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?
LOL. Probably! However that sort of thing very rarely happens because people like me, in a later incarnation, used to examine GP prescribing to remove illogicality’s like that!
Once upon a time, in a more relaxed era local pharmacist/Gp relationships were such that GP’s would call in local pharmacies to sort out discrepancies like that. More than once I’ve asked our (one) local pharmacy if they have regular meetings with the one local GP practice and been told no. I’ve asked the GP’s as well and got the same answer. It seems such a shame; in my professional youth both sides found such casual chats useful and informative.
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
Bad losers and just cannot accept that your lot were second best and thrashed once again by a better team , one that knows and understands the rules as well.
I understand that Scotland is too poor, bleak. and cold, and its people too fat and unhealthy, to play cricket, but losing by 43 runs in the fourth innings - especially when in that innings your captain knocks one of the greatest test innings of all time, and you make 327 (itself a remarkable fourth innings total) is not "a thrashing"
A thrashing is what Scotland gets when it tries to play proper, actual nations at football
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
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
Bad losers and just cannot accept that your lot were second best and thrashed once again by a better team , one that knows and understands the rules as well.
*SIGH* NO One in England is saying it isn't out. We know it's out. But for reasons set out at length in this thread, it's not normally done. It's like taking a serve in tennis while your opponent is tying his shoelace (I have no idea if there is an actual rule to prevent this). And losing by 40-odd runs at about teatime on the fifth day is not being 'thrashed'.
Most England fans expected to lose this match going into day 5. There was no refusal to accept it.
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
I thought that too, to be honest.
The counterfactual is that Stokes would still have blasted it (perhaps not to the same extent) but would have been able to take singles and rotate the strike rather than protect a tailender in the shape of Broad.
I actually think we might have won, had Bairstow not been executed. He'd looked decent up to that 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.
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
Bad losers and just cannot accept that your lot were second best and thrashed once again by a better team , one that knows and understands the rules as well.
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The fielding side still regarded the ball as in play so it was not dead when Bairstow went walkabout
"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...
Perhaps the best way of resolving the "problem" will be for the Tories to stand on an anti-immigration platform and get soundly thrashed. Once politicians realise there aren't any votes in it these days, they'll concentrate their minds on dealing with the practicalities in a reasonable way rather than trying to make political capital to mask their own shortcomings.
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
I thought that too, to be honest.
This is being discussed in the Aussie media. The cheating - and some in Australia are calling it that - was not only a stain on the team, but actually ill-advised on a practical basis, as Oz were cruising to victory. Now Australian cricket feels a bit tarnished AND England are fired up
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
Did he ask Cummins whether he wished to withdraw the appeal? (Though I'm not sure he would have done...)
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
Eh ?
How did Carey make the "wrong" decision ? He threw the ball back at the stumps when Bairstow was within his crease.
If you're going to argue on the spirit thingy then it's Cummings as captain who you need to question - not Carey.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
We've also got a new comedy villain for Headingley and OT for those who are bored of celebrating the failures of Warner and Smith. (Whose respective crimes were far greater, in all honesty.)
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
On the subject of Orkney, which as I said earlier my wife's mother took her and some of her cousins to to be near their fishermen around Scapa Flow in the war, this is not a new claim and not really surprising as both the SNP and Starmer want to close their oil fields
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
I thought that too, to be honest.
This is being discussed in the Aussie media. The cheating - and some in Australia are calling it that - was not only a stain on the team, but actually ill-advised on a practical basis, as Oz were cruising to victory. Now Australian cricket feels a bit tarnished AND England are fired up
Indeed. Particularly given the fact that they haven't exactly had a clean bill of health in the Test arena recently, when it comes to cheating...
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
Absolutely. Except for the fact that Stokes himself said it made no difference to his approach.
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
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
Bad losers and just cannot accept that your lot were second best and thrashed once again by a better team , one that knows and understands the rules as well.
Afternoon, mslcolm.
Afternoon Nigel, when will these boys get over being beaten.
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
Eh ?
How did Carey make the "wrong" decision ? He threw the ball back at the stumps when Bairstow was within his crease.
If you're going to argue on the spirit thingy then it's Cummings as captain who you need to question - not Carey.
Yeah, I suppose that's right. What was the appeal like? Was it the whole team? Or was the some reticence/embarrassment from some of them?
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
Eh ?
How did Carey make the "wrong" decision ? He threw the ball back at the stumps when Bairstow was within his crease.
If you're going to argue on the spirit thingy then it's Cummings as captain who you need to question - not Carey.
Even Stokes says "he would have to a real think about it" before hypothetically withdrawing his appeal. It is clearly not as clear cut as being made out on here, or there would be little to think about. In real time would he actually have withdrawn it? I am not sure.
The NZ run out when Collingwood captain was far far worse.
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.
That's clear as a concept, yes, but my query is slightly different.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
We've also got a new comedy villain for Headingley and OT for those who are bored of celebrating the failures of Warner and Smith. (Whose respective crimes were far greater, in all honesty.)
My last point before I return to actual work: during the Stokes Blitz Smith was fielding at the boundary, where he came in for the most intense abuse. Songs of "Cry on the telly, we saw you cry on the telly" - referring to his infamous sandpaper cheating and admissions, of course
He looked like a broken man at Lord's yesterday, coz the abuse just went on and on and on. He tiried to laugh it off, he turned and did mock praying gestures, he waved to the crowd with a fake smile, but nothing worked - and on and on it went. His body language (which is always a little awkward) expressed intense discomfort. And his fielding went to shit - eg he dropped an easy catch (off Stokes). It was clearly having a significant effect because no doubt he does feel deep guilt about what he did
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
I thought that too, to be honest.
