There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
Do you mean that you don't think cheating is illegal, or that you don't think it's cheating to bet on an outcome that you have privileged knowledge about?
I wonder if we will get the usual sudden shift in markets at poll closing time. Anyone with inside knowledge of the exit poll will get some scrutiny.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
It's almost like the ability and integrity of the government matters more,
Man suffers from massive, repeated and obviously entirely deliberate attempted fraud from an energy company.
This is OFGEM's response:
The energy regulator Ofgem said it expected suppliers to "act compassionately", adding it had toughened up rules for companies to follow when dealing with people who were struggling to pay bills.
Fuck them. Shoot them, indeed. Neither use nor ornament. Clearly hopelessly corrupt or so stupid they should not be given the right to have sex.
No wonder British Gas thinks it is above the law.
It would probably be fun to hold a poll of Political Betters that have British Gas (that includes me because I am in debit by quite a bit and since it's not costing me any interest on principle am sticking with them) as to satisfaction. I've had £500 out of them in credits for various screw ups so far. They're still billing me by sending the bills to their head office (I think). And also partly to their head office (in the sense that the address on that bill is correct but the county is whatever the fuck county Cardiff is in) - kinda depends on their mood. Fine cause it's direct debit anyway. But why do I have two, both incorrect, bills... Why did someone come around to read the smart meter the other day? Tis a mystery.
I understand from various hints that your story is considerably worse.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
It's almost like the ability and integrity of the government matters more,
Man suffers from massive, repeated and obviously entirely deliberate attempted fraud from an energy company.
This is OFGEM's response:
The energy regulator Ofgem said it expected suppliers to "act compassionately", adding it had toughened up rules for companies to follow when dealing with people who were struggling to pay bills.
Fuck them. Shoot them, indeed. Neither use nor ornament. Clearly hopelessly corrupt or so stupid they should not be given the right to have sex.
No wonder British Gas thinks it is above the law.
£500 compensation feels like a pittance for all the trouble and worry they've put him through, and it's hardly going to act as a deterrent to encourage them to ensure that their bills are accurate.
It's pretty much the same as the Post Office isn't it? An obviously error-strewn billing system, and they'd be willing to prosecute people if they had the power to do so, but instead they'll set debt collection agencies onto them.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
Hey, you don't need to convince us that Brexit was stupid. We already know
Farooq earlier humourously suggested that HYUFD's head can only hold 5 ideas (The 1997 General Election, Gordon Brown, the Russell Group, a cat, the monarchy). Look it up, it was very funny, if a little harsh. But honestly Scott, I sometimes think your brain only has one idea. Brexit has happened. Britain has done neither noticeably better nor noticeably worse than its counterparts in the EU. Relax and let it go.
Besides which, since Scott often says Brexit means more red tape, his comment made no sense.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
What's the problem? Presumably you and your impedimenta don't get included in the house sale?
Hell if I know. Apparently it made it impossible to assess the condition of the house which sounds like wank to me. The estate agent seems to want me to throw everything bar the carpets out into the garage and sleep in the bathtub or something. Not to mention that we decluttered heavily, had the whole house professionally cleaned, top-to-bottom and are moving because the house isn't large enough for our expansive hobbies (sewing and modelmaking). I think they're just moaning bastards but this whole process has ground me down blunt.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
In part because regulation is relatively easy to vary, while tax burdens, welfare states and culture are harder, so you vary regulation at the margin to compensate for the social or economic losses that arise from the hard-to-move factors like people's inclination to work at a given marginal tax rate. In Singapore or NYC relative to the EU, you starve if you don't work, so regulation can be a bit more finicky. Plus, it's hard to move a nail bar or a bank out of the jurisdiction. Assembly plants absolutely do care about optimal regulatory obligations.
@MattSingh_ Because I'm feeling generous I've created a Google Sheet with the PA declaration times, tabulated and matched to ONS codes. (AI was involved for this, so please let me know if you spot any errors)
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
That is indeed what the current state of the law says.
I think it's what a lot of people thought the law said, but in fact the law prohibits "cheating" and emphasises that deception and influence are only examples of cheating, and not exhaustive.
