
I'd say what we don't do is send the worst people in the world in to make their commutes a misery and/or disrupt sporting events they may be watching. I'm no marketer, but I suspect that might be counterproductive. Cutting oil use is a not inconsiderable part of my job and is something I feel quite keen on. And yet when some p*ssed-up nutter barges into a JSO protest with a chant of "We love you oil, we do", I know whose side I am instinctively on. Because JSO are just so bloody dislikeable.
But are you ever *instinctively* on the side of a disruptive left wing protest movement in the UK?
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
Will change in a few years as all qualifying pharmacists become able to prescribe - they would change that prescription for him. They cannot legally do that at the current time.
Because the size of the tablets was on the original prescription. As opposed to “20mg per day”. The latter is possible - had it done for a family prescription.
A comic example of the effect of literalism - on a firearms certificate there may or may not be a limit on calibre. These days one is always put in. Older certificates often don’t have them. There is no process for the police to *force* adding a calibre limit.
The main gun of a tank is, legally, a really big manual firearm - you have to do a bunch of steps at each shot. So, if you have a firearms certificate without calibre limit, it is completely legal to own a tank with a “live” main gun.
HE and AP ammo is explicitly banned for purchase by FAC holders. So unless your tank can fire round shot (it can't) it's useless as a weapon.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
CLR James was wrong, when he wrote romantic prose about the nobility of cricket. "Cheap wickets and damn the honour of the game" is how Harry Flashman put it.
What Bairstow's dismissal reminds me of is when Sarfraz Nawaz appealed, after Andrew Hilditch blocked his delivery, then helpfully picked up the ball, and threw it to him. Hilditch was given out. It was shitty, but sadly, those were the rules.
I see the competition Authority is saying that Morrisons and Asda have increased the price of Petrol / Diesel by 6p a litre because they no longer rush to pass wholesale price cuts down to customers...
Almost like Private Equity is bad for customers...
It’s not private equity. It’s a failure to regulate oligopoly.
It's completely mad that the CMA allowed Asda to be bought out by a company of forecourt owners that literally said they only wanted Asda for the forecourts and now the same CMA are saying that competition among petrol retailers has gone down resulting in higher prices.
No fucking shit, people, including me, said at the time the better buyer for Asda was Sainsbury's because they'd keep the Asda petrol price competition model to drive footfall to large out of town stores. Out by my parents the cheapest petrol is in Sainsbury's in a retail park, £1.33 when I drove past last week. Allowing the Issa's to buy Asda and remove petrol price competition was a disaster and the resolution is to break up the Issa empire and make them forcibly spin half of their forecourts into a new company and then sell it off until their stake hits zero.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
The Orkney news is being carried by worldwide news outlets, which shows just how much tripe is pumped out by the news media.
It’s silly season stuff.
On one level it silly season, but on another level I can see why they are doing it - they've never really regarded themselves as Scottish, hate the lack of money the Scottish Government gives them and need a whole new set of ferries in a hurry because the old ones are dying
A deracinated Orcadian tweets.
He lives in Glasgow and writes for the Herald - and given thaty he hasn't provided a source for his quote I'll treat it with the respect it deserves.
For reference my family traces it's roots to Orkney / Shetland and still has members there - none of whom can stand the SNP..
You do know the Herald is a notably Unionist newspaper these days? And Mr Leask's family also traces etc.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
CLR James was wrong, when he wrote romantic prose about the nobility of cricket. "Cheap wickets and damn the honour of the game" is how Harry Flashman put it.
What Bairstow's dismissal reminds me of is when Sarfraz Nawaz appealed, after Andrew Hilditch blocked his delivery, then helpfully picked up the ball, and threw it to him. Hilditch was given out. It was shitty, but sadly, those were the rules.
If Pope's shoulder is giving him gip we could play Foakes at Leeds.
He is "quick thinking" when it comes to stumpings.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
There is a certain species of clipboardista who would take great delight in pulling the chemist’s license for a technical breach of the rules like that.
Some years ago, in Oxford, the “sell by date” food thing became a bit of a cause. So the local Sainsbury’s left pallets of “one day past the date” food out for the activist types to take away. Outside at the back of the store.
A local shop inspector claimed that this was *selling* out of date food. And took evident joy in closing the store and forcing the staff to audit every sell-by date on the shelves.
The Orkney news is being carried by worldwide news outlets, which shows just how much tripe is pumped out by the news media.
It’s silly season stuff.
On one level it silly season, but on another level I can see why they are doing it - they've never really regarded themselves as Scottish, hate the lack of money the Scottish Government gives them and need a whole new set of ferries in a hurry because the old ones are dying
A deracinated Orcadian tweets.
He lives in Glasgow and writes for the Herald - and given thaty he hasn't provided a source for his quote I'll treat it with the respect it deserves.
For reference my family traces it's roots to Orkney / Shetland and still has members there - none of whom can stand the SNP..
He does provide sources if you'd bothered checking. As we're constantly told by experts on here, identifying as Scottish has fuck all to do with suporting or not the SNP, whether it's your extended family or the wider population.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
But as I understand it the whole debate is about whether the delivery was in fact "complete"
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
The whole webpage seems to be an anti-immigration rant.
Ideally those "new Conservatives" should be amongst the first to lose their seat at the next election if that is all they care about.
I think we're starting to see the shape of a post-election defeat Conservative party. It'll do what losing parties always seem to do - lurch further towards the core vote. Not only closing off immigration (or at least shouting about doing so) but having big arguments about the ECHR and probably trying to pick lots of fights over trans issues. Like Labour did first with Ed then Corbyn. Arguably they are already at the equivalent of the Ed M stage so will go straight to the Corbyn.
