I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day
66 goals in 10 games!
Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to thnagers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.
And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?
As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).
Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?
Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?
Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.
Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!
Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).
Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.
When he is in the opposition half, two or more defenders have to be level with or between the furthest forward attacker and their goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offside?
So it's not possible, say, for a forward to run forward into the opposing half, taking a defender tracking him with him, and then, with the defender between him and the goal, the forward passing forward to a team mate who has come down the wing? With only that defender and the goalie in front of the forward with the ball?
Mr. Topping, you say that. But look at the publicity. Clearly my approach of (besides occasionally banging on about KA here) trying to get reviews, interviews and cunningly timed sales was stupid. I should've said something daft about homosexuals and ice-cream. That's the way to get attention.
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
Apparently filming on the next Star Wars film has finished, so she'll have one last hurrah on the big screen at the end of next year.
Does beg to he question from that point of view, what happens in episode IX? Will they do something utterly tasteless with CGI as they did to Peter Cushing (and indeed her) or find a way to write her out gracefully?
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
They don't look significantly higher than the average.
I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day
66 goals in 10 games!
Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.
And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?
As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).
Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?
Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?
Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.
Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!
Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).
Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.
When he is in the opposition half, two or more defenders have to be level with or between the furthest forward attacker and their goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offside?
The potentially offside player also has to be deemed to be involved in play. These days that seems to be interpreted as if he is not actually receiving the ball he is not offside.
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
The baby boomers are now reaching their 70s. The death rate accelerates appreciably at that point so it is to be expected.
The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people. The members of the gangs number a few hundreds. Who have a life expectancy of a WWII infantry soldier. And earn less than minimum wage doing what they do.
The sad part is the innocent bystanders who catch stray bullets.
Chicago is different to the rest of the US. Watching the news in a couple of east coast cities in the week before Christmas, yes there was crime but nothing like this. One of those was a city often described as gritty. I liked it and felt perfectly safe there.
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
They don't look significantly higher than the average.
I'd venture that it's age group awareness. Vera Lynn dies, I either don't care or think "she was still alive?". George Michael dies and that's part of one's youth.
"The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people..."
You are probably correct and I am sure that is how many people in the USA regard such appalling figures. Sixty people shot and eleven dead over one weekend in one city - that is the rule of law breaking down right there.
To say that it is only happening in small areas to a small group of people is in effect just to turn the clock back 60 years ("Well those people, what do you expect. Nothing to do with us"). What is the next step? Pass laws to stop those people getting into nice neighbourhoods?
Just to try and put the level of violence into context Chicago has a population about one quarter of that of London. Now suppose there were 60 shootings (including 11 murders) in London in one weekend, what do you think might be in the national headlines?
I think the USA is in many ways in a very bad place and it is getting worse.
"I'd venture that it's age group awareness. Vera Lynn dies, I either don't care or think "she was still alive?". George Michael dies and that's part of one's youth."
Yup, I think, "George Michael who was he? Works both ways.
To be honest most "celebrity news " passes me by because I have no idea who the people are and I care even less.
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
They don't look significantly higher than the average.
"I'd venture that it's age group awareness. Vera Lynn dies, I either don't care or think "she was still alive?". George Michael dies and that's part of one's youth."
Yup, I think, "George Michael who was he? Works both ways.
To be honest most "celebrity news " passes me by because I have no idea who the people are and I care even less.
The celebrities who are dying are famous for doing something, often well - eg Bowie, Richard Adams, Carrie Fisher, George Michael.
This differs from the more recent definition of a celebrity as someone who someone else recognises.
"If UKIP are looking for a role in the post Brexit world perhaps they should start championing fairer voting systems like AV."
LOL had to get that in there.
When even Polly Toynbee appreciates, or says she appreciates the iniquity of UKIP getting so many votes and so few seats, you know something is up somewhere.
Frankie Boyle had a good gag on Twitter about in 30 years today's teenagers will be mourning the passing of celebs famous for filming themselves making toast and putting it on YouTube.
"I'd venture that it's age group awareness. Vera Lynn dies, I either don't care or think "she was still alive?". George Michael dies and that's part of one's youth."
Yup, I think, "George Michael who was he? Works both ways.
To be honest most "celebrity news " passes me by because I have no idea who the people are and I care even less.
The celebrities who are dying are famous for doing something, often well - eg Bowie, Richard Adams, Carrie Fisher, George Michael.
