Having done a quick scan of the thread I see that there is no reference to a ban on female PB'ers having a threesome with whoever they want.
This is a relief.
OK, so who would you choose for your ideal threesome? Would you go classic female desire: FMM, or the more exotic FFM?
I hesitate to ask you about positions, but you did start this
I love your assumption that this is something for the future rather than in - or in addition to - my past.
I did not start this, btw. There was something earlier about @Richard_Tyndall and Holly Willoughby (and she'd certainly not be on the list) and then some dreary Alice woman I've never heard of.
Plus I never realised that FFM was the more exotic choice.
You learn something new on here every day.
When I say "exotic" I am using the strict, but lesser-known definition of "this makes me feel more tinglez down there"
My ideal threesome would be my ex wife and Meghan Markle. And me, obvs
Story about my medieval history tutor at Hereford VI Form College
He once told me he had personally unearthed an Anglo Saxon document at Hereford Cathedral's Chained Library. It was quite dull and boring but it did specify the circumferential length of the burgh of Hereford in the 9th century - something like ninety-eight furlongs and three hundred and two ambits, or whatever
He then spent a weekend carefully pacing the supposed Anglo Saxon limits of Hereford, and he discovered it was, exactly, ninety eight furlongs and three hundred and two ambits (or whatever). He rather shame-facedly told me this chain of discovery was the greatest moment of his life, even more exciting than his wedding or the birth of his kids
I was a bit mystified by this at the time, but years later I realised exactly what he meant, and I wrote to him with sincere thanks for the way he enthused me about history. He wrote a touching letter in reply, in his retirement
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
I love the way he would quote something in Anglo-Saxon and then not even bother to translate it. It just sounded so good.
He was so good he was a structured part of my Medieval History A Level at Hereford VI Form College. We got to just sit there and watch him for an hour, every few weeks. Fantastic. The only awkward part was the fact my tutor (a lovely guy absolutely obsessed wiht the Anglo-Saxon history of Hereford) was clearly envious of Wood's sex appeal, as the 17 year old girls in my class ogled Wood's hairy exposed chest. The tutor would make short, seriously bitter remarks about Wood being a "bit of a diva"
lol. Happy, innocent days
Jackie Stewart came to my school. Possibly not quite as impressive (I have no idea who Wood is) - but he was a big help to a lot of the kids. Especially the dyslexic ones who, at the time, were still in the 'thick - ignore' stream of educational life.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
Michael Wood literally changed my life. I watched his In Search of the Dark Ages series on the BBC in the early 1980s. As you say, he brought it magnificently to life. I decided that I had to study medieval English history at university, which I did. While there, I met the girl who eventually became my wife and the rest is, ahem, history. I got to thank him via Twitter for inspiring me all those years ago. He seemed genuinely delighted.
He is a brilliant polyglot of an historian and is still doing plenty of stuff. One of my all-time heroes.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
Michael Wood literally changed my life. I watched his In Search of the Dark Ages series on the BBC in the early 1980s. As you say, he brought it magnificently to life. I decided that I had to study medieval English history at university, which I did. While there, I met the girl who eventually became my wife and the rest is, ahem, history. I got to thank him via Twitter for inspiring me all those years ago. He seemed genuinely delighted.
He is a brilliant polyglot of an historian and is still doing plenty of stuff. One of my all-time heroes.
Crikey, very similar to me. I nearly did Medieval History at UCL coz of Wood. In the end I made the right choice: Philosophy (ideal for a dreamy layabout) but Wood (and my tutor at 6th form) made it a close-run thing
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
A problem for rugby, compared with football, is it is incredibly difficult to park the bus.
If you're the worse team, you can get hammered again and again and again. Defending in numbers and hoping to mug them on the break just isn't a tactic.
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
A problem for rugby, compared with football, is it is incredibly difficult to park the bus.
If you're the worse team, you can get hammered again and again and again. Defending in numbers and hoping to mug them on the break just isn't a tactic.
The other problem with rugby is that it is too predictable. There are few upsets, unlike football tournaments.
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
A problem for rugby, compared with football, is it is incredibly difficult to park the bus.