This is being discussed in the Aussie media. The cheating - and some in Australia are calling it that - was not only a stain on the team, but actually ill-advised on a practical basis, as Oz were cruising to victory. Now Australian cricket feels a bit tarnished AND England are fired up
Weirdly, the Aussies seem to feel very strongly about cheating (or not playing within the spirit of the game - their version of the spirit is a bit different from ours, but stumpings like this are definitely outside of it). Odd, since their national team are so frequently such keen cheats.
It's come to a pretty pass when it turns out that I know more about cricket than a self-confessed cricket fan.
Cricket is, aside from the occasional last hour in certain games, so very boring that anything that can be done to generate interest is to be applauded.
That it is a perfectly legal, understandable, and wholly legitimate move by one of the teams that is causing all the ire is just further testament to how deficient cricket fans are in the first place.
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
I thought that too, to be honest.
The counterfactual is that Stokes would still have blasted it (perhaps not to the same extent) but would have been able to take singles and rotate the strike rather than protect a tailender in the shape of Broad.
I actually think we might have won, had Bairstow not been executed. He'd looked decent up to that point.
Crikey - things got a bit more serious at Lords than I imagined...
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.
The irony, of course, is that the outrageous cheating fired up Stokes. It was only after Bairstowgate that he went mad and hit seven trillion sixes. And the incensed crowd rattled the previously-composed Aussies to the extent they were dropping easy catches and making really bad fielding decisions
We probably would have a lost by a considerably LARGER margin without Ye Great Australyan Cheatynge
Absolutely. Except for the fact that Stokes himself said it made no difference to his approach.
Other than that - Go West Bromwich United!
Isn't that the new name for Albion when they go into liquidation and are relegated to the Midland Combination later this year?
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
There are a lot of people very close to Westminster who are looking at what you and the medics are doing very carefully and unhappily.
It's come to a pretty pass when it turns out that I know more about cricket than a self-confessed cricket fan.
Cricket is, aside from the occasional last hour in certain games, so very boring that anything that can be done to generate interest is to be applauded.
That it is a perfectly legal, understandable, and wholly legitimate move by one of the teams that is causing all the ire is just further testament to how deficient cricket fans are in the first place.
Aaaaand, so you finally admit you know nothing about cricket, and you are not a fan. Next
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.
That's clear as a concept, yes, but my query is slightly different.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
The umpire can/should signal dead ball if necessary, and does fairly occassionally. "20.4.1 When the ball has become dead under 20.1, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
I guess when Broad or Bairstow are next batting they may ask the umpire to signal dead ball repeatedly to liven up the crowd.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
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.
That's clear as a concept, yes, but my query is slightly different.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
The umpire can/should signal dead ball if necessary, and does fairly occassionally. "20.4.1 When the ball has become dead under 20.1, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
I guess when Broad or Bairstow are next batting they may ask the umpire to signal dead ball repeatedly to liven up the crowd.
Broad's batting after he came to the crease was quite comedic. Making it ludicrously clear that he was in his crease, checking with Carey each time, theatrically not daring to touch the ball he'd just forward-defensived into the turf beneath him...
It's come to a pretty pass when it turns out that I know more about cricket than a self-confessed cricket fan.
Cricket is, aside from the occasional last hour in certain games, so very boring that anything that can be done to generate interest is to be applauded.
That it is a perfectly legal, understandable, and wholly legitimate move by one of the teams that is causing all the ire is just further testament to how deficient cricket fans are in the first place.
Aaaaand, so you finally admit you know nothing about cricket, and you are not a fan. Next
Of course I don't know about cricket but I know what happened in this instance. Moreso than you, it appears, even though "you were there".
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.
That's clear as a concept, yes, but my query is slightly different.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
The umpire can/should signal dead ball if necessary, and does fairly occassionally. "20.4.1 When the ball has become dead under 20.1, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
I guess when Broad or Bairstow are next batting they may ask the umpire to signal dead ball repeatedly to liven up the crowd.
Broad's batting after he came to the crease was quite comedic. Making it ludicrously clear that he was in his crease, checking with Carey each time, theatrically not daring to touch the ball he'd just forward-defensived into the turf beneath him...
Yeah, great theatre. The edge to the contest made it a better spectactle than if both sides were overly nicey nicey imo.
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
Eh ?
How did Carey make the "wrong" decision ? He threw the ball back at the stumps when Bairstow was within his crease.
If you're going to argue on the spirit thingy then it's Cummings as captain who you need to question - not Carey.
Even Stokes says "he would have to a real think about it" before hypothetically withdrawing his appeal. It is clearly not as clear cut as being made out on here, or there would be little to think about. In real time would he actually have withdrawn it? I am not sure.
The NZ run out when Collingwood captain was far far worse.
Yes, we'd probably have done the same. And subsequently defended it to the hilt. Part of sport's charm, this, for me. It's a safe space for passionate irrationality.
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
There are a lot of people very close to Westminster who are looking at what you and the medics are doing very carefully and unhappily.
In USA ads touting online prescriptions based on such virtual "exams" are ubiquitous on broadcast TV (have no clue re: cable, streaming, etc.).
Where geezers are over-represented, as many retirees cut the cable cord as way of preserving more of their fixed/limited incomes.
So no surprise, that about 99.46% of such ads for online "exams" from sea to shining sea, are devoted to . . . wait for it . . . "meds" for "ED" = erectile dysfunction(!)
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the 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.
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.
That's clear as a concept, yes, but my query is slightly different.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
The umpire can/should signal dead ball if necessary, and does fairly occassionally. "20.4.1 When the ball has become dead under 20.1, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
I guess when Broad or Bairstow are next batting they may ask the umpire to signal dead ball repeatedly to liven up the crowd.