Proving that to a criminal standard is tough, though. If you've got influence over the event you're betting on, it's a lot easier.
As I said, defining what can practically be prosecuted with a likelihood of success isn't entirely clear.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
Apologies, I didn't get it - and to be honest still don't? And actually my point was only flippantly pointing out that they've all had a poor tournament.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
Apologies, I didn't get it - and to be honest still don't? And actually my point was only flippantly pointing out that they've all had a poor tournament.
Kane and abel. Don't worry too much, it was worthy of the England back half at best.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
What's the problem? Presumably you and your impedimenta don't get included in the house sale?
Hell if I know. Apparently it made it impossible to assess the condition of the house which sounds like wank to me. The estate agent seems to want me to throw everything bar the carpets out into the garage and sleep in the bathtub or something. Not to mention that we decluttered heavily, had the whole house professionally cleaned, top-to-bottom and are moving because the house isn't large enough for our expansive hobbies (sewing and modelmaking). I think they're just moaning bastards but this whole process has ground me down blunt.
Last sales effort was my late dad's house and although the EA wanted all the junk and packed up crates moved into dad's old workshop (irremediably tatty) and the house left furnished in a tidy state, that was only by way of fluffing for the property porn shoot and video which carefully omitted the workshop. Once that was over, emptying it completely before the punters came round was the thing to do. So I dunno either.
If it's any consolation the buyers we had were a mixed bunch but we did get a buyer before too long ...
PS Not that you could assess the condition of the house much better, unless ripping up the carpets. Though the successful buyer did first ask permission for a specialist roof survey, which would have been about 10% easier with a little less junk in the attic, i.e. not very much difference.
Some of the most highly regulated countries in the world (like Switzerland and Singapore) provide their citizens with incredibly high standards of living. While some of the least regulated (like, say, Albania) provide their citizens with a pretty shitty one.
What I also find weird is this belief that Europe is far more regulated than the US. As someone who has started businesses in both places, I've found the US to have the higher regulatory burden: one can't even open a nail salon in the US without a raft of permits, while it is almost entirely hassle free in the - say - France.
It's almost like "less regulation" is not the be all and end all for solving economic malaise.
It's almost like the ability and integrity of the government matters more,
Man suffers from massive, repeated and obviously entirely deliberate attempted fraud from an energy company.
This is OFGEM's response:
The energy regulator Ofgem said it expected suppliers to "act compassionately", adding it had toughened up rules for companies to follow when dealing with people who were struggling to pay bills.
Fuck them. Shoot them, indeed. Neither use nor ornament. Clearly hopelessly corrupt or so stupid they should not be given the right to have sex.
No wonder British Gas thinks it is above the law.
£500 compensation feels like a pittance for all the trouble and worry they've put him through, and it's hardly going to act as a deterrent to encourage them to ensure that their bills are accurate.
It's pretty much the same as the Post Office isn't it? An obviously error-strewn billing system, and they'd be willing to prosecute people if they had the power to do so, but instead they'll set debt collection agencies onto them.
With one important similarity:
It is very difficult to believe that such errors as this are accidental, given the scale, number and persistence of them.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
That is indeed what the current state of the law says.
I think it's what a lot of people thought the law said, but in fact the law prohibits "cheating" and emphasises that deception and influence are only examples of cheating, and not exhaustive.
Not the case. The phrase "may, in particular" (used in section 42 of the Act) is a phrase interpreted in legislation to indicate that what follows is exhaustive rather than an example.
Poor attempt at a biblical joke. I've spend most of the day reading about people jumping out of planes and getting shot for democracy and then coming back to find a bunch of chancers making a mockery of it so I'm a little fried. Plus the people who viewed my house yesterday moaned about it being cluttered and disorganised so I'm cheering myself up with booze.
What's the problem? Presumably you and your impedimenta don't get included in the house sale?
Hell if I know. Apparently it made it impossible to assess the condition of the house which sounds like wank to me. The estate agent seems to want me to throw everything bar the carpets out into the garage and sleep in the bathtub or something. Not to mention that we decluttered heavily, had the whole house professionally cleaned, top-to-bottom and are moving because the house isn't large enough for our expansive hobbies (sewing and modelmaking). I think they're just moaning bastards but this whole process has ground me down blunt.