If you're the worse team, you can get hammered again and again and again. Defending in numbers and hoping to mug them on the break just isn't a tactic.
The other problem with rugby is that it is too predictable. There are few upsets, unlike football tournaments.
That's basically the same problem. The stronger team is overwhelmingly likely to win this n rugby due to the nature of the game. There is little room for the sucker punch.
Two evenly matched sides are another matter. That can go either way with a bit of luck or skill. But a poor if gutsy team against a good one? It's incredibly rare to see a real mugging, whereas in football it is quite common.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
Michael Wood literally changed my life. I watched his In Search of the Dark Ages series on the BBC in the early 1980s. As you say, he brought it magnificently to life. I decided that I had to study medieval English history at university, which I did. While there, I met the girl who eventually became my wife and the rest is, ahem, history. I got to thank him via Twitter for inspiring me all those years ago. He seemed genuinely delighted.
He is a brilliant polyglot of an historian and is still doing plenty of stuff. One of my all-time heroes.
Crikey, very similar to me. I nearly did Medieval History at UCL coz of Wood. In the end I made the right choice: Philosophy (ideal for a dreamy layabout) but Wood (and my tutor at 6th form) made it a close-run thing
I watched his series òf programmes In search of...girlfriend of the time called it In search of an even tighter pair of jeans.
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
A problem for rugby, compared with football, is it is incredibly difficult to park the bus.
If you're the worse team, you can get hammered again and again and again. Defending in numbers and hoping to mug them on the break just isn't a tactic.
The other problem with rugby is that it is too predictable. There are few upsets, unlike football tournaments.
That's basically the same problem. The stronger team is overwhelmingly likely to win this n rugby due to the nature of the game. There is little room for the sucker punch.
Two evenly matched sides are another matter. That can go either way with a bit of luck or skill. But a poor if gutsy team against a good one? It's incredibly rare to see a real mugging, whereas in football it is quite common.
On the other hand, a closely fought rugby match between two good equal sides is considerably more intense, and entertaining, than the same duel in football
I love football, but there is an awful lot of time when not much happens, even at the top. In the best rugby, the competition is endless and compelling, the forwards clash (so hard it makes you wince), then the backs run, and then suddenly the game is upended by an intervention, or a misplaced kick, or some startling back play
Minute for minute, high class international rugby played with attacking intent is the best sporting entertainment on earth. But yeah you get quite a lot of dud games, too
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
No. It's fucking ridiculous. Namibia shouldn't be there. They've shipped 219 point in 3 games. Enough. This is embarrassing.
Oh do calm down. Namibia are playing a World Cup in France. They are playing in front of huge crowds in massive stadiums. They are on international TV. They are having a European adventure, and a sporting experience the players and fans will never forget, going from Paris to Lyon to Nice
So they lose all the time, by lots. I am fairly sure they will still regard this journey as a wonderful thing, which takes them a long way from Windhoek and Luderitz
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
Oddly enough, there was a BBC drama in 1990 called "The March" which predicted this kind of migration crisis.
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
A problem for rugby, compared with football, is it is incredibly difficult to park the bus.
If you're the worse team, you can get hammered again and again and again. Defending in numbers and hoping to mug them on the break just isn't a tactic.
The other problem with rugby is that it is too predictable. There are few upsets, unlike football tournaments.
That's basically the same problem. The stronger team is overwhelmingly likely to win this n rugby due to the nature of the game. There is little room for the sucker punch.
Two evenly matched sides are another matter. That can go either way with a bit of luck or skill. But a poor if gutsy team against a good one? It's incredibly rare to see a real mugging, whereas in football it is quite common.
On the other hand, a closely fought rugby match between two good equal sides is considerably more intense, and entertaining, than the same duel in football
I love football, but there is an awful lot of time when not much happens, even at the top. In the best rugby, the competition is endless and compelling, the forwards clash (so hard it makes you wince), then the backs run, and then suddenly the game is upended by an intervention, or a misplaced kick, or some startling back play
Minute for minute, high class international rugby played with attacking intent is the best sporting entertainment on earth. But yeah you get quite a lot of dud games, too
Was there always as much kicking for territory as there is now ?