Broad's batting after he came to the crease was quite comedic. Making it ludicrously clear that he was in his crease, checking with Carey each time, theatrically not daring to touch the ball he'd just forward-defensived into the turf beneath him...
Yeah, great theatre. The edge to the contest made it a better spectactle than if both sides were overly nicey nicey imo.
I would suggest that if it had happened in (say, for example) Pakistan then there would have been trouble!
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 umpire has no choice but to give it if the fielding side uphold their appeal.
However, a wise umpire would encourage the fielding skipper to withdraw his appeal – whether at schoolboy level or otherwise.
Did he still uphold it, the decision would be given as out, but the fielding captain would rightly be tarnished as a poor sportsman.
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
It will go through a pharmacist in the online system, you just don't see that part of the process.
(BTW, much as I hate people claiming expertise in arguments, I do teach in a pharmacy department at University)...
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
"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...
Perhaps the best way of resolving the "problem" will be for the Tories to stand on an anti-immigration platform and get soundly thrashed. Once politicians realise there aren't any votes in it these days, they'll concentrate their minds on dealing with the practicalities in a reasonable way rather than trying to make political capital to mask their own shortcomings.
You're right in the sense that if the Conservatives were soundly defeated on an anti-immigration platform, it would prove that most English people aren't racist. But it's not that simple. There will always be a subset of the electorate who are swayed by the anti-immigration rhetoric, and this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to the Tories, I suspect there is also a sizeable anti-immigration vote in the "red wall". Meaning that all parties have to pander to this vote to an extent. There was plenty of Labour dog whistling in the Brown era, "British Jobs for British Workers" etc.
Actually forcing the government to improve capacity in our housing, health and education systems to cope with the massive influx of people over the last couple of decades would do so much to take the wind out of the sails of the far right. At the moment, you have a lot of people who aren't racist, but feel they are trapped in fight for ever dwindling housing and public resources. Fix this, and you will take away a lot of the audience for anti-immigration politicians.
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
There are a lot of people very close to Westminster who are looking at what you and the medics are doing very carefully and unhappily.
In USA ads touting online prescriptions based on such virtual "exams" are ubiquitous on broadcast TV (have no clue re: cable, streaming, etc.).
Where geezers are over-represented, as many retirees cut the cable cord as way of preserving more of their fixed/limited incomes.
So no surprise, that about 99.46% of such ads for online "exams" from sea to shining sea, are devoted to . . . wait for it . . . "meds" for "ED" = erectile dysfunction(!)
I surprised it’s as high as that; thought there were loads of on line ‘scripts for opiates and similar.
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
There are a lot of people very close to Westminster who are looking at what you and the medics are doing very carefully and unhappily.
My wife spent 6 months working in a country GP surgery and actually got to hand out meds without any formal qualifications. I was horrified. Quite literally no check after the GP wrote (well typed) the prescription. But these kind of things are rare. Online prescriptions still go via a pharmacist in the system but as a patient you don't see it, so it looks to you as it there is no checking.
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
Well of course he was out, the umpire's decision being final. One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
No, the umpire's decision was the right one, in this case, with the laws of the game. It would have been very hard for him to decide otherwise. It was Alex Carey's decision that was the wrong one.
Eh ?
How did Carey make the "wrong" decision ? He threw the ball back at the stumps when Bairstow was within his crease.
If you're going to argue on the spirit thingy then it's Cummings as captain who you need to question - not Carey.
Even Stokes says "he would have to a real think about it" before hypothetically withdrawing his appeal. It is clearly not as clear cut as being made out on here, or there would be little to think about. In real time would he actually have withdrawn it? I am not sure.
The NZ run out when Collingwood captain was far far worse.
Yes, we'd probably have done the same. And subsequently defended it to the hilt. Part of sport's charm, this, for me. It's a safe space for passionate irrationality.
"a safe space for passionate irrationality"
Anyone sporting a Seattle Mariner's baseball cap is a poster-child for this.
BTW, found out recently that the spouse of a friend is leading light of a local lawn bowling club, based at local Seattle park.
She just be play at a pitch or (whatyacallit) at another park, but according to my friend, she and bunch of others got run off by coterie who ran the setup; last time I went by there it looked pretty derelict (perfect for Leon's dystopian travel reportage?)
FYI, a King County park south of Seattle has a cricket pitch with active league (maybe more than one) with supported primarily by South Asians and some West Indians, plus the odd (NOT a value judgement!) Brits.
It's come to a pretty pass when it turns out that I know more about cricket than a self-confessed cricket fan.
Cricket is, aside from the occasional last hour in certain games, so very boring that anything that can be done to generate interest is to be applauded.
That it is a perfectly legal, understandable, and wholly legitimate move by one of the teams that is causing all the ire is just further testament to how deficient cricket fans are in the first place.
Aaaaand, so you finally admit you know nothing about cricket, and you are not a fan. Next
Of course I don't know about cricket but I know what happened in this instance. Moreso than you, it appears, even though "you were there".
Leon knows next to fuck-all about cricket*, as do I, as by your own admission do you.
But cricket thrives on that fact that we can all have our opinions and argue them out with other like-minded 'experts'. Long may it continue.
(*See also, football, working in an office, the weather, etc. etc.)
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
Stuart Broad didn't walk when he edged to slip. Same type of thing really.
He didn't edge directly to slip. He edged a catch through to the keeper (standing up), who didn't hold it and it cannoned off his gloves to slip. The fact it went off Haddin's glove was what threw the umpire.
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.
As Orkney Islands Council have the lowest council tax rates in Scotland, perhaps they should think of increasing it to buy themselves some new ferries.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
Everyone in Scotland never mind the Islands, they are a bunch of grifting gravy train imbecilic wrong un's.
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?