This differs from the more recent definition of a celebrity as someone who someone else recognises.
Yes, in 40 years time the news will be about someone who once came third in Big Brother.
Well it is definitely right to highlight the absurdity of a party getting 12.6% of the votes in a GE and 0.15% of the seats. Labour beat UKIP 2.4-1 on votes and 232-1 on seats!!
As for Carswell, I find it hard to care. Farage is right that he doesn't seem to belong in UKIP. My own personal experience is that I campaigned for him in the Clacton By Election of October 14, canvassing in Jaywick. Jaywick is a place like no other I have seen. People walking around in the daytime drinking cheap cider,homes that are no more than crummy holiday chalets, cats and dogs everywhere, the roads crumbling. Farage had us all (I canvassed w Suzanne Evans, Farage was knocking on doors too) in the worst parts of town, as these voters were crucial (should've been in Heywood and Middleton in hindsight!)
I wrote to Douglas expressing the concerns from many residents I spoke with and he didn't reply except for an automatic email acknowledging receipt.
In the same Constituency is Frinton, with its million pound art deco seafront homes where many residents are on first name terms with him.. its fair to say Carswell is more comfortable expanding ideological theories than getting any thing practical done for his constituents.
I then wrote to him concerning FOBTs in Betting shops (I think I reproduced the letter on here) asking him to raise the issue in Parliament especially as it affects the poorest in society more than any other. Again no response.
Contrast this with Labour's Jon Cruddas, who I wrote to last month regarding High Speed Trains stopping at Rainham, Essex to provide a link (there is none) between Essex and Kent.. a positive reply within an hour. I really hope something gets done regarding that.. one for @Sunil_Prasannan
"...Contrast this with Labour's Jon Cruddas, who I wrote to last month regarding High Speed Trains stopping at Rainham, Essex to provide a link (there is none) between Essex and Kent.. a positive reply within an hour"
I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day
66 goals in 10 games!
Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.
And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?
As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).
Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?
Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?
Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.
Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!
Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).
Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.
When he is in the opposition half, two or more defenders have to be level with or between the furthest forward attacker and their goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offside?
"Passed" is important . There is no offside from a throw-in.
I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day
66 goals in 10 games!
Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.
And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?
As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).
Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?
Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?
Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.
Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!
Come on lads - a succinct summary of the whole rule so that someone who has no idea about it as it stands is able to understand it (such as myself).
Thanks - start from a blank piece of paper.
When he is in the opposition half, two or more defenders have to be level with or between the furthest forward attacker and their goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offside?
"Passed" is important . There is no offside from a throw-in.
Good point. Also, you can't be offside from a goal kick or a corner kick.
I was more thinking of a previous occasion when Liverpool played Stoke at home on/close to Boxing Day
66 goals in 10 games!
Were there simply a lot more goals per game 55 years ago?
3.4 goals per game in 63-64, so yes. The most dramatic change in goal scoring came with the change in the offside law prior to the 1925-26 season. In 1924-25, games in the top flight averaged 2.58 goals per game. The following season that increased to 3.69. It took some time for managers to adapt to the new rule that meant that you only had to be level with two opponents rather than three.
And, for any martians lurking, or for the Wykeham Professor of Logic for that matter, can you please explain it as it is now?
As it was in 1925-26 except you can now, it appears, only be offside if you touch the ball. (See David Silva v Arsenal).
Thanks so to summarise it (without reference to previous rules)?
Two or more defenders have to be between the furthest forward attacker and the goal line when the ball is passed forwards by the attacking team, else its offiside?
Yes, except the ball doesn't have to go forward.
Oh I put that because there doesn't have to be two defenders between etc etc if its played back!
We probably should have also said that if you're level with the ball you can't be offside.
It's rare, but a player is still offside if he runs back to get to a ball that's gone backwards. There was an interesting case in 2008 when Arsenal played Reading. Cesc and Van Persie were taking corners where RVP would pass it a few yards to Cesc who would trap it and then RVP would cross it. Reading had no one on the line so RVP was offside if you thought Cesc was playing the ball as soon as he received it. But the linesman let it go every time so presumably he thought Cesc wasn't playing it until the very last moment by which point RVP was onside.
The linesman didn't wave an Arsenal player offside.
Also, seeing the nervous breakdown Corbyn supporters are having re. Obama's comments is hilarious. Obama has actually managed to reach people who aren't extreme leftists, something Corbyn supporters would do well to think about. The cult like devotion they have towards him [Corbyn] is actually pretty disturbing though. Almost has parallels with some of Trump's supporters.
