We're the backbone of England, Britain, and the UK.
If you look at Britain as roughly a human figure, I'd say more the large intestine. In that scenario I'm unsure what the rectum would be.
Bristol?
When I had a job which required me to go to all sorts of sites along the Essex bank of the Thames I used to reckon that Rainham was where an enema for Essex would be plugged in. Now it's featured regularly on BBC TV at the opening of the news and looks quite pleasant, apart from all the pylons.
We're the backbone of England, Britain, and the UK.
If you look at Britain as roughly a human figure, I'd say more the large intestine. In that scenario I'm unsure what the rectum would be.
Bristol?
When I had a job which required me to go to all sorts of sites along the Essex bank of the Thames I used to reckon that Rainham was where an enema for Essex would be plugged in. Now it's featured regularly on BBC TV at the opening of the news and looks quite pleasant, apart from all the pylons.
Actually I was thinking more in relation to the shape of Great Britain being a man and then Bristol is about right I don’t recall it being worse than anywhere else
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Boris will resign before the end of the year.
I think you may well be right. He will have collected the badge by then and that is all he is interested in
Will we still be in the EU then?
Because taking us out without a deal, then buggering off leaving someone else to deal with the consequences would be the height of irresponsibility.
Using run-rate as one of the ways of separating teams at the world cup is a really bad rule, as a lot of people have been saying. It encourages teams to block out the 50 overs in some circumstances.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Logically that's correct, but in that case you might as well get rid of the umpires altogether and I think most cricket fans would probably agree that having them making decisions is an integral part of the game, even if occasionally leads to the wrong decision being made.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
If you checked every LBW, you'd at least double the number of appeals and the game would slow dramatically.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Well, I remember Eden as PM and I think he was better than Boris will (may?????) be, although or course in the matter of Middle Eastern wars he was down there with Tony Blair. He also encouraged John Prescott to go into politics which may or may not have been a good thing.
That's a little-known fact I must say, Prescott would have been a teenager when Eden was PM.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
That's actually very disappointing performance given modern GPU power.
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Boris will resign before the end of the year.
I think you may well be right. He will have collected the badge by then and that is all he is interested in
Boris desperately wants to be PM, but I don't think he wants to hold the record for shortest-serving PM. Assuming he takes office on 26th July as planned, he'd have to stay until 23rd November to beat Canning.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Is 100 seconds that long to get the right decision? Third umpire run out/stumping reviews take longer.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
That's actually very disappointing performance given modern GPU power.
A lot of it is dependent on the host broadcaster, some of them are cheapskates. We're lucky that we have Sky that don't go for the cheap option.
You've also got to factor in the ultra-edge analysis.
Removing hot spot from the equation has shortened the process.
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Boris will resign before the end of the year.
I think you may well be right. He will have collected the badge by then and that is all he is interested in
Boris desperately wants to be PM, but I don't think he wants to hold the record for shortest-serving PM. Assuming he takes office on 26th July as planned, he'd have to stay until 23rd November to beat Canning.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Is 100 seconds that long to get the right decision? Third umpire run out/stumping reviews take longer.
No, that's the time to get all the info to the TV umpire, the TV umpire then takes time to make his decision on top of the 100-160 seconds.
So they have to prepare the best angle for front foot no ball, align the audio visual stuff for ultra edge, and finally the Hawkeye projection.
Not a Boris fan but he’s right on this. Nudging people in the right direction is a much better way to do things than taxing and banning things.
There's a massive difference between taxing something and banning stuff though ? I'm happy with a sugar tax in principle given the cost externalities picked up by the NHS for obesity, diabetes and so forth. Should say Monster energy drink be banned though ? Absolubtely not.
I think nudging people in the right direction is better for both society and government. As a good example, look at the campaigns about drinking and driving which, over a number of years, have completely changed social attitudes. The shocking AIDS campaign can be put into the same category.
