There were two very famous alcohol related deaths in the wars of the Roses.
Edward IV drank himself to death.
He had his brother drowned in a barrel of wine.
I think the truth of both those accounts are rather questionable.
Although the means of the Duke of Clarence's death was subject to those sorts of outlandish rumours at the time, it's fairly likely the more normal means of execution were used.
On Edward IV, he was prone to excess in all things, making heavy use of emetics to purge himself after eating binges, which was known to be dangerous even then. The boozing didn't help him, I suspect, but it sounds more like a massive heart attack or other organ failure against the backdrop of an extremely unhealthy lifestyle.
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
So 141 years on, WG Grace's conduct comes home to roost. Revenge really is a dish best served cold
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.
Alternatively this is not about constituents it's Lee Anderson showing a bit of prospective leg in the Tory leadership election, plus some useful idiots.
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.
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?
None of the oil and gas extracted is in their 12 mile territorial limit.
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.
Oi, Malc, I'm a Greenie! Scots Greens might well be weirdos, but down here I'd say we're saner than the Tories!
R & W Lab 46%, Con 28%, Lib Dem 11%, Green and Reform 5% each.
That implies SNP is about 3% of GB/UK, which again implies a drop. If we go into a GE with those numbers then Con is dead. The only thing stopping a Lab maj is swingback, and there's just 14 months to Oct 2024...
I would rate the LDs chances as less than evens, and more like 3-1.
First: this is mostly not about SNP-LD battles. Edinburgh West is still mostly Edinburgh West. Fife North East gains a bit of Glenrothes (and is technically an SNP seat), but the LDs should be favourites there. Orkney & Shetland is unchanged.
One LD seat - before the SNP's recent issues - looked to be a real struggle for the LDs to "hold", and that is the new Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. This gains almost half of Charles Kennedy's old Ross, Skye and Lochaber. According to Electoral Calculus, that seat now has a notional 3,700 SNP majority. Will the LDs "hold" it? Difficult to say.
Lastly, there's Bearsden and Campsie Fells. This is the successor seat to Jo Swinson's Dunbartonshire East, albeit it is only 80% of it, plus bits of a whole bunch of other seats. I would make this a 50/50 shot for the LDs, depending on their ability to attract the anti-SNP tactical vote.
So: in all probability no change to the LD count / SNP count in Scotland.
Secondly: the LDs will struggle to win more than 28 or 29 seats. Once you get to that level, they need to start overhauling 10,000 vote majorities, and the party is only going to be on 11-15% nationwide. Can they do it on occasion? Sure. Is it likely to be widespread? Nope.
Thirdly: the SNP will lose seats. They will almost certainly drop at least 10, and it could easily be 15. But their losses to the Conservatives are likely to be modest (if they exist at all). And their losses to the LibDems max out at 1, unless I've really miscalculated. Which means it's all on Lab-SNP battlegrounds. And there I can see Labour getting everything up to Glasgow South (11 gains), but then it gets tough.
My best guess is SNP 33 seats, LDs 26 seats. Could the SNP lose more? Yes. Could the LDs gain more? Sure. But is it evens? Nope. It's about a 3-1 shot right now.
Comments
Although the means of the Duke of Clarence's death was subject to those sorts of outlandish rumours at the time, it's fairly likely the more normal means of execution were used.
On Edward IV, he was prone to excess in all things, making heavy use of emetics to purge himself after eating binges, which was known to be dangerous even then. The boozing didn't help him, I suspect, but it sounds more like a massive heart attack or other organ failure against the backdrop of an extremely unhealthy lifestyle.
None of the oil and gas extracted is in their 12 mile territorial limit.
I would rate the LDs chances as less than evens, and more like 3-1.
First: this is mostly not about SNP-LD battles. Edinburgh West is still mostly Edinburgh West. Fife North East gains a bit of Glenrothes (and is technically an SNP seat), but the LDs should be favourites there. Orkney & Shetland is unchanged.
One LD seat - before the SNP's recent issues - looked to be a real struggle for the LDs to "hold", and that is the new Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. This gains almost half of Charles Kennedy's old Ross, Skye and Lochaber. According to Electoral Calculus, that seat now has a notional 3,700 SNP majority. Will the LDs "hold" it? Difficult to say.
Lastly, there's Bearsden and Campsie Fells. This is the successor seat to Jo Swinson's Dunbartonshire East, albeit it is only 80% of it, plus bits of a whole bunch of other seats. I would make this a 50/50 shot for the LDs, depending on their ability to attract the anti-SNP tactical vote.
So: in all probability no change to the LD count / SNP count in Scotland.
Secondly: the LDs will struggle to win more than 28 or 29 seats. Once you get to that level, they need to start overhauling 10,000 vote majorities, and the party is only going to be on 11-15% nationwide. Can they do it on occasion? Sure. Is it likely to be widespread? Nope.
Thirdly: the SNP will lose seats. They will almost certainly drop at least 10, and it could easily be 15. But their losses to the Conservatives are likely to be modest (if they exist at all). And their losses to the LibDems max out at 1, unless I've really miscalculated. Which means it's all on Lab-SNP battlegrounds. And there I can see Labour getting everything up to Glasgow South (11 gains), but then it gets tough.
My best guess is SNP 33 seats, LDs 26 seats. Could the SNP lose more? Yes. Could the LDs gain more? Sure. But is it evens? Nope. It's about a 3-1 shot right now.