I would like to think this will be resoundingly pooh-poohed by the electorate but I suppose that depends what kind of state the country's in come the next election but one.
I think we're starting to see the shape of a post-election defeat Conservative party. It'll do what losing parties always seem to do - lurch further towards the core vote.
They are lurching towards the UKIP/BNP core vote, and further away from the Conservative and Unionist core vote
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
There is a certain species of clipboardista who would take great delight in pulling the chemist’s license for a technical breach of the rules like that.
Some years ago, in Oxford, the “sell by date” food thing became a bit of a cause. So the local Sainsbury’s left pallets of “one day past the date” food out for the activist types to take away. Outside at the back of the store.
A local shop inspector claimed that this was *selling* out of date food. And took evident joy in closing the store and forcing the staff to audit every sell-by date on the shelves.
I'm sure that's right, but then change the rules. The idea that one cannot compile the dose from multiple tablets is utterly crackers. (And doesn't apparently apply in France, where I was recently prescribed drugs and the pharmacist compiled them because he didn't have the single dose product in stock).
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Well that's a specific of the general tension which often arises between what people want to do individually and what's best for society. One of the important functions of democratic politics and government is to resolve this tension in a way that fuses personal freedom and collective responsibility, and is informed by evidence and facts. Oh yes.
What we do to get the lumpen proletariat on board is what the grown-ups have been doing for about 20 years i.e. gradually making the non-oil offer better and cheaper than the oil offer.
I'd say what we don't do is send the worst people in the world in to make their commutes a misery and/or disrupt sporting events they may be watching. I'm no marketer, but I suspect that might be counterproductive. Cutting oil use is a not inconsiderable part of my job and is something I feel quite keen on. And yet when some p*ssed-up nutter barges into a JSO protest with a chant of "We love you oil, we do", I know whose side I am instinctively on. Because JSO are just so bloody dislikeable.
But are you ever *instinctively* on the side of a disruptive left wing protest movement in the UK?
Well I'm instinctively on the side of reducing oil use. I cheer electric car uptake (though with caveats that they are not the whole solution); I'm an advocate for public transport/walking and cycling, I keep a cheerful eye on gridwatch and celebrate the days when we are not using much carbon. I want oil use to reduce. If you lined everyone in the country up from the most enthusiastic user of oil and carbon on the right to the least on the left, I reckon I would be about 10% from the left hand end.
What I'm hostile to is the 'disruptive' element. And I'd be just as hostile to a hypothetical right wing disruptive protest movement (about, I don't know, immigration, or reducing taxes) as a left wing one. Disruptive protests are, I reckon, largely counter productive, hardening opinions against the protesters and their cause. The example of the suffragettes is often given. But I'd say they put back the achievement of their aim by years. History wrongly lauds them; their non-disruptive counterparts who attempted to win the argument by persuasion rather than by being pains in the arse were much more effective.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
But not in the patient. 2 tablets will have a greater surface area and so be absortbed more quickly than one double size one. Similar effects pertain with such things as packaging [edit] in the sense of soluble coating, colour dye used [because of allergies], and so on. With that, and the professional indemnity conditions, no pharmacist will deviate from the prescription without checking, as indeed happened in Stocky pere's case.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemist's would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemist's would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Well he's absolutely right in this case – what a farce. I'm amazed that those are the rules – utterly ludicrous.
I think we're starting to see the shape of a post-election defeat Conservative party. It'll do what losing parties always seem to do - lurch further towards the core vote.
They are lurching towards the UKIP/BNP core vote, and further away from the Conservative and Unionist core vote
As indeed did Corbyn's faction take Labour towards the SWP core vote.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
But not in the patient. 2 tablets will have a greater surface area and so be absortbed more quickly than one double size one. Similar effects pertain with such things as packaging [edit] in the sense of soluble coating, colour dye used [because of allergies], and so on. With that, and the professional indemnity conditions, no pharmacist will deviate from the prescription without checking, as indeed happened in Stocky pere's case.
I would venture that those adversely affected by taking 2x 10mg of statins vs 1x 20mg of statins in the course of medical history is statistically zero.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Something similar happened in a match I was in. We, fielding team, scrubbed the appeal (only the keeper went up, captain told him to knock it off and we all carried on). Batter obligingly, though I don't think deliberately, spooned one up to me at silly mid-on later in the over.
I think most people would have accepted the ball to be dead at this point.
ETA: Keeper apologised to the batter, too. A bit less at stake, of course.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I wonder whether the people who misspell names like Sue Grey and Kier Starmer do it through ignorance or think they are being funny at the expense of their rivals? (Hint: if it’s the latter, you’re not - just tedious.)
In my case, I get Keir Starmer wrong because there's a large construction firm called 'Kier', which I have known since childhood. Familiarity means I think Kier rather than Keir. I do try to catch it though, and I don't think I've done it in a while.
I before E except after C, the b*gger cannot even spell his name correctly.
"I before E except after C" is a rather insufficient rule. It seems to me it's been created by foreign scientists, and we need to be feisty enough to rebuff their weird species, and seize back control.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
The whole webpage seems to be an anti-immigration rant.
Ideally those "new Conservatives" should be amongst the first to lose their seat at the next election if that is all they care about.