Also, seeing the nervous breakdown Corbyn supporters are having re. Obama's comments is hilarious. Obama has actually managed to reach people who aren't extreme leftists, something Corbyn supporters would do well to think about. The cult like devotion they have towards him [Corbyn] is actually pretty disturbing though. Almost has parallels with some of Trump's supporters.
The eye-opener for me is that Axelrod can use the word "corbynization" to Obama in a CNN interview with confidence that everyone will know what he means. When did the US start to have this degree of engagement with UK affairs?
Also, seeing the nervous breakdown Corbyn supporters are having re. Obama's comments is hilarious. Obama has actually managed to reach people who aren't extreme leftists, something Corbyn supporters would do well to think about. The cult like devotion they have towards him [Corbyn] is actually pretty disturbing though. Almost has parallels with some of Trump's supporters.
The eye-opener for me is that Axelrod can use the word "corbynization" to Obama in a CNN interview with confidence that everyone will know what he means. When did the US start to have this degree of engagement with UK affairs?
I don't think it's the US in general, it's just Axelord. He was a former advisor to Ed M, so he'll probably be more engaged with UK affairs than most Americans.
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
The baby boomers are now reaching their 70s. The death rate accelerates appreciably at that point so it is to be expected.
This could yet happen, and the bugger got a free bet on it! Still 5.7 on a Betfair for "over 6.5 goals" if anyone thinks it will be 6-1.
6-1 is 24/1
Traded at 7/1 though
Good call. Big game vs MC on Saturday now.
I've got tickets to that match too.
I'm calling it now. 3-2 to Liverpool
It's going to be a cracker of a game, but the most unusual scheduling - 17:30 on New Year's Eve is going to be a nightmare for the fans.
No trains on Saturday between Liverpool and Manchester, and my usual hotel, the Crowne Plaza is £375 per room.
During the summer, on a Saturday night was £119.
Sunday's threads might be late/brief.
That's going to be nearly as much chaos as in Glasgow! Rent a car and drive home afterwards, or see if you can sneak on an MC fan coach? Even a taxi would be cheaper than that hotel.
This could yet happen, and the bugger got a free bet on it! Still 5.7 on a Betfair for "over 6.5 goals" if anyone thinks it will be 6-1.
6-1 is 24/1
Traded at 7/1 though
Good call. Big game vs MC on Saturday now.
I've got tickets to that match too.
I'm calling it now. 3-2 to Liverpool
It's going to be a cracker of a game, but the most unusual scheduling - 17:30 on New Year's Eve is going to be a nightmare for the fans.
No trains on Saturday between Liverpool and Manchester, and my usual hotel, the Crowne Plaza is £375 per room.
During the summer, on a Saturday night was £119.
Sunday's threads might be late/brief.
That's going to be nearly as much chaos as in Glasgow! Rent a car and drive home afterwards, or see if you can sneak on an MC fan coach? Even a taxi would be cheaper than that hotel.
I'm partying in Liverpool afterwards.
I'm hitting The Reflex Bar, they play nothing but 80s pop music.
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
The baby boomers are now reaching their 70s. The death rate accelerates appreciably at that point so it is to be expected.
Is it because they are approaching a black hole ?
No - it is simply that mass visual communication devices (AKA TV) started coming in the 1960s with colour in the 1970s - the established comedians/ TV actors/ pop groups who achieved prominence during that time and who made a career on TV are now 45 years older.
(Rapid acceleration is not necessarily a condition for propinquity to a balck hole - for one the size of the galaxy the acceleration (Force/ Kg) when entering the event horizon is very small.)
One amusing fact - if the solar system was filled with air up to the orbit of Neptune, that sphere of air would be a black hole.
This could yet happen, and the bugger got a free bet on it! Still 5.7 on a Betfair for "over 6.5 goals" if anyone thinks it will be 6-1.
6-1 is 24/1
Traded at 7/1 though
Good call. Big game vs MC on Saturday now.
I've got tickets to that match too.
I'm calling it now. 3-2 to Liverpool
It's going to be a cracker of a game, but the most unusual scheduling - 17:30 on New Year's Eve is going to be a nightmare for the fans.
No trains on Saturday between Liverpool and Manchester, and my usual hotel, the Crowne Plaza is £375 per room.
During the summer, on a Saturday night was £119.
