The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
This has been forecast ever since Test cricket was taken away from terrestrial television in the Caribbean. It meant the poor kids (which is most of them) grew up watching basketball instead of cricket.
If true, Britain will be reduced to ballroom dancing at the Olympics at the rate the BBC is losing sports rights. I see the golf is going next.
Except how many kids grow up watching Sky Sports? I don't think there's a shortage of kids wanting to play football despite live matches being almost exclusively restricted to Sky and BT.
There is of course Match of the Day on free to air terrestrial TV but there are cricket highlights on it too.
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
This has been forecast ever since Test cricket was taken away from terrestrial television in the Caribbean. It meant the poor kids (which is most of them) grew up watching basketball instead of cricket.
If true, Britain will be reduced to ballroom dancing at the Olympics at the rate the BBC is losing sports rights. I see the golf is going next.
Unfortunately pound per minute, sport represents very poor value for television companies.
It should be remembered not one terrestrial broadcaster bid for the entire summer cricket before it switched to Sky.
Channel 4 were just offering to show the second series of the summer at a reduced rate.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Will that be the same 0.1% that pay something like 25% of all income tax and a substantial proportion of VAT takings?
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
If they are paying more tax it is because they are earning more, often (not always) by sucking money out of the productive economy by paying people less and engaging in rentier activities. If I'm making them poorer by making more of their earnings go to their employees and in taxes, then yes, more than happy. If they go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapore, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people here happy to take their jobs or business.
Except their wealth, jobs and business won't be here to be taken.
Leave Wisemann to his ramblings. Its all a blind, a smear to whip up the usual lefty frenzy. All the usual nasty leftie 'I want something for nothing' rubbish. 24 years out of date at least.
Of course relating to incomes, it isn't the top fifth vs bottom fifth that really counts, given stagnating incomes across all but the very privileged - it's the top 0.1% vs everyone else. I'd be interested to see those figures.
Will that be the same 0.1% that pay something like 25% of all income tax and a substantial proportion of VAT takings?
Are you in favour of the richest being made poorer and therefore paying less in tax than they do now - if they don't go to Monaco or Dubai or Singapore instead..?
If they are paying more tax it is because they are earning more, often (not always) by sucking money out of the productive economy by paying people less and engaging in rentier activities. If I'm making them poorer by making more of their earnings go to their employees and in taxes, then yes, more than happy. If they go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapore, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people here happy to take their jobs or business.
Mr Wisemann (sic), I've spent some time in these places. They are full of Brits. Rich Brits. Millionaire and Billionaire Brits attracted by small government and low taxation.
Surely what the UK government should be doing is encouraging these wealthy people, most of whom are self-made entrepreneurs, back to the UK and contributing to the Treasury..? This would allow for tax cuts for those on low incomes and increased welfare spending which I'm sure you think are worthy causes.
So how do we encourage internationally mobile companies and individuals to locate themselves in the UK, is it by increasing or reducing the rates of tax they would have to pay..?
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Of course concentration of wealth matters. Look at the current housing crisis.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I was contesting the idea that wealth is more important than income. For the vast majority of us, it is not.
Inequality of wealth is more important than inequality of income, whatever the immediate importance of income at any one point in time.
Patent bollocks. It is disposable assets that gives people freedom. Whether that comes from disposable income or liquid wealth is immaterial. For most of us in the West, it comes from disposable income as most of our wealth is illiquid (house or pension). For those in the bottom quintile, they would be far better off with an increase in disposable income than with an increase pension contributions of the same value they cannot access.
It reminds me of the cop-killer who was here on asylum because he Somalia was too dangerous, and we later found him hiding in Somalia.
The asylum system as presently constituted is a joke. What began as a noble endeavour has been become a system full of holes which the most unpleasant in the world can exploit to gain residency and citizenship in the West.
We need to accept the international agreements are badly outdated and start applying our own criteria. A good character test would be a good place to start.
I'd have thought that a conviction for a serious criminal offence such as this ought to be an absolute bar to an asylum claim.
@EdConwaySky: Income gap between richest and poorest fifth of UK population has been narrowing for past 15yrs or so. ONS figs: http://t.co/VLcojYEEac
Except of course narrow income isn't the real issue - it's wealth inequality, which is by any definition continuing to rocket.
For most people - and companies - income (or more importantly cash flow) is far more important than wealth. You can't eat wealth - or make payroll - if it is illiquid.
Of course concentration of wealth matters. Look at the current housing crisis.
I didn't say it didn't matter. I was contesting the idea that wealth is more important than income. For the vast majority of us, it is not.
Inequality of wealth is more important than inequality of income, whatever the immediate importance of income at any one point in time.
How do you gain wealth?
By earning more.
So your statement "Inequality of wealth is more important than inequality of income" if carried out in practise will make the rich poorer .. and leave the poor - poor.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
I asked two separate questions: one for just first generation immigrants, and one for second generation immigrants. Perhaps you could also answer whether you would be comfortable for 90% to be first generation immigrants?