I think we're starting to see the shape of a post-election defeat Conservative party. It'll do what losing parties always seem to do - lurch further towards the core vote. Not only closing off immigration (or at least shouting about doing so) but having big arguments about the ECHR and probably trying to pick lots of fights over trans issues. Like Labour did first with Ed then Corbyn. Arguably they are already at the equivalent of the Ed M stage so will go straight to the Corbyn.
I would like to think this will be resoundingly pooh-poohed by the electorate but I suppose that depends what kind of state the country's in come the next election but one.
Cynical as I am about the electorate, I still hope that if the Tories lurch any further to the right - on top of how far they have already lurched to the right - it will not be to their advantage.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemist's would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Does this chemist moonlight as a PCSO?
Jeez don't get me started on PCSOs.
"guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription"
Same thing happened to me (but with a different medication, not statins). National shortage of 60mg.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Well he's absolutely right in this case – what a farce. I'm amazed that those are the rules – utterly ludicrous.
Yes, can we chalk this government initiative as a 'good thing'?:
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Well that's a specific of the general tension which often arises between what people want to do individually and what's best for society. One of the important functions of democratic politics and government is to resolve this tension in a way that fuses personal freedom and collective responsibility, and is informed by evidence and facts. Oh yes.
What we do to get the lumpen proletariat on board is what the grown-ups have been doing for about 20 years i.e. gradually making the non-oil offer better and cheaper than the oil offer.
I'd say what we don't do is send the worst people in the world in to make their commutes a misery and/or disrupt sporting events they may be watching. I'm no marketer, but I suspect that might be counterproductive. Cutting oil use is a not inconsiderable part of my job and is something I feel quite keen on. And yet when some p*ssed-up nutter barges into a JSO protest with a chant of "We love you oil, we do", I know whose side I am instinctively on. Because JSO are just so bloody dislikeable.
But are you ever *instinctively* on the side of a disruptive left wing protest movement in the UK?
Well I'm instinctively on the side of reducing oil use. I cheer electric car uptake (though with caveats that they are not the whole solution); I'm an advocate for public transport/walking and cycling, I keep a cheerful eye on gridwatch and celebrate the days when we are not using much carbon. I want oil use to reduce. If you lined everyone in the country up from the most enthusiastic user of oil and carbon on the right to the least on the left, I reckon I would be about 10% from the left hand end.
What I'm hostile to is the 'disruptive' element. And I'd be just as hostile to a hypothetical right wing disruptive protest movement (about, I don't know, immigration, or reducing taxes) as a left wing one. Disruptive protests are, I reckon, largely counter productive, hardening opinions against the protesters and their cause. The example of the suffragettes is often given. But I'd say they put back the achievement of their aim by years. History wrongly lauds them; their non-disruptive counterparts who attempted to win the argument by persuasion rather than by being pains in the arse were much more effective.
I am also not a fan of these disruptive protests, being a non-confrontational live and let live kind of guy, but I believe that the evidence suggests they are broadly effective, because while they piss people off they get the issue in the news and communicate a sense of urgency about it. Having said this, I have not read and assessed this evidence myself.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
The whole webpage seems to be an anti-immigration rant.
Ideally those "new Conservatives" should be amongst the first to lose their seat at the next election if that is all they care about.
I think we're starting to see the shape of a post-election defeat Conservative party. It'll do what losing parties always seem to do - lurch further towards the core vote. Not only closing off immigration (or at least shouting about doing so) but having big arguments about the ECHR and probably trying to pick lots of fights over trans issues. Like Labour did first with Ed then Corbyn. Arguably they are already at the equivalent of the Ed M stage so will go straight to the Corbyn.
I would like to think this will be resoundingly pooh-poohed by the electorate but I suppose that depends what kind of state the country's in come the next election but one.
New Conservative is a euphemism for "about to lose seat Conservative"??
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
Trouble is that, in spite of what one see as common sense, these situations create problems. 2x10mgm tablets undoubtedly cost more than 1x20mgm, and, particularly in times when there are local but not general shortages of medicines, the NHS Pricing Authority won’t pay for the more expensive replacement. Once upon a time pharmacies could have their endorsements up that effect accepted; now, AIUI, they are not. Same applies to Nurofen for ibuprofen; the brand is a lot more expensive than the generic and in the case described the pharmacy will lose money. And the margins on NHS dispensing are extremely tight. Long years ago I spent hours arguing with the ‘authorities’ about such cases and rarely won.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
A similar thing happened to Ian Bell in a massive Test at Trent Bridge between us and India in 2011 – I remember it clearly.
In that case, Dhoni, to his eternal credit, withdrew the appeal. That is sportsmanship – play hard, but don't gain an unfair advantage on a technicality.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
The whole webpage seems to be an anti-immigration rant.
Ideally those "new Conservatives" should be amongst the first to lose their seat at the next election if that is all they care about.
I think we're starting to see the shape of a post-election defeat Conservative party. It'll do what losing parties always seem to do - lurch further towards the core vote. Not only closing off immigration (or at least shouting about doing so) but having big arguments about the ECHR and probably trying to pick lots of fights over trans issues. Like Labour did first with Ed then Corbyn. Arguably they are already at the equivalent of the Ed M stage so will go straight to the Corbyn.
I would like to think this will be resoundingly pooh-poohed by the electorate but I suppose that depends what kind of state the country's in come the next election but one.
New Conservative is a euphemism for "about to lose seat Conservative"??
Or just the "we agree the last few versions of the Conservative party have been crap but please vote for us anyway?" brigade.
It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
But as I understand it the whole debate is about whether the delivery was in fact "complete"
No shot had been played. The ball was in the keeper's hands and at the time the batsman was inside his crease. The umpires on the field had clearly thought the over was complete as they were beginning to move to their new positions. It was only the Third Umpire who decided otherwise on appeal.