The issue of a sugar tax, as we have seen, is that companies reformulate their products to avoid the taxed item, replacing it with something that much less is known about and may have its own issues down the line.
Additional taxes, apart from being regressive by income, also have the side effect that, if they work as intended to change behaviour over time, they result is falling revenue to the Exchequer. The classic examples of this are fuel duty and VED, which currently contribute some £50bn a year but falling like a stone as we all buy more efficient cars - leaving the government with a huge revenue hole to fill.
Bad news is good news for Wall Street. Markets betting that the Fed will lower interest rates to mitigate slowdown that is already happening - everywhere. But the music will have to stop sooner or later. What then ?
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all...
One over in a 50 over match currently takes around four minutes, so that's clearly wrong.
Though I guess it just seems a lot longer to you already ?
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Christopher Booker, first editor of Private Eye, and leading columnist has died.
Very sorry to hear that. Quite apart from his many years fighting against what he saw as the injustices of the state - not least the family courts - he was also a quite remarkable scholarly author. For anyone who is interested in 'stories', novels or literature in general his book 'The Seven Basic Plots' is a must read.
Christopher Booker, first editor of Private Eye, and leading columnist has died.
Very sorry to hear that. Quite apart from his many years fighting against what he saw as the injustices of the state - not least the family courts - he was also a quite remarkable scholarly author. For anyone who is interested in 'stories', novels or literature in general his book 'The Seven Basic Plots' is a must read.
Christopher Booker, first editor of Private Eye, and leading columnist has died.
Very sorry to hear that. Quite apart from his many years fighting against what he saw as the injustices of the state - not least the family courts - he was also a quite remarkable scholarly author. For anyone who is interested in 'stories', novels or literature in general his book 'The Seven Basic Plots' is a must read.
RIP
Yes, that book is a classic.
A very interesting and original book, but flawed.
The NYT criticism might well apply to his views on Europe (and his groundless dismissal of global warming)... "Mr. Booker evaluates works of art on the basis of how closely they adhere to the archetypes he has so laboriously described; the ones that deviate from those classic patterns are dismissed as flawed or perverse.."
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Sorry, don't agree. Checking say one LBW per hour would make a very small difference.
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Sorry, don't agree. Checking say one LBW per hour would make a very small difference.
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
I would change to checking every wicket as a matter of course - there is a natural break anyway. With the present timings I don't think referring every appeal would enhance the game, so I'd keep the fielding side on a review system. One seems a bit harsh for a 50 over game, though.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Sorry, don't agree. Checking say one LBW per hour would make a very small difference.
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
I would change to checking every wicket as a matter of course - there is a natural break anyway. With the present timings I don't think referring every appeal would enhance the game, so I'd keep the fielding side on a review system. One seems a bit harsh for a 50 over game, though.
Root's dismissal concerned me, I'm wondering if the air compression of a cricket ball that whizzes past the bat can produce an ultraedge small spike ?
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Sorry, don't agree. Checking say one LBW per hour would make a very small difference.
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
I would change to checking every wicket as a matter of course - there is a natural break anyway. With the present timings I don't think referring every appeal would enhance the game, so I'd keep the fielding side on a review system. One seems a bit harsh for a 50 over game, though.
Root's dismissal concerned me, I'm wondering if the air compression of a cricket ball that whizzes past the bat can produce an ultraedge small spike ?
Theoretically yes but unlikely.
I've seen a few decisions given out which were clearly the sound of the bat hitting the ground/pad or foot scraping.
I wonder whether there are any other walks of life other than politics or religion where an arguably irrational belief means that everyone overlooks ineptitude. I mean, would one choose, or even reject, a doctor, accountant, or lawyer, irrespective of their competence and suitability, because they, say, "believed in God"?
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Sorry, don't agree. Checking say one LBW per hour would make a very small difference.
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
I would change to checking every wicket as a matter of course - there is a natural break anyway. With the present timings I don't think referring every appeal would enhance the game, so I'd keep the fielding side on a review system. One seems a bit harsh for a 50 over game, though.