Its not as bonkers as you make out. For one thing 2 x 10 mg may have different effects on the patient (different dissolution rates, smaller tablets etc). Prescription meds are heavily regulated in the UK and rightly so. I'd hope that no-one is getting ibuprofen on prescription, but presumably some are (on benefits, so no prescription charge) as it is way cheaper to buy generic.
What should happen (and will soon) is that the pharmacist will be able to change the prescription. Indeed if this goes back to a GP surgery its entirely possible that it will be changed by an inhouse prescribing pharmacist (they are becoming more common),
That is bollocks sorry, I get a lot of medication prescribed by online doctors who have never met me. How is that well regulated...I tell them what they need to be told to prescribe the medication. They are happy I am happy. I wouldn't however claim its well regulated
There are a lot of people very close to Westminster who are looking at what you and the medics are doing very carefully and unhappily.
In USA ads touting online prescriptions based on such virtual "exams" are ubiquitous on broadcast TV (have no clue re: cable, streaming, etc.).
Where geezers are over-represented, as many retirees cut the cable cord as way of preserving more of their fixed/limited incomes.
So no surprise, that about 99.46% of such ads for online "exams" from sea to shining sea, are devoted to . . . wait for it . . . "meds" for "ED" = erectile dysfunction(!)
I surprised it’s as high as that; thought there were loads of on line ‘scripts for opiates and similar.
Could be, indeed am sure there is. However, I'm only talking about broadcast TV ads.
Know zero about what's available online for ED and other stuff, because NOT on my personal dash (or rather key) -board.
"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.
Er, wasn't it part of their shtick at the last election?
No quite the opposite. The last election manifesto was the least anti migration of any the Tories have had in decades.
In 2010, 2015 and 2017 the Tories pledged to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. That pledge did not make it to the 2019 manifesto.
What did make it to the 2019 manifesto was pledges towards eg Levelling Up etc. What have these "New Conservatives" got to say about that? Absolutely nothing it seems.
This lot seem less New Conservative and more Old BNP.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
It's come to a pretty pass when it turns out that I know more about cricket than a self-confessed cricket fan.
Cricket is, aside from the occasional last hour in certain games, so very boring that anything that can be done to generate interest is to be applauded.
That it is a perfectly legal, understandable, and wholly legitimate move by one of the teams that is causing all the ire is just further testament to how deficient cricket fans are in the first place.
Aaaaand, so you finally admit you know nothing about cricket, and you are not a fan. Next
Of course I don't know about cricket but I know what happened in this instance. Moreso than you, it appears, even though "you were there".
Leon knows next to fuck-all about cricket*, as do I, as by your own admission do you.
But cricket thrives on that fact that we can all have our opinions and argue them out with other like-minded 'experts'. Long may it continue.
(*See also, football, working in an office, the weather, etc. etc.)
It seems even a Prime Minister can have an opinion:
"The prime minister agrees with Ben Stokes. He said he simply wouldn't want to win a game in the manner Australia did."
Put a sock in it Andrew Castle. Blathering while the player is serving disrespects the viewers. Fortunately the Beeb is showing Ruud v Lokoli at the same time as Djoko
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
They have made a real mess of the 2 new ferries at Ferguson's where they could easily have bought and had delivered 4 decent ferries in the time but apart from that Calmac running at 96% of sailings and majority of failures are on Clyde where there are alternative private ferries so it is hardly catastrophic.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
The oil deal is down to UKG, you do realise?
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
England should have known better than to think Australia care a jot about sporting fair play. Australia are as interested in fair play as Putin is. Hopefully, lessons will have been learned and England try to beat them by any means necessary.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
The oil deal is down to UKG, you do realise?
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Current mob are hostile to everybody except themselves and the weirdo greens as they fill their pockets as fast as they can.
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.
That's clear as a concept, yes, but my query is slightly different.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
The umpire can/should signal dead ball if necessary, and does fairly occassionally. "20.4.1 When the ball has become dead under 20.1, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
I guess when Broad or Bairstow are next batting they may ask the umpire to signal dead ball repeatedly to liven up the crowd.
We should see a return to the 6 stones/coins/marbles system. With the ball being counted as dead when the umpire moves the stone from one pocket to the other.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
Everyone in Scotland never mind the Islands, they are a bunch of grifting gravy train imbecilic wrong un's.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
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
Bad losers and just cannot accept that your lot were second best and thrashed once again by a better team , one that knows and understands the rules as well.
I understand that Scotland is too poor, bleak. and cold, and its people too fat and unhealthy, to play cricket, but losing by 43 runs in the fourth innings - especially when in that innings your captain knocks one of the greatest test innings of all time, and you make 327 (itself a remarkable fourth innings total) is not "a thrashing"
A thrashing is what Scotland gets when it tries to play proper, actual nations at football
That means after being held to 0-0 at Wembley by Scotland, England isn’t a proper, actual nation, right? As for the rugby…
NYT (via Seattle Times) - Hunter Biden’s daughter and a tale of two families
BATESVILLE, Ark. — There is a 4-year-old girl in rural Arkansas who is learning to ride a camouflage-patterned four-wheeler alongside her cousins. Some days, she wears a bow in her hair, and on other days, she threads her long blond ponytail through the back of a baseball cap. When she is old enough, she will learn to hunt, just like her mother did when she was young.
The girl is aware that her father is Hunter Biden and that her paternal grandfather is the president of the United States. She speaks about both of them often, but she has not met them. Her maternal grandfather, Rob Roberts, described her as whip-smart and funny. . .
Her parents ended a years long court battle over child support Thursday, agreeing that Hunter Biden, who has embarked on a second career as a painter whose pieces have been offered for as much as $500,000 each, would turn over a number of his paintings to his daughter in addition to providing a monthly support payment. The little girl will select the paintings from Biden, according to court documents. . . .