It was atrocious behaviour from the Aussies and a poor call from the Third Umpire.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemist's would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Does this chemist moonlight as a PCSO?
Jeez don't get me started on PCSOs.
"guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription"
Same thing happened to me (but with a different medication, not statins). National shortage of 60mg.
Refused to make up a 60mg dose from 2 x 30mg.
Back to GP.
etc.
I was frigging furious.
Which is why now I have moved I haven't even bothered registering with a gp. They are useless so if I fall ill I will goto A&E or self diagnose and get what I need off a slightly less legal route
I fully expect the Aussies to bowl underarm and use Mankads in the remaining three tests.
No wonder they play in yellow.
I spoke with a friend who was at Lords, in the MCC at the time (he claims he was asleep at the time of the subsequent incident but he has been known to wear a cream linen jacket and isn't in the first flush of youth so I'll wait to see the charge sheet). He explained what was going on.
Something about transference by England fans for their awful performance in throwing away now two tests and with no one, until that happened, to blame but the England team.
Well, seeing as I was at Lords, yesterday, I can safely call this a load of shite
The crowd was good natured and happy til the Bairstow incident. Most had come with a ton of booze and fine cheese, expecting a couple of hours of fun in the sun, and maybe a decent knock by Stokes to remember, and then a defeat. It was absolutely expected, no one was booing anything, we'd lost to a good Aussie side, we'd made mistakes, oh well
That single incident transformed the mood of the crowd in a way I have never personally witnessed at a sports ground. It was spectacular. The boos and heckles started immediately, they were deafening, and they carried on for the next three and a half hours (lunch excepted), they continued after the game was OVER
The anger was real. You can argue it was overdone, but it was real, and it wasn't transference, it was specifically aimed at what was perceived as blatant and ugly cheating
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
But not in the patient. 2 tablets will have a greater surface area and so be absortbed more quickly than one double size one. Similar effects pertain with such things as packaging [edit] in the sense of soluble coating, colour dye used [because of allergies], and so on. With that, and the professional indemnity conditions, no pharmacist will deviate from the prescription without checking, as indeed happened in Stocky pere's case.
I would venture that those adversely affected by taking 2x 10mg of statins vs 1x 20mg of statins in the course of medical history is statistically zero.
Maybe more like absolutely zero - but I take Carnyx's point.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
Well apparently you need to now directly ask both the umpire and keeper!
In practice it's not done as you imply as cricketers effectively have a gentlemen's agreement not to stump the batsman when the ball has gone through and he has scratched his crease.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
The ball is dead when both sides have stopped any action. Not when one side has stopped and assumes the other has stopped.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
I really don't think England have been dreadful this series. There have been some poor decisions by England batsmen and some impenetrative patches in the field - but overall I'd give England 6 and a half out of ten so far. Eighteen months ago England were dreadful; now they are patchy and occasionally brilliant. They've narrowly lost both games. That isn't dreadful.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Something similar happened in a match I was in. We, fielding team, scrubbed the appeal (only the keeper went up, captain told him to knock it off and we all carried on). Batter obligingly, though I don't think deliberately, spooned one up to me at silly mid-on later in the over.
I think most people would have accepted the ball to be dead at this point.
ETA: Keeper apologised to the batter, too. A bit less at stake, of course.
Sure, but nevertheless the fielding skipper behaved in an honourable fashion (and indeed in the 99% of captains would behave in similar circumstances).
It's interesting that even the Aussie press are divided on it – many journos and former players there are uncomfortable by their gaining an advantage via pedantry rather than competition.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
I fully expect the Aussies to bowl underarm and use Mankads in the remaining three tests.
No wonder they play in yellow.
I spoke with a friend who was at Lords, in the MCC at the time (he claims he was asleep at the time of the subsequent incident but he has been known to wear a cream linen jacket and isn't in the first flush of youth so I'll wait to see the charge sheet). He explained what was going on.
Something about transference by England fans for their awful performance in throwing away now two tests and with no one, until that happened, to blame but the England team.
Well, seeing as I was at Lords, yesterday, I can safely call this a load of shite
The crowd was good natured and happy til the Bairstow incident. Most had come with a ton of booze and fine cheese, expecting a couple of hours of fun in the sun, and maybe a decent knock by Stokes to remember, and then a defeat. It was absolutely expected, no one was booing anything, we'd lost to a good Aussie side, we'd made mistakes, oh well
That single incident transformed the mood of the crowd in a way I have never personally witnessed at a sports ground. It was spectacular. The boos and heckles started immediately, they were deafening, and they carried on for the next three and a half hours (lunch excepted), they continued after the game was OVER
The anger was real. You can argue it was overdone, but it was real, and it wasn't transference, it was specifically aimed at what was perceived as blatant and ugly cheating
Pleasing, though, to learn the English still break from relentlessly sledging and booing in order to have lunch!
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Well he's absolutely right in this case – what a farce. I'm amazed that those are the rules – utterly ludicrous.
Yes, can we chalk this government initiative as a 'good thing'?:
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
Trouble is that, in spite of what one see as common sense, these situations create problems. 2x10mgm tablets undoubtedly cost more than 1x20mgm, and, particularly in times when there are local but not general shortages of medicines, the NHS Pricing Authority won’t pay for the more expensive replacement. Once upon a time pharmacies could have their endorsements up that effect accepted; now, AIUI, they are not. Same applies to Nurofen for ibuprofen; the brand is a lot more expensive than the generic and in the case described the pharmacy will lose money. And the margins on NHS dispensing are extremely tight. Long years ago I spent hours arguing with the ‘authorities’ about such cases and rarely won.