Thanks - yes, that would be a very sensible compromise and far better than current system.
I would work on one unsuccessful review per hour (for fielding side) being acceptable so that would mean three reviews in a 50 over innings.
Every close run out is checked, so why not check every LBW? It only takes a few seconds.
The reason every run out is checked is that when introduced it could be checked definitively. Well surely exactly the same principle now applies to LBW.
Not true, it takes around 100-160 seconds for every Hawkeye projection to be created.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
Given how slow cricket is that would make no discernible difference to the game at all.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
It takes 4 minutes to bowl an over in test cricket, mandatory reviews of every lbw will seriously slow the over rate down to single figures.
Sorry, don't agree. Checking say one LBW per hour would make a very small difference.
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
I would change to checking every wicket as a matter of course - there is a natural break anyway. With the present timings I don't think referring every appeal would enhance the game, so I'd keep the fielding side on a review system. One seems a bit harsh for a 50 over game, though.
Root's dismissal concerned me, I'm wondering if the air compression of a cricket ball that whizzes past the bat can produce an ultraedge small spike ?
Yes I wasn't 100% convinced he'd nicked it either. HotSpot would be a useful addition (though it requires educating the commentators about false negatives!)
If head-to-head matches were being used to separate teams on the same points, Pakistan would be in a good position because they beat New Zealand by 6 wickets at Edgbaston.
you were humped get over it. The humour went right over your head as you were so intent on it being an insult. Just for thickies WC = toilet or World Cup, out of WC , down WC. Get a sense of humour and take that boulder off your shoulder.
If head-to-head matches were being used to separate teams on the same points, Pakistan would be in a good position because they beat New Zealand by 6 wickets at Edgbaston.
NZ are certainly looking like they'll be the weakest quarter finalists right now. Important for Oz and India to try and win their last match so they'll face NZ.
Bad news is good news for Wall Street. Markets betting that the Fed will lower interest rates to mitigate slowdown that is already happening - everywhere. But the music will have to stop sooner or later. What then ?
you were humped get over it. The humour went right over your head as you were so intent on it being an insult. Just for thickies WC = toilet or World Cup, out of WC , down WC. Get a sense of humour and take that boulder off your shoulder.
Irony alert!! Scots Nat accuses someone of have a "boulder on their shoulder", whilst also talking about other nations' sporting failures. Titters!
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Well, I remember Eden as PM and I think he was better than Boris will (may?????) be, although or course in the matter of Middle Eastern wars he was down there with Tony Blair. He also encouraged John Prescott to go into politics which may or may not have been a good thing.
That's a little-known fact I must say, Prescott would have been a teenager when Eden was PM.
Prescott, who had failed the 11+, went to sea as a steward soon after school, and worked on the liner which took a convalescent Eden to New Zealand. Apparently part of his duties included looking after the Edens, there was discussion and Prescott impressed Eden as a bright lad. Eden encouraged him to find a route to further study, effectively the Union, and the rest we know. At the time, being in the Merchant Navy exempted one from National Service.
Another example, of course, of the iniquity of the 11+; Prescott's brother passed and spent his life, IIRC, as railway manager.
Details could be wrong, but that's as I understand it.
I wonder whether there are any other walks of life other than politics or religion where an arguably irrational belief means that everyone overlooks ineptitude. I mean, would one choose, or even reject, a doctor, accountant, or lawyer, irrespective of their competence and suitability, because they, say, "believed in God"?
Actually I think many people are quite capable of holding irrational beliefs and convincing themselves that certain courses of action are a good idea despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Just look at how many people are taken in by dodgy investment schemes, religious cults, unrealistic promises made by recruitment agencies, estate agents, sales people of all types etc etc. People desperately want to believe and so they allow their judgement to be clouded.