The Spectator, as normal, is surely right here. The migrant crisis is about to rise to the top of the European Problem Pile. I predict at least one major west European country will - in the next decade - elect a far right leader, and not a pathetic charade like Meloni. Someone who will actually attempt violent and severe methods to stop the influx
They will probably fail, that said. This may be an epochal change beyond the wit of democratic man to halt. But someone will have a bash. Ditto America. If Trump doesn't get in next year, a new, younger Trump will succeed in 2028
Oddly enough, there was a BBC drama in 1990 called "The March" which predicted this kind of migration crisis.
Today I’ll repeal the ban on PBers having menages a trois with Angela Rayner and Holly Willoughby.
If you could throw Alice Roberts into the mix you get my vote. I am sure the only reason I have not been able to sweep her off her feet is a ban I never heard of.
She's quite attractive but Woke Archaeology is NOT
Not to you maybe, but clearly to many, given she keeps having books published and presumably bought.
I find her TV programmes rather dumbed down tbh but that's true of lots of TV these days, sadly.
Yes, she is REALLY dumbed down. I'm sure she's a lovely person etc, but her shows are awful trite low-IQ bollocks and - personal gripe here - she has no clue as to the enormous significance of Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler. She just doesn't get it
But, good luck to her. Better some archaeology on TV than none. Yet there really is room for a new, exciting voice ready to challenge and explore the tedious consensus. I think this is one reason Gobekli Tepe is politely ignored or glossed over by so many - including her. It overturns the happy consensus. It is a lost civilisation from 10,000 years ago, it has evidence of advanced architecture, yet it is obviously phallocratic and masculine, and it is streaked with implicit violence - human sacrifice etc
Not very Woke; doesn't fit the narrative; too complicated to understand; just don't mention it
Mate not everything is about woke/not woke, seriously. I know you enjoy being provocative but saying Gobekli Tepe is 'ignored' because men were probably in charge and there was violence (see also: most societies ever) is just silly.
Alice Roberts is a TV presenter, not really an archaeologist any more. In any case, she's an osteoarchaeologist not a cultural specialist. It's pop stuff hence the focus on well-trodden and proven popular subjects like Celts, Egyptians and human evolution.
I'd love to see something in depth on the Indus Valley civilisation; another mysterious and advanced civilisation with extraordinary urban planning, art and a still-untranslated script (prejudices declared, this was also the subject of my undergrad dissertation).
I do a cracking talk on the Indus Valley Civilisation. One of my favourite topics.
But you are right about the pop stuff. Sadly it is necessary if we are going to get any archaeology or history on TV these days. The days of AJP Taylor talking in depth about the origins of the First World War, live and with no notes, on national TV are long gone.
I miss Michael Wood.
Michael Wood was great!
Swanning about in his leather jacket, waffling entertaingly about Harthacnut, Vortigern and Hereward the Wake. Brilliant
Where is his equivalent today?
Michael Wood literally changed my life. I watched his In Search of the Dark Ages series on the BBC in the early 1980s. As you say, he brought it magnificently to life. I decided that I had to study medieval English history at university, which I did. While there, I met the girl who eventually became my wife and the rest is, ahem, history. I got to thank him via Twitter for inspiring me all those years ago. He seemed genuinely delighted.
He is a brilliant polyglot of an historian and is still doing plenty of stuff. One of my all-time heroes.
Crikey, very similar to me. I nearly did Medieval History at UCL coz of Wood. In the end I made the right choice: Philosophy (ideal for a dreamy layabout) but Wood (and my tutor at 6th form) made it a close-run thing
I watched his series òf programmes In search of...girlfriend of the time called it In search of an even tighter pair of jeans.
Wow. I too am a massive Wood fan. I absolutely loved that first TV series.
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
No. It's fucking ridiculous. Namibia shouldn't be there. They've shipped 219 point in 3 games. Enough. This is embarrassing.
Oh do calm down. Namibia are playing a World Cup in France. They are playing in front of huge crowds in massive stadiums. They are on international TV. They are having a European adventure, and a sporting experience the players and fans will never forget, going from Paris to Lyon to Nice
So they lose all the time, by lots. I am fairly sure they will still regard this journey as a wonderful thing, which takes them a long way from Windhoek and Luderitz
It's bad for rugby
In what way, really? I mean, nobody was tuning in for a nip and tuck game - the fundamental nature of the game means you cannot get that when there is a significant difference in quality.