What of the other way round? If the prescription were for 2 x 10mg tablets and they had run out I wonder whether the pharmacy would provide the cheaper 1 x 20mg and pocket the difference?
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Sums up so much that is wrong with the NHS
My son phoned for an urgent prescription for one of his children and the surgery said they would contact Asda with the prescription and to go there asap
He arrived at Asda as instructed and was told they had not received the 'fax'
He went back later, and Asda said they were out of the antibiotic so my son, practical as ever, asked to be given the prescription so he could go to another chemist
Asda refused point blank and said the 'fax' was not transferable
He went to the out of hours doctor who redirected the request to another chemist who had the antibiotic
This was a child's health the nonsense bureaucracy of the Wales NHS put at risk and was totally unacceptable
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
That’s brilliant! Did no-one tell him that it was almost exclusively consumed by teenegers in parks in Scotland, and that anyone old enough to go to the pub would rather do that?
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
Much has been made of the fact that the umpires didn't call over, but it seems that you call over only when the ball is dead. Calling over doesn't make it dead in itself.
20.3 Call of Over or Time
Neither the call of Over (see Law 17.4), nor the call of Time (see Law 12.2) is to be made until the ball is dead, either under 20.1 or under 20.4.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
I really don't think England have been dreadful this series. There have been some poor decisions by England batsmen and some impenetrative patches in the field - but overall I'd give England 6 and a half out of ten so far. Eighteen months ago England were dreadful; now they are patchy and occasionally brilliant. They've narrowly lost both games. That isn't dreadful.
Yes, dreadful is completely ridiculous (and proves @TOPPING is, as ever, bloviating from a position of ignorance)
They are playing the best Test side in the world, who just won the world Test championship
England have some really fine players but they are now ageing, Anderson (especially), Broad, Root, even Stokes himself (sadly)
They have been incredible for a year and more, the most exciting team on the planet, potentially saving Test cricket with Bazball, now they may have reached the limit, against a very good Aussie side (and with those ageing players). And yet still they have come close to winning both Tests
"Dreadful" is when you lose every Test by an innings to clearly inferior opposition
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
The whole webpage seems to be an anti-immigration rant.
Ideally those "new Conservatives" should be amongst the first to lose their seat at the next election if that is all they care about.
I still think the very simple solution to the immigration "problem" is to set an annual cap based on housebuilding, school places, hospital beds. If there are enough new beds, new schools, new hospitals to fit 700k new people a year, then that's how many we let in.
While it sounds bonkers at first, I suspect it's the only way we'll ever have a sensible debate about planning, capacity and so on, and move the debate away from "furriners wot speak funny". The problem is there will be an audience for people who bang this particular drum so long as people feel like they are an in ever worsening competition for housing and public services.
I also suspect that rather than see immigration halve under such a scheme, the government would very quickly find a way to make housebuilding double...
No shot had been played. The ball was in the keeper's hands and at the time the batsman was inside his crease.
If the batsman was in his crease when the ball was thrown by the keeper, if he had stood still he would not have been out.
He moved and is out.
Whose fault is that?
No one is arguing that. As Stokes himself said "yes he was out" - technically Australia were allowed to do that, but the thing is - you just don't do that, as Stokes also said. It's not sporting. Sport relies on these unspoken rules as much as the real ones
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
The ball is dead when both sides have stopped any action. Not when one side has stopped and assumes the other has stopped.
It's uncommon, but it happens at all levels of the game, and tends to create ill feeling whenever it does.
My friend's 11 year old son was dismissed in this way a couple of weeks back. The umpire was apologetic, but had to give it. It did not go down well. Words were had, and grumblings of alternative fixtures being sought next year.
The Orkney news is being carried by worldwide news outlets, which shows just how much tripe is pumped out by the news media.
It’s silly season stuff.
On one level it is on another level I can see why they are doing it - they've never really regatded themselves as Scottish, hate the lack of money the Scottish Government gives them and need a whole new set of ferries in a hurry because the old ones are dying
Eh? Serco and a couple of private family firms operate the ferries to Orkney, and the council itself operates the inter-island services.
That is your PB Scotch experts for you , never miss a chance to talk bollox about things they know nothing about.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
Well apparently you need to now directly ask both the umpire and keeper!
In practice it's not done as you imply as cricketers effectively have a gentlemen's agreement not to stump the batsman when the ball has gone through and he has scratched his crease.
Yes, dodgy as hell, no question. Dirty cheating Aussies. Too many moustaches and no class.
But it's just this point various pundits have been making that the umpire hadn't called 'over'. So technically the ball wasn't dead. In which case (I'm wondering) what if it hadn't been the last ball of the over? Is there an equivalent there, eg the umpire calling 'ball'?
If not, you have a different 'special' scenario for the last ball. Which sounds wrong to me. But it also sounds wrong to me that the umpire calls 'ball' (because I don't think that happens).