Both Hunter Biden, the privileged and troubled son of a president, and Roberts, the daughter of a rural gunmaker, have allies whose actions have made the situation more politicized. There is no evidence the White House is involved in those actions.
Clint Lancaster, Roberts’ attorney, has represented Donald Trump’s campaign. . . . In the other corner, allies of Democratic groups dedicated to helping the Biden family have disseminated information about Ziegler and the Roberts family, seeking to highlight their Trump ties.
And then there is the president.
His public image is centered around his devotion to his family — including to Hunter Biden, his only surviving son. In strategy meetings in recent years, aides have been told that the Bidens have six, not seven, grandchildren, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
The White House did not respond to questions about the case, in keeping with how officials have answered questions about the Biden family before.
Several of the president’s allies fear that the case could damage his reelection prospects by bringing more attention to a son whom some Democrats see as a liability. Others say the far-right has focused on Hunter Biden, a private citizen, but ignored any moral and ethical failings of the former president, Trump. . . .
SSI - Personally think that the sad story of Hunter Biden's little daughter, is FAR more politically damaging to Joe Biden, that his wayward sons laptop, grifting, etc., etc.
Reckon it won't be a game-changer for 2024. But hardly a plus for Biden.
And, again personally, have zero use for the "what-about-Trump?" crapulous "argument".
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Well said, I wholeheartedly agree.
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Current mob are hostile to everybody except themselves and the weirdo greens as they fill their pockets as fast as they can.
Well said Malcolm, I wholeheartedly agree.
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
______________
I feel Kate Forbes would bring a fresh take to this.
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Well said, I wholeheartedly agree.
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
Energy security: they have been for a while now. For instance, telling Mr Trump that the test area for wind power was more important than his golf course. 57% electricity is from renewables [edit] in 2021 and has been higher dependinbg on demand, though I do wish they would get on with tidal power.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
Everyone in Scotland never mind the Islands, they are a bunch of grifting gravy train imbecilic wrong un's.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
Doubt it. They are now too far behind to gain any. However Jamie Stone should be safe in Caithness & Sutherland. Labour will surely gain the Western Isles. The new Nairn, Strathspey and Moray West seat will be an interesting scrap between SNP and Tories.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
Everyone in Scotland never mind the Islands, they are a bunch of grifting gravy train imbecilic wrong un's.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
Time ripe for an Alba breakthrough surely?
No, but they could pick up enough votes to allow the SNP to lose to another party. The SNP vote is falling whereas independence support isn’t. Those votes have to go somewhere, and, outwith Glasgow and Edinburgh, it won’t be to the Greens.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The fielding side still regarded the ball as in play so it was not dead when Bairstow went walkabout
He was out of his crease when the bails came off.
Which part of that is "not out" ?
The umpire could (and should) have said Not Out on this cricket law basis:
a) 20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
and
b) 20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
So what counts is: that the ball is in the w/k's hands and the umpire AT THAT TIME (before the w/k does something with the ball) is in a mental state of believing that the ball is finally settled. Obviously the time will come when the w/k does something with the ball - but the ball is dead (even if it knocks the stumps) until the bowler makes it come alive again.
A sensible umpire would conclude that HE thought the ball was dead. Not Out. It matters not what the w/k thought.
Current mob are hostile to everybody except themselves and the weirdo greens as they fill their pockets as fast as they can.
See how one in twelve voters voted for the Greens, and one in sixty voted for Alba?
Just wondering what that means for Alba if the Greens are the weirdos.
The Greens are weirdos fullstop and obviously there are plenty of like minded thicko's who are too stupid to know that they are anything but Green , WTF have ALBA got to do with it.
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Current mob are hostile to everybody except themselves and the weirdo greens as they fill their pockets as fast as they can.
Well said Malcolm, I wholeheartedly agree.
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
______________
I feel Kate Forbes would bring a fresh take to this.
If she gets the chance. There’s a lot of SNP insiders whose gravy train relies on the current lot remaining in charge.
I was about to ask what sort of a moron would think that now was the right time to launch an anti-immigration sub-group but then, rather depressingly, I pondered that I suppose they wouldn't have done it without some kind of demand from customers, ie their constituents.
Goodness knows I hope they weren't just sitting there one balmy evening and then just had the thought.
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Current mob are hostile to everybody except themselves and the weirdo greens as they fill their pockets as fast as they can.
Well said Malcolm, I wholeheartedly agree.
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
______________
I feel Kate Forbes would bring a fresh take to this.
I am not convinced she is much different from the current mob apart from the GRR issue and fact that Highlands & Islands are ignored which has always been the case unfortunately. Not complained very much and followed them on every vote apart from ducking GRR.
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.
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
WIONews that well known Scottish outlet posts some bollox from one unionist councillor , it ispicked up by a PB Scotch Expert who has Orkney part of Norway in a jiffy without even the need for a council meeting.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
I would be Everyone in Scotland never mind the Islands, they are a bunch of grifting gravy train imbecilic wrong un's.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
Doubt it. They are now too far behind to gain any. However Jamie Stone should be safe in Caithness & Sutherland. Labour will surely gain the Western Isles. The new Nairn, Strathspey and Moray West seat will be an interesting scrap between SNP and Tories. I would be watching Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, and Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The fielding side still regarded the ball as in play so it was not dead when Bairstow went walkabout
He was out of his crease when the bails came off.
Which part of that is "not out" ?
The umpire could (and should) have said Not Out on this cricket law basis:
a) 20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
and
b) 20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
So what counts is: that the ball is in the w/k's hands and the umpire AT THAT TIME (before the w/k does something with the ball) is in a mental state of believing that the ball is finally settled. Obviously the time will come when the w/k does something with the ball - but the ball is dead (even if it knocks the stumps) until the bowler makes it come alive again.