It is those who mislead that should be blamed here - in the past British politicians, mindful of the lessons of history, have eschewed populism and whipping up mob rule by fostering grievance and scapegoating institutions and social groups. Now the Tories have thrown all that out of the window and replaced it with nothing more than unprincipled personal opportunism. There is nothing to choose between Hunt and Johnson in this respect - both are vacuous chancers lacking any firm beliefs or principles.
you were humped get over it. The humour went right over your head as you were so intent on it being an insult. Just for thickies WC = toilet or World Cup, out of WC , down WC. Get a sense of humour and take that boulder off your shoulder.
Irony alert!! Scots Nat accuses someone of have a "boulder on their shoulder", whilst also talking about other nations' sporting failures. Titters!
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Well, I remember Eden as PM and I think he was better than Boris will (may?????) be, although or course in the matter of Middle Eastern wars he was down there with Tony Blair. He also encouraged John Prescott to go into politics which may or may not have been a good thing.
That's a little-known fact I must say, Prescott would have been a teenager when Eden was PM.
Prescott, who had failed the 11+, went to sea as a steward soon after school, and worked on the liner which took a convalescent Eden to New Zealand. Apparently part of his duties included looking after the Edens, there was discussion and Prescott impressed Eden as a bright lad. Eden encouraged him to find a route to further study, effectively the Union, and the rest we know. At the time, being in the Merchant Navy exempted one from National Service.
Another example, of course, of the iniquity of the 11+; Prescott's brother passed and spent his life, IIRC, as railway manager.
Details could be wrong, but that's as I understand it.
One might argue that given Prescott's subsequent career, the 11+ was remarkably accurate about his abilities and intelligence.
"Apparently for Pakistan to get ahead of New Zealand on NRR if they bowl first against Bangladesh, New Zealand need to be bowled out for 142 here and Pakistan need to bowl Bangladesh out for 0 and win with five wides first ball." -Cricinfo
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Well, I remember Eden as PM and I think he was better than Boris will (may?????) be, although or course in the matter of Middle Eastern wars he was down there with Tony Blair. He also encouraged John Prescott to go into politics which may or may not have been a good thing.
That's a little-known fact I must say, Prescott would have been a teenager when Eden was PM.
Prescott, who had failed the 11+, went to sea as a steward soon after school, and worked on the liner which took a convalescent Eden to New Zealand. Apparently part of his duties included looking after the Edens, there was discussion and Prescott impressed Eden as a bright lad. Eden encouraged him to find a route to further study, effectively the Union, and the rest we know. At the time, being in the Merchant Navy exempted one from National Service.
Another example, of course, of the iniquity of the 11+; Prescott's brother passed and spent his life, IIRC, as railway manager.
Details could be wrong, but that's as I understand it.
One might argue that given Prescott's subsequent career, the 11+ was remarkably accurate about his abilities and intelligence.
Mairead McGUINNESS (Ireland, Fine Gael) 618 ELECTED Rainer WIELAND (Germany, CDU) 516 ELECTED Othmar KARAS (Austria, People's Party) 477 ELECTED Ewa Bożena KOPACZ (Poland, Civic Platform) 461 ELECTED Lívia JÁRÓKA (Hungary, Fidesz) 349 ELECTED
Pedro SILVA PEREIRA (Portugal, Socialists) 556 ELECTED Katarina BARLEY (Germany, SDP) 516 ELECTED Klara DOBREV (Hungary, Democratica Coalition) 402 ELECTED
Dita CHARANZOVÁ (Czech Republic, ANO) 395 ELECTED Nicola BEER (Germany, FDP) 363 ELECTED
I wonder whether there are any other walks of life other than politics or religion where an arguably irrational belief means that everyone overlooks ineptitude. I mean, would one choose, or even reject, a doctor, accountant, or lawyer, irrespective of their competence and suitability, because they, say, "believed in God"?
Actually I think many people are quite capable of holding irrational beliefs and convincing themselves that certain courses of action are a good idea despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Just look at how many people are taken in by dodgy investment schemes, religious cults, unrealistic promises made by recruitment agencies, estate agents, sales people of all types etc etc. People desperately want to believe and so they allow their judgement to be clouded.