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Sums up so much that is wrong with the NHS
My son phoned for an urgent prescription for one of his children and the surgery said they would contact Asda with the prescription and to go there asap
He arrived at Asda as instructed and was told they had not received the 'fax'
He went back later, and Asda said they were out of the antibiotic so my son, practical as ever, asked to be given the prescription so he could go to another chemist
Asda refused point blank and said the 'fax' was not transferable
He went to the out of hours doctor who redirected the request to another chemist who had the antibiotic
This was a child's health the nonsense bureaucracy of the Wales NHS put at risk and was totally unacceptable
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
This is a strong candidate for the most bonkers policy I have ever read. And I can only assume your anecdote is true.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
The brand of medicine can actually be quite significant - I believe for such things as insulin for diabetics. So I hesitate to call it madness.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
Nurofen is chemically identical to bog standard Boot's own brand ibuprofen, just costs vastly more.
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
When my father-in-law protested that it was a Saturday and that he was almost out of medication and was away on holiday for a week from Monday the pharmacist told him to ring 111 and they would give an immediate prescription.
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
Sums up so much that is wrong with the NHS
My son phoned for an urgent prescription for one of his children and the surgery said they would contact Asda with the prescription and to go there asap
He arrived at Asda as instructed and was told they had not received the 'fax'
He went back later, and Asda said they were out of the antibiotic so my son, practical as ever, asked to be given the prescription so he could go to another chemist
Asda refused point blank and said the 'fax' was not transferable
He went to the out of hours doctor who redirected the request to another chemist who had the antibiotic
This was a child's health the nonsense bureaucracy of the Wales NHS put at risk and was totally unacceptable
Similar with us over Christmas. Daughter prescribed antibiotics on 23 December. Only one of the two bottles available at pharmacy, rest to be collected on 27th at the same pharmacy (I am told, by the person serving). Arrive 27th, pharmacy closed (Boxing Day substitute bank holiday). Find the only open pharmacy locally, queue for ages, prescription not transferable.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Absolutely right.
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
Quite so. It was arguably lawful, it was COMPLETELY unsporting, it also adds to the venom and drama of this Ashes series, which is great
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
You know nothing about cricket. It's nothing that Bairstow himself hasn't tried previously. Instinctive reaction by the wicket keeper while the phase, umpire not said "over", Bairstow had a moment and paid for it.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
I really don't think England have been dreadful this series. There have been some poor decisions by England batsmen and some impenetrative patches in the field - but overall I'd give England 6 and a half out of ten so far. Eighteen months ago England were dreadful; now they are patchy and occasionally brilliant. They've narrowly lost both games. That isn't dreadful.
Far from dreadful. And the series is NOT 'gone'. I'm hearing far too much of that nonsense.
"New Conservatives Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP, Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP, James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP, Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
Well apparently you need to now directly ask both the umpire and keeper!
In practice it's not done as you imply as cricketers effectively have a gentlemen's agreement not to stump the batsman when the ball has gone through and he has scratched his crease.
Yes, dodgy as hell, no question. Dirty cheating Aussies. Too many moustaches and no class.
But it's just this point various pundits have been making that the umpire hadn't called 'over'. So technically the ball wasn't dead. In which case (I'm wondering) what if it hadn't been the last ball of the over? Is there an equivalent there, eg the umpire calling 'ball'?
If not, you have a different 'special' scenario for the last ball. Which sounds wrong to me. But it also sounds wrong to me that the umpire calls 'ball' (because I don't think that happens).
Bee in my bonnet. Have to deal with it somehow.
Its not difficult. The ball is dead when both sides have stopped any action. From the first ball of the day to the last, and at any point of each over.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
Well apparently you need to now directly ask both the umpire and keeper!
In practice it's not done as you imply as cricketers effectively have a gentlemen's agreement not to stump the batsman when the ball has gone through and he has scratched his crease.
Yes, dodgy as hell, no question. Dirty cheating Aussies. Too many moustaches and no class.
But it's just this point various pundits have been making that the umpire hadn't called 'over'. So technically the ball wasn't dead. In which case (I'm wondering) what if it hadn't been the last ball of the over? Is there an equivalent there, eg the umpire calling 'ball'?
If not, you have a different 'special' scenario for the last ball. Which sounds wrong to me. But it also sounds wrong to me that the umpire calls 'ball' (because I don't think that happens).
Bee in my bonnet. Have to deal with it somehow.
Having looked at the rules, I think it's clear that the rules don't adequately deal with the actuality, kind of for the reasons you discuss above. Which is why you have conventions of this sort.
The Orkney news is being carried by worldwide news outlets, which shows just how much tripe is pumped out by the news media.
It’s silly season stuff.
On one level it silly season, but on another level I can see why they are doing it - they've never really regarded themselves as Scottish, hate the lack of money the Scottish Government gives them and need a whole new set of ferries in a hurry because the old ones are dying
A deracinated Orcadian tweets.
He lives in Glasgow and writes for the Herald - and given thaty he hasn't provided a source for his quote I'll treat it with the respect it deserves.
For reference my family traces it's roots to Orkney / Shetland and still has members there - none of whom can stand the SNP..
You do know the Herald is a notably Unionist newspaper these days? And Mr Leask's family also traces etc.
Those look like data from the census btw.
Still why let the truth interfere with some unionist bollox
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
I understand "prima facie" breach of the Civil Service code to mean, they really, really want it to be the case, but are annoyed they have zero evidence, so will pretend she is in breach anyway.
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
The rule is there to penalise batters who go out of their crease to whack the ball. It is not designed to catch those who stay inside the crease to play (or in this case not play) the ball and then step outside once the delivery is completed.
Apols for reopening this since people no doubt did it to death yesterday when I wasn't around but a question - What is meant to indicate that the ball is now 'dead' following a delivery?
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
The ball is dead when both sides have stopped any action. Not when one side has stopped and assumes the other has stopped.
Yep. But is there an equivalent 'event' to the umpire calling 'over' when it isn't the last ball of the over, do you know?