I think its a complete and utter straw man and a very silly question. But so long as laws, rights and culture were still respected then yes.
I grew up as an ex-pat overseas and felt completely comfortable living in another nation that was ~95% born in a nation other than my own, yet shared the same characteristics as the UK.
Out of interest, where was that? For me it was Malta and then Cyprus in the last days of colony and in and around the SBAs respectively.
If you follow the timeline, it does appear she was told she had voluntarily stepped down...
I missed the statement from Police Scotland that she specifically had been ruled out of the investigation - the National would never swallow a spin line like that without double checking.
US Presidential: The first signs of Spring in the first days of the Fall. Trump shows the first signs of dropping out of the race as his polling news continues to be less than rosy:
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
This has been forecast ever since Test cricket was taken away from terrestrial television in the Caribbean. It meant the poor kids (which is most of them) grew up watching basketball instead of cricket.
If true, Britain will be reduced to ballroom dancing at the Olympics at the rate the BBC is losing sports rights. I see the golf is going next.
Except how many kids grow up watching Sky Sports? I don't think there's a shortage of kids wanting to play football despite live matches being almost exclusively restricted to Sky and BT.
There is of course Match of the Day on free to air terrestrial TV but there are cricket highlights on it too.
I can't think of two more exciting sports than football or boxing, most other sports are boring by comparison; it is no coincidence that a cursory examination of the socio-economic profile of participants yields such stark conclusions.
(note: I have no idea what point I'm trying to make here)
The declining fortunes of West Indies cricket hit a new low on Wednesday when the Caribbean team failed to qualify for the 2017 Champions Trophy in England.
Restricted to the world's top eight-ranked sides, the West Indies missed out on the lucrative event after slumping to ninth place on Wednesday's cut-off date.
Their failure to qualify marks the first time the West Indies will be missing from any of cricket's three big limited-overs events -- the 50-overs World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the Twenty20 World Cup.
This has been forecast ever since Test cricket was taken away from terrestrial television in the Caribbean. It meant the poor kids (which is most of them) grew up watching basketball instead of cricket.
If true, Britain will be reduced to ballroom dancing at the Olympics at the rate the BBC is losing sports rights. I see the golf is going next.
Except how many kids grow up watching Sky Sports? I don't think there's a shortage of kids wanting to play football despite live matches being almost exclusively restricted to Sky and BT.
There is of course Match of the Day on free to air terrestrial TV but there are cricket highlights on it too.
I can't think of two more exciting sports than football or boxing, most other sports are boring by comparison; it is no coincidence that a cursory examination of the socio-economic profile of participants yields such stark conclusions.
(note: I have no idea what point I'm trying to make here)
I stopped being a fan of boxing roughly the time I saw Muhammed Ali at the 1996 Olympics and boxing went Pay Per View
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
Not sure. The country just elected a party that regularly oversees 300k net immigrants per year and in second place voted for a party that also brings over a similar amount when in government.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
We have elected a government that as said it wants to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands ,seems fine to you pal because you don't live in a area that is importing poor unskilled immigration in big numbers.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
Not sure. The country just elected a party that regularly oversees 300k net immigrants per year and in second place voted for a party that also brings over a similar amount when in government.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
We have elected a government that as said it wants to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands ,seems fine to you pal because you don't live in a area that is importing poor unskilled immigration in big numbers.
So wrong. For most of the working week I live and work in area with high levels on unskilled immigrants.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
Not sure. The country just elected a party that regularly oversees 300k net immigrants per year and in second place voted for a party that also brings over a similar amount when in government.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
We have elected a government that as said it wants to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands ,seems fine to you pal because you don't live in a area that is importing poor unskilled immigration in big numbers.
So wrong. For most of the working week I live and work in area with high levels on unskilled immigrants.
So right on the first bit wasn't I,you think importing poor unskilled immigration in the thousands is right then ?
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
Not sure. The country just elected a party that regularly oversees 300k net immigrants per year and in second place voted for a party that also brings over a similar amount when in government.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
We have elected a government that as said it wants to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands ,seems fine to you pal because you don't live in a area that is importing poor unskilled immigration in big numbers.
So wrong. For most of the working week I live and work in area with high levels on unskilled immigrants.
So right on the first bit wasn't I,you think importing poor unskilled immigration in the thousands is right then ?
I'm fine with being part of an organisation that permits the free movement of labour.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
Not sure. The country just elected a party that regularly oversees 300k net immigrants per year and in second place voted for a party that also brings over a similar amount when in government.
So at least 300k per year seems fine.
I'm not best placed to talk about first and second generation immigrants.
We have elected a government that as said it wants to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands ,seems fine to you pal because you don't live in a area that is importing poor unskilled immigration in big numbers.
So wrong. For most of the working week I live and work in area with high levels on unskilled immigrants.
So right on the first bit wasn't I,you think importing poor unskilled immigration in the thousands is right then ?
I'm fine with being part of an organisation that permits the free movement of labour.