Sunday's threads might be late/brief.
That's going to be nearly as much chaos as in Glasgow! Rent a car and drive home afterwards, or see if you can sneak on an MC fan coach? Even a taxi would be cheaper than that hotel.
I'm partying in Liverpool afterwards.
I'm hitting The Reflex Bar, they play nothing but 80s pop music.
Ha, enjoy! Hopefully your match-attending luck is coming back and we'll be second in the end of year league table.
The Scottish derby games used to always be on New Year's Day. Then the TV bods started buggering about with things, moving games to Jan 2nd and now to Dec 31st. And of course Hibs are too shite for there to be an Edinburgh derby this year.
I had thought that crowd trouble at Old Firm Games led to the SFA making changes in the fixture list on New Year's Day viz Rangers v Clyde and Celtic v Partick Thistle.
All I can say is that Police Scotland have lost the plot if The Old Firm meet again on Jan 1st.
The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people. The members of the gangs number a few hundreds. Who have a life expectancy of a WWII infantry soldier. And earn less than minimum wage doing what they do.
The sad part is the innocent bystanders who catch stray bullets.
Chicago is different to the rest of the US. Watching the news in a couple of east coast cities in the week before Christmas, yes there was crime but nothing like this. One of those was a city often described as gritty. I liked it and felt perfectly safe there.
Reggie Yates documentary on Chicago was very good earlier in the year:
Reggie Yates: Life and Death in Chicago: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0492hzr via @bbciplayer
Bad News about Carrie Fisher, but out of hospital cardiac arrests have formidable mortality.
Wasn't sure about Rogue One. A film of two halves - first half a bit slow, second half, especially the finale, was brilliant. The link to A New Hope was inspired.
Apparently filming on the next Star Wars film has finished, so she'll have one last hurrah on the big screen at the end of next year.
Does beg to he question from that point of view, what happens in episode IX? Will they do something utterly tasteless with CGI as they did to Peter Cushing (and indeed her) or find a way to write her out gracefully?
Well the Disney Star Wars are based on WW2 with Fisher playing the role of Churchill, however Fisher died somewhat before the USA entered WW2 around 1940 in Star Wars 7 (or 8 if you count Rogue One).
If they decide to stick with the WW2 idea, well they could just decide she was FDR instead and she dies in 1945 just before victory and have Han Solo play Truman or whatever the scriptwriters think.
Apparently filming on the next Star Wars film has finished, so she'll have one last hurrah on the big screen at the end of next year.
Does beg to he question from that point of view, what happens in episode IX? Will they do something utterly tasteless with CGI as they did to Peter Cushing (and indeed her) or find a way to write her out gracefully?
Well the Disney Star Wars are based on WW2 with Fisher playing the role of Churchill, however Fisher died somewhat before the USA entered WW2 around 1940 in Star Wars 7 (or 8 if you count Rogue One).
If they decide to stick with the WW2 idea, well they could just decide she was FDR instead and she dies in 1945 just before victory and have Han Solo play Truman or whatever the scriptwriters think.
In any case it's a bit of a mess.
Have you even watched The Force Awakens or Rogue One?
Apparently filming on the next Star Wars film has finished, so she'll have one last hurrah on the big screen at the end of next year.
Does beg to he question from that point of view, what happens in episode IX? Will they do something utterly tasteless with CGI as they did to Peter Cushing (and indeed her) or find a way to write her out gracefully?
Well the Disney Star Wars are based on WW2 with Fisher playing the role of Churchill, however Fisher died somewhat before the USA entered WW2 around 1940 in Star Wars 7 (or 8 if you count Rogue One).
If they decide to stick with the WW2 idea, well they could just decide she was FDR instead and she dies in 1945 just before victory and have Han Solo play Truman or whatever the scriptwriters think.
In any case it's a bit of a mess.
Have you even watched The Force Awakens or Rogue One?
It's certainly an imaginative and unusual view of the Fisher/Leia role.
Apparently filming on the next Star Wars film has finished, so she'll have one last hurrah on the big screen at the end of next year.
Does beg to he question from that point of view, what happens in episode IX? Will they do something utterly tasteless with CGI as they did to Peter Cushing (and indeed her) or find a way to write her out gracefully?
Well the Disney Star Wars are based on WW2 with Fisher playing the role of Churchill, however Fisher died somewhat before the USA entered WW2 around 1940 in Star Wars 7 (or 8 if you count Rogue One).