A sensible umpire would conclude that HE thought the ball was dead. Not Out. It matters not what the w/k thought.
Was the ball ever settled in the WK's hands though?
It looks like the WK throws it almost instantly, which is a stumping, like it or not. In which case its not settled any more than the day before catching the ball then running it along the ground means it was settled when you caught it before it hit the ground.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
Time ripe for an Alba breakthrough surely?
Must be joking. Just a Salmond vanity project. Has gone precisely nowhere.
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
Time ripe for an Alba breakthrough surely?
Time for a real Independence party for sure but I do not have high hopes that we will get anywhere unless the SNP is cleared out completely but there does not seem anybody willing to put their big money at risk and criticise the current mafia running the show. Hard to see them not getting a real doing next WM election which might at least focus minds and stiffen some backbones for 2026 Holyrood elections.
I was about to ask what sort of a moron would think that now was the right time to launch an anti-immigration sub-group but then, rather depressingly, I pondered that I suppose they wouldn't have done it without some kind of demand from customers, ie their constituents.
Goodness knows I hope they weren't just sitting there one balmy evening and then just had the thought.
Thankfully I don't think their views are representative of the electorate and they'll be on a hiding to nothing at the next General Election.
These are MPs representing seats that didn't vote Tory when the Tories were pledging to cut migration down to the tens of thousands, but did vote Tory when that pledge was dropped and pledges like Levelling Up were given instead.
And what do these fools do? Forget levelling up, have absolutely nothing to say on that, lets bang the drum on immigration once more. This time if we bang the drum louder it'll work ...
Not one of these idiots deserves to hold onto their seat.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The fielding side still regarded the ball as in play so it was not dead when Bairstow went walkabout
He was out of his crease when the bails came off.
Which part of that is "not out" ?
The umpire could (and should) have said Not Out on this cricket law basis:
a) 20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
and
b) 20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
So what counts is: that the ball is in the w/k's hands and the umpire AT THAT TIME (before the w/k does something with the ball) is in a mental state of believing that the ball is finally settled. Obviously the time will come when the w/k does something with the ball - but the ball is dead (even if it knocks the stumps) until the bowler makes it come alive again.
A sensible umpire would conclude that HE thought the ball was dead. Not Out. It matters not what the w/k thought.
Was the ball ever settled in the WK's hands though?
It looks like the WK throws it almost instantly, which is a stumping, like it or not. In which case its not settled any more than the day before catching the ball then running it along the ground means it was settled when you caught it before it hit the ground.
I take that point, and the umpire would have been acting creatively but not irrationally to decide it had been dead. But his reasoning could and should have included the fact that the ball was complete and past the bat, the batter(s) were making no attempt at a run, the facing batter obviously believed the ball was dead by going for the traditional walk outside the crease, and the w/k must have known the batter believed the ball was dead by his actions. Not Out.
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The fielding side still regarded the ball as in play so it was not dead when Bairstow went walkabout
He was out of his crease when the bails came off.
Which part of that is "not out" ?
The umpire could (and should) have said Not Out on this cricket law basis:
a) 20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
and
b) 20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
So what counts is: that the ball is in the w/k's hands and the umpire AT THAT TIME (before the w/k does something with the ball) is in a mental state of believing that the ball is finally settled. Obviously the time will come when the w/k does something with the ball - but the ball is dead (even if it knocks the stumps) until the bowler makes it come alive again.
A sensible umpire would conclude that HE thought the ball was dead. Not Out. It matters not what the w/k thought.
Was the ball ever settled in the WK's hands though?
It looks like the WK throws it almost instantly, which is a stumping, like it or not. In which case its not settled any more than the day before catching the ball then running it along the ground means it was settled when you caught it before it hit the ground.
I take that point, and the umpire would have been acting creatively but not irrationally to decide it had been dead. But his reasoning could and should have included the fact that the ball was complete and past the bat, the batter(s) were making no attempt at a run, the facing batter obviously believed the ball was dead by going for the traditional walk outside the crease, and the w/k must have known the batter believed the ball was dead by his actions. Not Out.
The ball is dead when the ball is settled in the WK's hands, not still in mid-air. It can't be dead in mid-air.
The batsman was stupid for what he did. It'd be sporting of Australia to withdraw the appeal, but I can't see any reasonable way for the Umpire to say anything other than Out, since the ball was never settled.
Comments
Once upon a time, in a more relaxed era local pharmacist/Gp relationships were such that GP’s would call in local pharmacies to sort out discrepancies like that.
More than once I’ve asked our (one) local pharmacy if they have regular meetings with the one local GP practice and been told no. I’ve asked the GP’s as well and got the same answer. It seems such a shame; in my professional youth both sides found such casual chats useful and informative.
A thrashing is what Scotland gets when it tries to play proper, actual nations at football
One can still argue the umpire's decision was wrong.
And losing by 40-odd runs at about teatime on the fifth day is not being 'thrashed'.
Most England fans expected to lose this match going into day 5. There was no refusal to accept it.
I actually think we might have won, had Bairstow not been executed. He'd looked decent up to that point.
In revenge, I shall state that the Mallard did *not* reach 126 MPH near Grantham 85 years ago today.
He was out of his crease when the bails came off.
Which part of that is "not out" ?
How did Carey make the "wrong" decision ? He threw the ball back at the stumps when Bairstow was within his crease.
If you're going to argue on the spirit thingy then it's Cummings as captain who you need to question - not Carey.
https://www.wionews.com/world/uks-orkney-islands-want-to-join-norway-over-financial-neglect-611446
A row over funding for new ferries between the islands and Scotland has brought Orkney's situation to a head.
So who is talking bollox.....
I'm surprised people round here forget that I check facts before posting things...
Other than that - Go West Bromwich United!