No shot had been played. The ball was in the keeper's hands and at the time the batsman was inside his crease.
If the batsman was in his crease when the ball was thrown by the keeper, if he had stood still he would not have been out.
He moved and is out.
Whose fault is that?
No one is arguing that. As Stokes himself said "yes he was out" - technically Australia were allowed to do that, but the thing is - you just don't do that, as Stokes also said. It's not sporting. Sport relies on these unspoken rules as much as the real ones
This, I think, is the key point – and one which non-cricket fans and part-time cricket fans don't seem to grasp.
No shot had been played. The ball was in the keeper's hands and at the time the batsman was inside his crease.
If the batsman was in his crease when the ball was thrown by the keeper, if he had stood still he would not have been out.
He moved and is out.
Whose fault is that?
No one is arguing that. As Stokes himself said "yes he was out" - technically Australia were allowed to do that, but the thing is - you just don't do that, as Stokes also said. It's not sporting. Sport relies on these unspoken rules as much as the real ones
This controversy - with the Aussies branded cheats and the English whinging about it - seems precision-engineered to reinforce the negative stereotypes each country holds about the other.
Comments
Something about transference by England fans for their awful performance in throwing away now two tests and with no one, until that happened, to blame but the England team.
For reference my family traces it's roots to Orkney / Shetland and still has members there - none of whom can stand the SNP..
Common Sense for the Common Good
Gareth Bacon MP, Duncan Baker MP, Jack Brereton MP, Paul Bristow MP, Miriam Cates MP,
Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, James Daly MP, Anna Firth MP, Nick Fletcher MP, Chris Green MP,
James Grundy MP, Jonathan Gullis MP, Eddie Hughes MP, Tom Hunt MP, Mark Jenkinson MP,
Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Lewer MP, Marco Longhi MP, Robin Millar MP, Lia Nici MP"
https://www.thenewconservatives.co.uk/
On the cricket thing. I looked at the clip, and possibly for the first time in my life studied cricket seriously. It was clear Bairstow wasn't paying attention. On the presumption the rule is there for a purpose, my inexpert take, rookie error and Bairstow should be kicking himself, and that's it.
Ideally those "new Conservatives" should be amongst the first to lose their seat at the next election if that is all they care about.
What Bairstow's dismissal reminds me of is when Sarfraz Nawaz appealed, after Andrew Hilditch blocked his delivery, then helpfully picked up the ball, and threw it to him. Hilditch was given out. It was shitty, but sadly, those were the rules.
No fucking shit, people, including me, said at the time the better buyer for Asda was Sainsbury's because they'd keep the Asda petrol price competition model to drive footfall to large out of town stores. Out by my parents the cheapest petrol is in Sainsbury's in a retail park, £1.33 when I drove past last week. Allowing the Issa's to buy Asda and remove petrol price competition was a disaster and the resolution is to break up the Issa empire and make them forcibly spin half of their forecourts into a new company and then sell it off until their stake hits zero.
Utter, unmitigated madness of the highest order.
Does this chap also refuse to prescribe Nurofen when the prescription calls for ibuprofen?
Those look like data from the census btw.
Bear in mind that if the pharmacist deviates from the prescription in any way he loses if there is anything going wrong. Insurers and lawyers don't give a shit about being reasonable if they can see a letout.
He is "quick thinking" when it comes to stumpings.
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/cricket/11710581/quick-thinking-foakes-stumps-balbirnie
The conservative party can only regain it's senses if they are all thrown out of office
In the case @Stocky cites, he has refused to prescribe 2x 10mg in place of 1x 20mg of statins – again, chemically identical.
Some years ago, in Oxford, the “sell by date” food thing became a bit of a cause. So the local Sainsbury’s left pallets of “one day past the date” food out for the activist types to take away. Outside at the back of the store.
A local shop inspector claimed that this was *selling* out of date food. And took evident joy in closing the store and forcing the staff to audit every sell-by date on the shelves.
As we're constantly told by experts on here, identifying as Scottish has fuck all to do with suporting or not the SNP, whether it's your extended family or the wider population.
https://twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1548254570995888130?s=20
I've been amazed to hear the amount of people who are willing to defend it. I thought it was a disgraceful, and ridiculous, at the time and have been seething about it. Bairstow had not gained any advantage, was not seeking one, and indeed had scratched his crease. It makes a mockery of the concept of sport – as no competition was taking place at that point.
Were this to happen in a schoolboy match, the fielding captain would be asked by the umpire to withdraw his appeal, and his teacher would tell him to do so.
I would like to think this will be resoundingly pooh-poohed by the electorate but I suppose that depends what kind of state the country's in come the next election but one.
Everybody else does...
He rang 111 and the person he spoke to (eventually) said that she couldn't do this and he would need to speak to a doctor and she would get one to call him in 6 hours. He pointed out that 6 hours meant that the chemists would be closed by then. She relented and said she'd go for 2 hours.
Fair dos a doctor called him after 2 hours but would only give a prescription for 7 days. So now he has to go to GP immediately on return from holiday or he'll run out again.
He's 80 years old and has got in a pickle about this and is understandable (IMO) ranting about "beaurocracy gone mad".
What I'm hostile to is the 'disruptive' element. And I'd be just as hostile to a hypothetical right wing disruptive protest movement (about, I don't know, immigration, or reducing taxes) as a left wing one.
Disruptive protests are, I reckon, largely counter productive, hardening opinions against the protesters and their cause.