If they decide to stick with the WW2 idea, well they could just decide she was FDR instead and she dies in 1945 just before victory and have Han Solo play Truman or whatever the scriptwriters think.
In any case it's a bit of a mess.
Have you even watched The Force Awakens or Rogue One?
It's certainly an imaginative and unusual view of the Fisher/Leia role.
Indeed, also fecking imaginative when it comes to Han Solo in light of the events of The Force Awakens.
You've got Ashford as a stop in Kent too, and virtually all Southeastern Railway stations via Gravesend and Canterbury and Dover are served by HS1. The only Southeastern line that isn't is Faversham to Dover.
You've got Ashford as a stop in Kent too, and virtually all Southeastern Railway stations via Gravesend and Canterbury and Dover are served by HS1. The only Southeastern line that isn't is Faversham to Dover.
Ashford is the last station on HS1. There are many high speed trains that go beyond Ashford, but that doesn't mean that those stations are on HS1 (eg the train I was on today, regular SE tickets are valid until Ashford, the (small) HS supplement is only required between Ashford and London.
"The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people..."
You are probably correct and I am sure that is how many people in the USA regard such appalling figures. Sixty people shot and eleven dead over one weekend in one city - that is the rule of law breaking down right there.
To say that it is only happening in small areas to a small group of people is in effect just to turn the clock back 60 years ("Well those people, what do you expect. Nothing to do with us"). What is the next step? Pass laws to stop those people getting into nice neighbourhoods?
Just to try and put the level of violence into context Chicago has a population about one quarter of that of London. Now suppose there were 60 shootings (including 11 murders) in London in one weekend, what do you think might be in the national headlines?
I think the USA is in many ways in a very bad place and it is getting worse.
You mistake my meaning - it is about the contrasts. Much of Chicago (and any other US city) is law abiding, quiet etc.
In a number of areas, however, the violence is extraordinary - it is a dark joke (and literally true) that joining the army in time of war is orders of magnitude safer.
The violence ebbs and flows - at the moment it is going up, because the police have largely withdrawn from pro-active policing in these areas... stop-and-search and the general disruption of gang activity has ceased. And we all know what that is.....
You don't have to pass laws about "keeping" such individuals inside their "own" areas. As in the rest of the world, the criminals are quite insular and prefer to stay in their own "rookeries".
Yes, sadly, many (perhaps most) people in the US have the attitude of "good riddance to bad rubbish".
If you want sad, weird and worrying - there is the sub-culture in the UK worshipping the US gangster lifestyle. That's where the gangs of kids attacking each other with knives comes from - they don't have guns and are actually aren't doing enough crime (and are too young) to afford cars. They watch the straight-to-video films of the lifestyle - you can find them in the DVD racks of corner shops in run down areas - and dream of being a player in South Central etc.
"Chicago is different to the rest of the US. Watching the news in a couple of east coast cities in the week before Christmas, yes there was crime but nothing like this. One of those was a city often described as gritty. I liked it and felt perfectly safe there."
If you didn't stray into the the war zones, then in pretty much any US city you would wonder what people were talking about. Only the occasional fool goes touristing in the fun bits of LA...
"Chicago is different to the rest of the US. Watching the news in a couple of east coast cities in the week before Christmas, yes there was crime but nothing like this. One of those was a city often described as gritty. I liked it and felt perfectly safe there."
If you didn't stray into the the war zones, then in pretty much any US city you would wonder what people were talking about. Only the occasional fool goes touristing in the fun bits of LA...
I lived in Atlanta, Georgia in the mid 70's. At that time it had about 1.5 million people, about the same as Northern Ireland at the time. Atlanta had the higher murder rate, yet where we lived people would leave their houses unlocked. There is nothing new about division in American society.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35589564
And I am not just wondering that because of this run of celebrity deaths or the loss of so many of my own family. I get the very strong impression that for no discernible single reason the death rate has risen very sharply this year.
https://goo.gl/QcVg2T
edit: made it a short URL.
"The violence is restricted to certain areas - and to a rather small group of people..."
You are probably correct and I am sure that is how many people in the USA regard such appalling figures. Sixty people shot and eleven dead over one weekend in one city - that is the rule of law breaking down right there.
To say that it is only happening in small areas to a small group of people is in effect just to turn the clock back 60 years ("Well those people, what do you expect. Nothing to do with us"). What is the next step? Pass laws to stop those people getting into nice neighbourhoods?