The NZ run out when Collingwood captain was far far worse.
The pundits kept stressing the umpire hadn't called 'over' implying that the umpire doing this is a key event in deeming the last ball of an over to be dead.
So assuming they're correct and it IS a key event, what I'm wondering is if there's an equivalent event for a ball which isn't the last one in the over?
Eg does the umpire call 'ball'?
I'm pretty sure they don't. In which case either there's a special and different calculus just for the last ball of an over - sounds wrong - OR the umpire calling 'over' is NOT a key event and the pundits were talking bollocks when banging on about this particular aspect of the whole tawdry affair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5558001/Steve-Smith-ruthlessly-mocked-social-media-crying-press-conference.html
He looked like a broken man at Lord's yesterday, coz the abuse just went on and on and on. He tiried to laugh it off, he turned and did mock praying gestures, he waved to the crowd with a fake smile, but nothing worked - and on and on it went. His body language (which is always a little awkward) expressed intense discomfort. And his fielding went to shit - eg he dropped an easy catch (off Stokes). It was clearly having a significant effect because no doubt he does feel deep guilt about what he did
A lesson in the power of a sporting crowd
OK, off to work, later
Cricket is, aside from the occasional last hour in certain games, so very boring that anything that can be done to generate interest is to be applauded.
That it is a perfectly legal, understandable, and wholly legitimate move by one of the teams that is causing all the ire is just further testament to how deficient cricket fans are in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvjk47UORFs
I guess when Broad or Bairstow are next batting they may ask the umpire to signal dead ball repeatedly to liven up the crowd.
Ok guys, thanks alot, I get it now and can relax.
That the umpire hadn't called 'over' was NOT actually key to this. So the pundits were talking bollox in this respect.
Not the first time, let's face it.
The Orcadians are p*ssed because they feel they get a poor deal from Holyrood. The Norwegian option is fanciful but provides them with a stick to prod ScotGov. The ability of the regime in Edinburgh to antagonise pretty well everyone in the Highlands and Islands is something to behold.
Where geezers are over-represented, as many retirees cut the cable cord as way of preserving more of their fixed/limited incomes.
So no surprise, that about 99.46% of such ads for online "exams" from sea to shining sea, are devoted to . . . wait for it . . . "meds" for "ED" = erectile dysfunction(!)
In the same way that Scotland feel they've had a bad deal regarding oil, Shetland and Orkney feel they've had a really bad deal regarding oil...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
(BTW, much as I hate people claiming expertise in arguments, I do teach in a pharmacy department at University)...
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
The oil deal is down to UKG, you do realise?
You're right in the sense that if the Conservatives were soundly defeated on an anti-immigration platform, it would prove that most English people aren't racist. But it's not that simple. There will always be a subset of the electorate who are swayed by the anti-immigration rhetoric, and this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to the Tories, I suspect there is also a sizeable anti-immigration vote in the "red wall". Meaning that all parties have to pander to this vote to an extent. There was plenty of Labour dog whistling in the Brown era, "British Jobs for British Workers" etc.
Actually forcing the government to improve capacity in our housing, health and education systems to cope with the massive influx of people over the last couple of decades would do so much to take the wind out of the sails of the far right. At the moment, you have a lot of people who aren't racist, but feel they are trapped in fight for ever dwindling housing and public resources. Fix this, and you will take away a lot of the audience for anti-immigration politicians.
Anyone sporting a Seattle Mariner's baseball cap is a poster-child for this.
BTW, found out recently that the spouse of a friend is leading light of a local lawn bowling club, based at local Seattle park.
She just be play at a pitch or (whatyacallit) at another park, but according to my friend, she and bunch of others got run off by coterie who ran the setup; last time I went by there it looked pretty derelict (perfect for Leon's dystopian travel reportage?)
FYI, a King County park south of Seattle has a cricket pitch with active league (maybe more than one) with supported primarily by South Asians and some West Indians, plus the odd (NOT a value judgement!) Brits.
But cricket thrives on that fact that we can all have our opinions and argue them out with other like-minded 'experts'. Long may it continue.
(*See also, football, working in an office, the weather, etc. etc.)
He edged a catch through to the keeper (standing up), who didn't hold it and it cannoned off his gloves to slip.
The fact it went off Haddin's glove was what threw the umpire.
Everyone in Scotland never mind the Islands, they are a bunch of grifting gravy train imbecilic wrong un's.
Know zero about what's available online for ED and other stuff, because NOT on my personal dash (or rather key) -board.
In 2010, 2015 and 2017 the Tories pledged to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. That pledge did not make it to the 2019 manifesto.
What did make it to the 2019 manifesto was pledges towards eg Levelling Up etc. What have these "New Conservatives" got to say about that? Absolutely nothing it seems.
This lot seem less New Conservative and more Old BNP.
OOOOOOOFT
"The prime minister agrees with Ben Stokes. He said he simply wouldn't want to win a game in the manner Australia did."
Sailors constantly monitored the situation . . . by broaching His Lordship's "bier" throughout the voyage . . .
True sailors's tribute to England's greatest seadog.
Blathering while the player is serving disrespects the viewers.
Fortunately the Beeb is showing Ruud v Lokoli at the same time as Djoko
and the Ferries really are dire so I can understand why people are pushing the point...
They have made a real mess of the 2 new ferries at Ferguson's where they could easily have bought and had delivered 4 decent ferries in the time but apart from that Calmac running at 96% of sailings and majority of failures are on Clyde where there are alternative private ferries so it is hardly catastrophic.
Sigh. Missing the point. SNP (and Labour) committed to closing down oil and gas sector. Employs thousands across the north of Scotland. What other jobs are there? Thats why these communities are p*ssed. Ferries, undualled roads, Greens in govt., etc., also contributing. Its not just thst they are feeling neglected - used to that. Its that they actually feel ScotGov is actively hostile to their interests.