Last sales effort was my late dad's house and although the EA wanted all the junk and packed up crates moved into dad's old workshop (irremediably tatty) and the house left furnished in a tidy state, that was only by way of fluffing for the property porn shoot and video which carefully omitted the workshop. Once that was over, emptying it completely before the punters came round was the thing to do. So I dunno either.
If it's any consolation the buyers we had were a mixed bunch but we did get a buyer before too long ...
We sold my Grandma's house "as is" and got a bunch of offers. I think people looked at it and understood it was an estate sale. Just had to make it modestly tidy, which wasn't too hard.
Our house has been on the market for six weeks and that was the first viewing so it's rather demoralizing, particularly since we're looking at a chain collapse as soon as tomorrow if it doesn't sell. The market for starter homes is jammed solid right now because of the rates being held.
I would like Slovenia to win so that England face Germany on Saturday.
I mean this is Slovenia they've only been in four tournaments since the founding of the country.
At this point, in typically English style, I want the underdog to sneak it through smart play. And that is Slovenia.
You can't not like Gareth but, like with the saintly Arsene, at some point things have to change.
He was the man in 2010, and he did well for a few years, but with the players that the England manager can now pick from we should be attacking like Liverpool on steroids. Definite 4-3-3 with width.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
And golf.
And Formula 1
I'd love to tell you that F1 is great, but I last watched it on the Beeb and I'm not willing to pay the greasy little shits at Sky £30 a month for the privilege of watching it.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
And golf.
And Formula 1
I'd love to tell you that F1 is great, but I last watched it on the Beeb and I'm not willing to pay the greasy little shits at Sky £30 a month for the privilege of watching it.
As I’ve pointed out before I pay £8 a month for F1 TV Plus - which is an amount I’m happy to pay. Plus if I want to watch one of the 20 in car cameras I can…
Lee Dixon clutching at straws on the Beeb Live blog. Yes, conceivably England could improve in the knockout rounds. Rishi could also improve in the last week of the campaigning too...
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
And golf.
And Formula 1
I'd love to tell you that F1 is great, but I last watched it on the Beeb and I'm not willing to pay the greasy little shits at Sky £30 a month for the privilege of watching it.
As I’ve pointed out before I pay £8 a month for F1 TV Plus - which is an amount I’m happy to pay. Plus if I want to watch one of the 20 in car cameras I can…
I'm sure you mentioned it last time, but did you say you used a VPN to the Netherlands for it?
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
That is indeed what the current state of the law says.
I think it's what a lot of people thought the law said, but in fact the law prohibits "cheating" and emphasises that deception and influence are only examples of cheating, and not exhaustive.
Not the case. The phrase "may, in particular" (used in section 42 of the Act) is a phrase interpreted in legislation to indicate that what follows is exhaustive rather than an example.
That is gibberish. May does not mean must. The section you quote begins "(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) ..."
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
I agree on cricket (the finest of sports for me, especially the five day game that ebbs and flows) but I would put football and rugby like this: an average football game is more entertaining than rugby; but the best of rugby when it’s free flowing is amazing and beats it.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
No sorry 95% of cricket is boring as fuck. The last 20 minutes in a tight game can be exciting. Overall football is far more exciting and far more skillful.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
No sorry 95% of cricket is boring as fuck. The last 20 minutes in a tight game can be exciting. Overall football is far more exciting and far more skillful.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
I agree on cricket (the finest of sports for me, especially the five day game that ebbs and flows) but I would put football and rugby like this: an average football game is more entertaining than rugby; but the best of rugby when it’s free flowing is amazing and beats it.
I never got into Rugby. Being forced to play it on wet Scottish mornings when I'd rather be in bed reading had something to do with it.
Lee Dixon clutching at straws on the Beeb Live blog. Yes, conceivably England could improve in the knockout rounds. Rishi could also improve in the last week of the campaigning too...