It is those who mislead that should be blamed here - in the past British politicians, mindful of the lessons of history, have eschewed populism and whipping up mob rule by fostering grievance and scapegoating institutions and social groups. Now the Tories have thrown all that out of the window and replaced it with nothing more than unprincipled personal opportunism. There is nothing to choose between Hunt and Johnson in this respect - both are vacuous chancers lacking any firm beliefs or principles.
Hunt is a more diplomatic chancer. Presumably that helps when you're F.Sec. You have to speak politely to people you dislike, or else an innocent Brit. may spend 2-3 years extra in a foreign jail.
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Well, I remember Eden as PM and I think he was better than Boris will (may?????) be, although or course in the matter of Middle Eastern wars he was down there with Tony Blair. He also encouraged John Prescott to go into politics which may or may not have been a good thing.
That's a little-known fact I must say, Prescott would have been a teenager when Eden was PM.
Prescott, who had failed the 11+, went to sea as a steward soon after school, and worked on the liner which took a convalescent Eden to New Zealand. Apparently part of his duties included looking after the Edens, there was discussion and Prescott impressed Eden as a bright lad. Eden encouraged him to find a route to further study, effectively the Union, and the rest we know. At the time, being in the Merchant Navy exempted one from National Service.
Another example, of course, of the iniquity of the 11+; Prescott's brother passed and spent his life, IIRC, as railway manager.
Details could be wrong, but that's as I understand it.
Fascinating, thanks.
Whatever your opinion of Prescott, I think it's unarguable that politics has lost something now that it is dominated by people who have little experience of "real" jobs outside the Westminster bubble. How many ex-cabin boys (or ex-manual job of any description) are there in the Commons today?
Brexit is the "gift" that just keeps taking . As a result of it we are now going to end up with the most unsuitable person ever to hold that office in my lifetime. His apologists hold up his time as Mayor as the only scrap of evidence that he has any leadership capability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country more suited and we have to end up with this cretin
I would suspect you could have lived a very, very long time and still that second sentence would be true!
Indeed. The bar was held fairly low by Gordon Brown and Theresa May, but Boris will still be able to limbo underneath it!
Well, I remember Eden as PM and I think he was better than Boris will (may?????) be, although or course in the matter of Middle Eastern wars he was down there with Tony Blair. He also encouraged John Prescott to go into politics which may or may not have been a good thing.
That's a little-known fact I must say, Prescott would have been a teenager when Eden was PM.
Prescott, who had failed the 11+, went to sea as a steward soon after school, and worked on the liner which took a convalescent Eden to New Zealand. Apparently part of his duties included looking after the Edens, there was discussion and Prescott impressed Eden as a bright lad. Eden encouraged him to find a route to further study, effectively the Union, and the rest we know. At the time, being in the Merchant Navy exempted one from National Service.
Another example, of course, of the iniquity of the 11+; Prescott's brother passed and spent his life, IIRC, as railway manager.
Details could be wrong, but that's as I understand it.
One might argue that given Prescott's subsequent career, the 11+ was remarkably accurate about his abilities and intelligence.
Completely unfair. All those who went to fee paying schools will know several household names who didn't have a brain cell between them. Prescott got where he got through native wit alone. Not easy to do in a country like this one.
Comments
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ed-davey-the-night-i-pulled-a-woman-from-the-tracks-as-a-train-hurtled-towards-us-7534767.html
Using run-rate as one of the ways of separating teams at the world cup is a really bad rule, as a lot of people have been saying. It encourages teams to block out the 50 overs in some circumstances.
Is why we have DRS to stop bad decisions.
You've also got to factor in the ultra-edge analysis.
Removing hot spot from the equation has shortened the process.
I think AndyJS has given the correct reason - plus the fact that they had already brought TV reviews in for run outs outside the DRS system so no reason to bring run outs into DRS.