So you either make it an old boys club, with a handful of countries having an interest, or you have a really global tournament. The global option has some hammerings, but sometimes a team develops enough to be sensational - Japan beats South Africa, or Fiji beats Australia.
France v Namibia? Meh. No possibility of any doubt, so I didn't bother, but a good time had by all and I don't get the begrudging of it.
I mean - who the blazes was going to tax meat except for the government, that's been a Tory government for thirteen years? Who is taxing meat?
I don't know. Donald Trump's lies are better than this. Donald Trump has a more consistent moral compass on Climate change than Sunak. At least Donald Trump is prepared to say that he doesn't think anything needs to be done about climate change because he thinks it's all a Chinese hoax, but Sunak doesn't have the moral fibre to take such a position. Instead he's saying that that it's a problem, but we don't need to do anything about it.
Comments
He once told me he had personally unearthed an Anglo Saxon document at Hereford Cathedral's Chained Library. It was quite dull and boring but it did specify the circumferential length of the burgh of Hereford in the 9th century - something like ninety-eight furlongs and three hundred and two ambits, or whatever
He then spent a weekend carefully pacing the supposed Anglo Saxon limits of Hereford, and he discovered it was, exactly, ninety eight furlongs and three hundred and two ambits (or whatever). He rather shame-facedly told me this chain of discovery was the greatest moment of his life, even more exciting than his wedding or the birth of his kids
I was a bit mystified by this at the time, but years later I realised exactly what he meant, and I wrote to him with sincere thanks for the way he enthused me about history. He wrote a touching letter in reply, in his retirement
A great teacher is a truly wonderful thing
He is a brilliant polyglot of an historian and is still doing plenty of stuff. One of my all-time heroes.
Namibia 0
Are one-sided matches like this really a good advertisement for rugby?
But we need NPXMP, the acknowledged PB expert, to opine
If you're the worse team, you can get hammered again and again and again. Defending in numbers and hoping to mug them on the break just isn't a tactic.
Two evenly matched sides are another matter. That can go either way with a bit of luck or skill. But a poor if gutsy team against a good one? It's incredibly rare to see a real mugging, whereas in football it is quite common.
search of an even tighter pair of jeans.
I love football, but there is an awful lot of time when not much happens, even at the top. In the best rugby, the competition is endless and compelling, the forwards clash (so hard it makes you wince), then the backs run, and then suddenly the game is upended by an intervention, or a misplaced kick, or some startling back play
Minute for minute, high class international rugby played with attacking intent is the best sporting entertainment on earth. But yeah you get quite a lot of dud games, too
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_à_XV
So they lose all the time, by lots. I am fairly sure they will still regard this journey as a wonderful thing, which takes them a long way from Windhoek and Luderitz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_March_(1990_film)
https://ia-petabox.archive.org/details/the-march-1990
Maybe he did, and I just forgot about it, but I don't have the impression that he was so ridiculous in the desperation of his poor polling position.
Prescient.
I half remember a line about you could give us the money and food you give to your pets or something along those lines.
There is a Michael Wood fan PB sub-culture!!!
So you either make it an old boys club, with a handful of countries having an interest, or you have a really global tournament. The global option has some hammerings, but sometimes a team develops enough to be sensational - Japan beats South Africa, or Fiji beats Australia.
France v Namibia? Meh. No possibility of any doubt, so I didn't bother, but a good time had by all and I don't get the begrudging of it.
"We're stopping taxes on meat"
I mean - who the blazes was going to tax meat except for the government, that's been a Tory government for thirteen years? Who is taxing meat?
I don't know. Donald Trump's lies are better than this. Donald Trump has a more consistent moral compass on Climate change than Sunak. At least Donald Trump is prepared to say that he doesn't think anything needs to be done about climate change because he thinks it's all a Chinese hoax, but Sunak doesn't have the moral fibre to take such a position. Instead he's saying that that it's a problem, but we don't need to do anything about it.