So you Quite happy for mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of poor unskilled people,that will be settling here for good into already poor areas that already have problems like where I live.
Mr. Eagles, worth noting areas with lots of immigrants will have lots of immigrants saying immigrants aren't bad
Also, it depends on the type of immigrants. I think Poles and Chinese are likely better at integrating and working than Somalians and other groups [on a group-wide basis, obviously there are exceptions].
People always overestimate how many immigrants there are.
Roughly, what level of immigrants as a share of population do you think it would be unwise to go over? What about first and second generation immigrants combined as a share of population?
100% as it would be mathematically impossible.
So you would be comfortable if the British population was 90% immigrant?
Or second generation, isn't that what you said? Yes.
Country of origin is irrelevant about what I concern myself about, I share more in common with the hard working Poles who have recently moved in next door to me than a Jeremy Kyle chavvy dole-bludger born in the town I was born in.
I asked two separate questions: one for just first generation immigrants, and one for second generation immigrants. Perhaps you could also answer whether you would be comfortable for 90% to be first generation immigrants?
I think its a complete and utter straw man and a very silly question. But so long as laws, rights and culture were still respected then yes.
I grew up as an ex-pat overseas and felt completely comfortable living in another nation that was ~95% born in a nation other than my own, yet shared the same characteristics as the UK.
Out of interest, where was that? For me it was Malta and then Cyprus in the last days of colony and in and around the SBAs respectively.
Australia. Spent seven years (including my whole time at middle and high school) living in Melbourne.
This article from politico.com shows just why the Hillary email server story is so messy. Apparently the Clinton Foundation used back channels to ask Hillary's Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, her opinion about sensitive high-pay speaking requests received by Bill.
On the face of it, this is just sensible - to seek an authoritative view from the inside before launching a full and formal ethics committee request. However, Mills was a Clinton Foundation director before taking up her position at State and returned to that position afterwards. Again, nothing particularly wrong with that.
Except that the process was not transparent and only came to light now that the emails on the server have been handed over to State and so are amenable to the FOIA process. What does damage to Hillary is the sense that there were no boundaries within her team between State and the Foundation, and that the private server was meant to keep this from coming to light - and that the same would hold should she win the White House.
Russia can fill its boots getting involved in Syria if it wants - might finish the war but more likely to get bogged down in an asymmetric conflict. Shrugs...
Comments
There is of course Match of the Day on free to air terrestrial TV but there are cricket highlights on it too.
It should be remembered not one terrestrial broadcaster bid for the entire summer cricket before it switched to Sky.
Channel 4 were just offering to show the second series of the summer at a reduced rate.
Well, they've been unpaused:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34402592
We#ll have to wait for more information, but it might just be that the government did the right thing, project-management wise.
Surely what the UK government should be doing is encouraging these wealthy people, most of whom are self-made entrepreneurs, back to the UK and contributing to the Treasury..? This would allow for tax cuts for those on low incomes and increased welfare spending which I'm sure you think are worthy causes.
So how do we encourage internationally mobile companies and individuals to locate themselves in the UK, is it by increasing or reducing the rates of tax they would have to pay..?
By earning more.
So your statement "Inequality of wealth is more important than inequality of income" if carried out in practise will make the rich poorer .. and leave the poor - poor.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/mp-withdraws-from-snp-whip-while-police-launch-an-investigation-into-property-firms-mortgage-payment-irregularities.8184
"Michelle Thomson, the MP for Edinburgh West, will now sit as an independent. She said she will co-operate fully with Police Scotland’s inquiry.
It is understood the initial police investigations will not involve Thomson herself."
So why is she losing the whip ?
@HackneyAbbott: Surprised that Maria Eagle criticises JC for making his position clear on Trident nuclear weapon system http://t.co/kFlwjfOgGg
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-childish-fall-back-plan/story?id=34124354
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/divisions-mark-trumps-popularity-bases-broader-carson-fiorina/story?id=34129962
(note: I have no idea what point I'm trying to make here)
"Jaywick and Middlesbrough most deprived areas in England"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34401236
new thread
Farage tells @PoliticoRyan: “Now we’ve got Jeremy Corbyn...I’m mainstream whether we like it or not” http://www.politico.eu/article/farage-ukip-timmermans-eu-grip/ …
Let them eat cake.
This article from politico.com shows just why the Hillary email server story is so messy. Apparently the Clinton Foundation used back channels to ask Hillary's Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, her opinion about sensitive high-pay speaking requests received by Bill.
On the face of it, this is just sensible - to seek an authoritative view from the inside before launching a full and formal ethics committee request. However, Mills was a Clinton Foundation director before taking up her position at State and returned to that position afterwards. Again, nothing particularly wrong with that.
Except that the process was not transparent and only came to light now that the emails on the server have been handed over to State and so are amenable to the FOIA process. What does damage to Hillary is the sense that there were no boundaries within her team between State and the Foundation, and that the private server was meant to keep this from coming to light - and that the same would hold should she win the White House.