Just to try and put the level of violence into context Chicago has a population about one quarter of that of London. Now suppose there were 60 shootings (including 11 murders) in London in one weekend, what do you think might be in the national headlines?
I think the USA is in many ways in a very bad place and it is getting worse.
Still 5.7 on a Betfair for "over 6.5 goals" if anyone thinks it will be 6-1.
Yup, I think, "George Michael who was he? Works both ways.
To be honest most "celebrity news " passes me by because I have no idea who the people are and I care even less.
Traded at 7/1 though
This differs from the more recent definition of a celebrity as someone who someone else recognises.
LOL had to get that in there.
Do they not realise that @TSE's cash is riding on it??
Not bad for a £10 bet
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4067268/From-David-Bowie-Prince-Victoria-Wood-Terry-wogan-year-favourite-stars-taken-us.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Rubin
Went to see Rogue One today. Yet alone another film where the religious fundamentalists win against the forces of law and order ...
No surprise there ! Good evening everyone.
That was a nice nap ! 3 hours.
I'm calling it now. 3-2 to Liverpool
They only get paid several thousands pounds per match. So you cannot expect too much of them.
These 'alt-right' people surely have to be the most pathetic people going: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/27/alt-right-donald-trump-white-supremacy-backlash
No story here !
During the summer, on a Saturday night was £119.
Sunday's threads might be late/brief.
Bunch of mucking fuppets, they almost deserve the absolute carnage that will inevitably follow the match!
It is now Police Scotland that covers the whole of Scotland.
I'm hitting The Reflex Bar, they play nothing but 80s pop music.
Seriously, an Old Firm game on NYE lunchtime, are they completely out of their minds?
(Rapid acceleration is not necessarily a condition for propinquity to a balck hole - for one the size of the galaxy the acceleration (Force/ Kg) when entering the event horizon is very small.)
One amusing fact - if the solar system was filled with air up to the orbit of Neptune, that sphere of air would be a black hole.
https://twitter.com/RealRazor/status/813831454631297024?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Agree about Rainham station - plenty of room on the south side of the "local station" for platforms on HS1 to Kent.
Seeing it again on New Year's Day after seeing it on Christmas Eve
(Christmas Eve ticket was a present from my brother!)
All I can say is that Police Scotland have lost the plot if The Old Firm meet again on Jan 1st.
Reggie Yates: Life and Death in Chicago: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0492hzr via @bbciplayer
Bad News about Carrie Fisher, but out of hospital cardiac arrests have formidable mortality.
If they decide to stick with the WW2 idea, well they could just decide she was FDR instead and she dies in 1945 just before victory and have Han Solo play Truman or whatever the scriptwriters think.
In any case it's a bit of a mess.
I'm assuming Speedy's post was a Turing test.
As an aside, how does the Independent relate to paper or, more interesting perhaps, to subscribers?
You've got Ashford as a stop in Kent too, and virtually all Southeastern Railway stations via Gravesend and Canterbury and Dover are served by HS1. The only Southeastern line that isn't is Faversham to Dover.
never mind the politics, here's a Flying Pig 4mt.
Yes I know, I was merely talking about Javelin trains running on HS1.
In a number of areas, however, the violence is extraordinary - it is a dark joke (and literally true) that joining the army in time of war is orders of magnitude safer.
The violence ebbs and flows - at the moment it is going up, because the police have largely withdrawn from pro-active policing in these areas... stop-and-search and the general disruption of gang activity has ceased. And we all know what that is.....
You don't have to pass laws about "keeping" such individuals inside their "own" areas. As in the rest of the world, the criminals are quite insular and prefer to stay in their own "rookeries".
Yes, sadly, many (perhaps most) people in the US have the attitude of "good riddance to bad rubbish".
If you want sad, weird and worrying - there is the sub-culture in the UK worshipping the US gangster lifestyle. That's where the gangs of kids attacking each other with knives comes from - they don't have guns and are actually aren't doing enough crime (and are too young) to afford cars. They watch the straight-to-video films of the lifestyle - you can find them in the DVD racks of corner shops in run down areas - and dream of being a player in South Central etc.
If you didn't stray into the the war zones, then in pretty much any US city you would wonder what people were talking about. Only the occasional fool goes touristing in the fun bits of LA...
https://twitter.com/WhoWolfe/status/813525922188034048