Current mob are hostile to everybody except themselves and the weirdo greens as they fill their pockets as fast as they can.
The campaign to rid care homes of staff isn't a good look....
The SNP could really suffer at the next election. The swing against them in the Central Belt could lose them several seats, but they could unexpectedly lose more seats in the Highlands and Islands to whoever is seen as the best challenger. It could be a good result for Scottish Lib Dems.
As for the rugby…
BATESVILLE, Ark. — There is a 4-year-old girl in rural Arkansas who is learning to ride a camouflage-patterned four-wheeler alongside her cousins. Some days, she wears a bow in her hair, and on other days, she threads her long blond ponytail through the back of a baseball cap. When she is old enough, she will learn to hunt, just like her mother did when she was young.
The girl is aware that her father is Hunter Biden and that her paternal grandfather is the president of the United States. She speaks about both of them often, but she has not met them. Her maternal grandfather, Rob Roberts, described her as whip-smart and funny. . .
Her parents ended a years long court battle over child support Thursday, agreeing that Hunter Biden, who has embarked on a second career as a painter whose pieces have been offered for as much as $500,000 each, would turn over a number of his paintings to his daughter in addition to providing a monthly support payment. The little girl will select the paintings from Biden, according to court documents. . . .
Both Hunter Biden, the privileged and troubled son of a president, and Roberts, the daughter of a rural gunmaker, have allies whose actions have made the situation more politicized. There is no evidence the White House is involved in those actions.
Clint Lancaster, Roberts’ attorney, has represented Donald Trump’s campaign. . . . In the other corner, allies of Democratic groups dedicated to helping the Biden family have disseminated information about Ziegler and the Roberts family, seeking to highlight their Trump ties.
And then there is the president.
His public image is centered around his devotion to his family — including to Hunter Biden, his only surviving son. In strategy meetings in recent years, aides have been told that the Bidens have six, not seven, grandchildren, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
The White House did not respond to questions about the case, in keeping with how officials have answered questions about the Biden family before.
Several of the president’s allies fear that the case could damage his reelection prospects by bringing more attention to a son whom some Democrats see as a liability. Others say the far-right has focused on Hunter Biden, a private citizen, but ignored any moral and ethical failings of the former president, Trump. . . .
SSI - Personally think that the sad story of Hunter Biden's little daughter, is FAR more politically damaging to Joe Biden, that his wayward sons laptop, grifting, etc., etc.
Reckon it won't be a game-changer for 2024. But hardly a plus for Biden.
And, again personally, have zero use for the "what-about-Trump?" crapulous "argument".
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
The virtue signalling madness of shutting down North Sea oil and gas exploration while continuing to import hydrocarbons from abroad is both scientific and economic madness from the Labour Party.
But from the Scottish government? Or anyone who intends to govern for Scotland? Its truly insane.
The devolved government should be making the case for energy security and tackling emissions from consumption and imports before North Sea exploration is stopped, not engaging in this anti-scientific gibberish.
______________
I feel Kate Forbes would bring a fresh take to this.
Care homes are on average 84% staffed by British staff members, and that 5 out of every 6 staff being British is probably even higher in the North.
If you want more care home staff then the solution to that is to pay better wages, rather than expecting it to be done for basically minimum wage.
"But we don't want to pay more than minimum wage" isn't an answer.
Doubt it. They are now too far behind to gain any. However Jamie Stone should be safe in Caithness & Sutherland. Labour will surely gain the Western Isles. The new Nairn, Strathspey and Moray West seat will be an interesting scrap between SNP and Tories.
No, but they could pick up enough votes to allow the SNP to lose to another party. The SNP vote is falling whereas independence support isn’t. Those votes have to go somewhere, and, outwith Glasgow and Edinburgh, it won’t be to the Greens.
a) 20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
and
b) 20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
So what counts is: that the ball is in the w/k's hands and the umpire AT THAT TIME (before the w/k does something with the ball) is in a mental state of believing that the ball is finally settled. Obviously the time will come when the w/k does something with the ball - but the ball is dead (even if it knocks the stumps) until the bowler makes it come alive again.
A sensible umpire would conclude that HE thought the ball was dead. Not Out. It matters not what the w/k thought.
I feel Kate Forbes would bring a fresh take to this.
If she gets the chance. There’s a lot of SNP insiders whose gravy train relies on the current lot remaining in charge.
Goodness knows I hope they weren't just sitting there one balmy evening and then just had the thought.
I feel Kate Forbes would bring a fresh take to this.
I am not convinced she is much different from the current mob apart from the GRR issue and fact that Highlands & Islands are ignored which has always been the case unfortunately. Not complained very much and followed them on every vote apart from ducking GRR.
I would be watching Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, and Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire.
It looks like the WK throws it almost instantly, which is a stumping, like it or not. In which case its not settled any more than the day before catching the ball then running it along the ground means it was settled when you caught it before it hit the ground.
These are MPs representing seats that didn't vote Tory when the Tories were pledging to cut migration down to the tens of thousands, but did vote Tory when that pledge was dropped and pledges like Levelling Up were given instead.
And what do these fools do? Forget levelling up, have absolutely nothing to say on that, lets bang the drum on immigration once more. This time if we bang the drum louder it'll work ...
Not one of these idiots deserves to hold onto their seat.
There's a lot of overlap between the two though, so he shouldn't be completely down on the Greens.
Seems improbable at the minute she'll hold on, and stuff like this nonsense shouldn't help.
The batsman was stupid for what he did. It'd be sporting of Australia to withdraw the appeal, but I can't see any reasonable way for the Umpire to say anything other than Out, since the ball was never settled.