Not a great analogy - England might improve. Sunak? No chance.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
I agree on cricket (the finest of sports for me, especially the five day game that ebbs and flows) but I would put football and rugby like this: an average football game is more entertaining than rugby; but the best of rugby when it’s free flowing is amazing and beats it.
I never got into Rugby. Being forced to play it on wet Scottish mornings when I'd rather be in bed reading had something to do with it.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
No sorry 95% of cricket is boring as fuck. The last 20 minutes in a tight game can be exciting. Overall football is far more exciting and far more skillful.
You clearly didn't watch the Ashes last year.
I'm sure the last few minutes were very exciting. But generally it is super boring. Played slowly with a few runs per over and usually not even that. A game where a maiden over is celebrated does not an exciting spectacle make.
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
I agree on cricket (the finest of sports for me, especially the five day game that ebbs and flows) but I would put football and rugby like this: an average football game is more entertaining than rugby; but the best of rugby when it’s free flowing is amazing and beats it.
I never got into Rugby. Being forced to play it on wet Scottish mornings when I'd rather be in bed reading had something to do with it.
Brrrrr I remember rugby at school. In sideways hail. Brrrr
No matter how underwhelming England have been there are many previous tournaments where teams that won were poor in the group stage , got through and then played much better .
Of all the major sports, football is the most tedious.
Except for cricket.
You've obviously never watched a T20 then.
Or indeed any other form of cricket.
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort. Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
No sorry 95% of cricket is boring as fuck. The last 20 minutes in a tight game can be exciting. Overall football is far more exciting and far more skillful.
You clearly didn't watch the Ashes last year.
I'm sure the last few minutes were very exciting. But generally it is super boring. Played slowly with a few runs per over and usually not even that. A game where a maiden over is celebrated does not an exciting spectacle make.
Comments
I understand from various hints that your story is considerably worse.
It's pretty much the same as the Post Office isn't it? An obviously error-strewn billing system, and they'd be willing to prosecute people if they had the power to do so, but instead they'll set debt collection agencies onto them.
https://variety.com/2024/politics/global/david-tennant-kemi-badenoch-lgbt-1236048181/
When the players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield
Oh, and that's the final.
If you've got influence over the event you're betting on, it's a lot easier.
As I said, defining what can practically be prosecuted with a likelihood of success isn't entirely clear.
And actually my point was only flippantly pointing out that they've all had a poor tournament.
Pass it around the back. Take no risks.
Sunak is playing the long ball game (or was). Hoof it up the field and hope for the best.
You're getting sacked in the mourning....
No one warned me about the Group of Tedium.
You can be slow or fast, but you must get to the line. Now is the time, let everyone see, you never give up. That's how it should be.
If it's any consolation the buyers we had were a mixed bunch but we did get a buyer before too long ...
PS Not that you could assess the condition of the house much better, unless ripping up the carpets. Though the successful buyer did first ask permission for a specialist roof survey, which would have been about 10% easier with a little less junk in the attic, i.e. not very much difference.
I mean this is Slovenia they've only been in four tournaments since the founding of the country.
It is very difficult to believe that such errors as this are accidental, given the scale, number and persistence of them.
Southgate could bring on Grealish as an impact sub if he hadn't left him at home.
Starmer has the advantage that the opposition keep scoring own goals.
Our house has been on the market for six weeks and that was the first viewing so it's rather demoralizing, particularly since we're looking at a chain collapse as soon as tomorrow if it doesn't sell. The market for starter homes is jammed solid right now because of the rates being held.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKKnH1SoeB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7aL6ouyS24
And Formula 1
The commentator saying ""there have been less goals in this group..."
What could possibly go wrong?
I don't understand how people can find this exciting. Almost nothing is of any consequence. Cricket, anything might happen with every delivery. Wild swings from team x winning to team y winning. Or rugby: constant, unrelenting bloody effort.
Football is just minute after minute of nothing of consequence or interest happening.
Plus if I want to watch one of the 20 in car cameras I can…
They need a new motherboard.
Goals win you matches, defenders win you trophies which is why we've topped our group.
But I am glad England aren't peaking too soon.
#LookingAtThePositives
*Clearly this will be out of date in 9/10/11 or who the fuck knows days time.