The example of the suffragettes is often given. But I'd say they put back the achievement of their aim by years. History wrongly lauds them; their non-disruptive counterparts who attempted to win the argument by persuasion rather than by being pains in the arse were much more effective.
The equivalent in a football match would be scoring a goal when the keeper has obviously just been badly injured, everyone can see it but he hasn't called for help yet, nor has the referee stopped the game
You'd probably be allowed - in the rules - to score the goal, but you'd be "cheating" in terms of the game and you'd get a right old barracking for the next six months
Ok, so with Bairstowgate it was the last ball of the over and it's the umpire calling 'over' (which he hadn't done), I get that, but what if it were say the 3rd ball of the over, I'm batting, I leave it and it goes through to the keeper, what is it in the Rules of the Game that tells me for a 100% fact that the ball is dead and I'm therefore ok to start farting around outside my crease?
I think most people would have accepted the ball to be dead at this point.
ETA: Keeper apologised to the batter, too. A bit less at stake, of course.
Same thing happened to me (but with a different medication, not statins). National shortage of 60mg.
Refused to make up a 60mg dose from 2 x 30mg.
Back to GP.
etc.
I was frigging furious.
https://news.sky.com/story/pharmacies-given-new-power-to-prescribe-medication-under-plans-to-free-up-gp-appointments-12876410
Same applies to Nurofen for ibuprofen; the brand is a lot more expensive than the generic and in the case described the pharmacy will lose money.
And the margins on NHS dispensing are extremely tight.
Long years ago I spent hours arguing with the ‘authorities’ about such cases and rarely won.
In that case, Dhoni, to his eternal credit, withdrew the appeal. That is sportsmanship – play hard, but don't gain an unfair advantage on a technicality.
https://wisden.com/series-stories/south-africa-v-india/watch-the-controversial-overturned-ian-bell-run-out-thats-reminiscent-of-van-der-dussens-dismissal-against-india
It was atrocious behaviour from the Aussies and a poor call from the Third Umpire.
Plus it's just deflection because England have been dreadful this series.
See? That's how to know nothing about cricket and still be right.
The crowd was good natured and happy til the Bairstow incident. Most had come with a ton of booze and fine cheese, expecting a couple of hours of fun in the sun, and maybe a decent knock by Stokes to remember, and then a defeat. It was absolutely expected, no one was booing anything, we'd lost to a good Aussie side, we'd made mistakes, oh well
That single incident transformed the mood of the crowd in a way I have never personally witnessed at a sports ground. It was spectacular. The boos and heckles started immediately, they were deafening, and they carried on for the next three and a half hours (lunch excepted), they continued after the game was OVER
The anger was real. You can argue it was overdone, but it was real, and it wasn't transference, it was specifically aimed at what was perceived as blatant and ugly cheating
In practice it's not done as you imply as cricketers effectively have a gentlemen's agreement not to stump the batsman when the ball has gone through and he has scratched his crease.
lol
He moved and is out.
Whose fault is that?
It's interesting that even the Aussie press are divided on it – many journos and former players there are uncomfortable by their gaining an advantage via pedantry rather than competition.
My son phoned for an urgent prescription for one of his children and the surgery said they would contact Asda with the prescription and to go there asap
He arrived at Asda as instructed and was told they had not received the 'fax'
He went back later, and Asda said they were out of the antibiotic so my son, practical as ever, asked to be given the prescription so he could go to another chemist
Asda refused point blank and said the 'fax' was not transferable
He went to the out of hours doctor who redirected the request to another chemist who had the antibiotic
This was a child's health the nonsense bureaucracy of the Wales NHS put at risk and was totally unacceptable
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/dead-ball
Much has been made of the fact that the umpires didn't call over, but it seems that you call over only when the ball is dead. Calling over doesn't make it dead in itself.
20.3 Call of Over or Time
Neither the call of Over (see Law 17.4), nor the call of Time (see Law 12.2) is to be made until the ball is dead, either under 20.1 or under 20.4.
They are playing the best Test side in the world, who just won the world Test championship
England have some really fine players but they are now ageing, Anderson (especially), Broad, Root, even Stokes himself (sadly)
They have been incredible for a year and more, the most exciting team on the planet, potentially saving Test cricket with Bazball, now they may have reached the limit, against a very good Aussie side (and with those ageing players). And yet still they have come close to winning both Tests
"Dreadful" is when you lose every Test by an innings to clearly inferior opposition
While it sounds bonkers at first, I suspect it's the only way we'll ever have a sensible debate about planning, capacity and so on, and move the debate away from "furriners wot speak funny". The problem is there will be an audience for people who bang this particular drum so long as people feel like they are an in ever worsening competition for housing and public services.
I also suspect that rather than see immigration halve under such a scheme, the government would very quickly find a way to make housebuilding double...
I did like Broad's comment to Carey.
“That’s all you’re ever going to be remembered for, that."
Hopefully he is right.
My friend's 11 year old son was dismissed in this way a couple of weeks back. The umpire was apologetic, but had to give it. It did not go down well. Words were had, and grumblings of alternative fixtures being sought next year.
But it's just this point various pundits have been making that the umpire hadn't called 'over'. So technically the ball wasn't dead. In which case (I'm wondering) what if it hadn't been the last ball of the over? Is there an equivalent there, eg the umpire calling 'ball'?
If not, you have a different 'special' scenario for the last ball. Which sounds wrong to me. But it also sounds wrong to me that the umpire calls 'ball' (because I don't think that happens).
Bee in my bonnet. Have to deal with it somehow.
Introducing, the anti-growth coalition!