However I don't believe the current system makes any sense, checking all closeish LBWs would take very little time and I reckon within 5 to 10 years they'll start doing it without any fuss and everyone will wonder why it wasn't done earlier.
So they have to prepare the best angle for front foot no ball, align the audio visual stuff for ultra edge, and finally the Hawkeye projection.
The issue of a sugar tax, as we have seen, is that companies reformulate their products to avoid the taxed item, replacing it with something that much less is known about and may have its own issues down the line.
Additional taxes, apart from being regressive by income, also have the side effect that, if they work as intended to change behaviour over time, they result is falling revenue to the Exchequer. The classic examples of this are fuel duty and VED, which currently contribute some £50bn a year but falling like a stone as we all buy more efficient cars - leaving the government with a huge revenue hole to fill.
☺
Though I guess it just seems a lot longer to you already ?
RIP
Though if Williamson is gone...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7208787/Nigel-Farage-making-27-000-MONTH-media-firm.html
I was an England cricket fan ex-pat going to high school in Australia in the 90s.
The NYT criticism might well apply to his views on Europe (and his groundless dismissal of global warming)...
"Mr. Booker evaluates works of art on the basis of how closely they adhere to the archetypes he has so laboriously described; the ones that deviate from those classic patterns are dismissed as flawed or perverse.."
It would be up to umpire to say whether it needed checking - so anything obviously not out would not be checked.
Born in 1946, he was first elected in 1983 GE.
Majority went down to 7.8% in 2017
I've seen a few decisions given out which were clearly the sound of the bat hitting the ground/pad or foot scraping.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/06/06/hot-spot-can-be-fooled-by-bat-tape-say-scientists/
I would work on one unsuccessful review per hour (for fielding side) being acceptable so that would mean three reviews in a 50 over innings.
Edit: backed them at 29 (28s) just after the third wicket.
England 3.15 / 3.2
Australia 3.3 / 3.35
India 3.55 / 3.6
New Zealand 10 / 10.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.117991336
At the time, being in the Merchant Navy exempted one from National Service.
Another example, of course, of the iniquity of the 11+; Prescott's brother passed and spent his life, IIRC, as railway manager.
Details could be wrong, but that's as I understand it.
It is those who mislead that should be blamed here - in the past British politicians, mindful of the lessons of history, have eschewed populism and whipping up mob rule by fostering grievance and scapegoating institutions and social groups. Now the Tories have thrown all that out of the window and replaced it with nothing more than unprincipled personal opportunism. There is nothing to choose between Hunt and Johnson in this respect - both are vacuous chancers lacking any firm beliefs or principles.
Amy Klobuchar 26.00 £9.88 £247.00 (+ £40 at the bookies)
Sherrod Brown 40.00 £4.00 £156.00
Michael Avenatti 65.00 £4.00 £256.00
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/03/brazil-one-million-salmonella-infected-chickens-uk
Here's a link you will find useful.
https://about.gambleaware.org/
Hate to say it but the Aussies are serious value at 3.3.
-Cricinfo
331 required
Mairead McGUINNESS (Ireland, Fine Gael) 618 ELECTED
Rainer WIELAND (Germany, CDU) 516 ELECTED
Othmar KARAS (Austria, People's Party) 477 ELECTED
Ewa Bożena KOPACZ (Poland, Civic Platform) 461 ELECTED
Lívia JÁRÓKA (Hungary, Fidesz) 349 ELECTED
Pedro SILVA PEREIRA (Portugal, Socialists) 556 ELECTED
Katarina BARLEY (Germany, SDP) 516 ELECTED
Klara DOBREV (Hungary, Democratica Coalition) 402 ELECTED
Dita CHARANZOVÁ (Czech Republic, ANO) 395 ELECTED
Nicola BEER (Germany, FDP) 363 ELECTED
Heidi HAUTALA (Finland, Greens) 336 ELECTED
Marcel KOLAJA (Czech Rep, Pirates) 237
Laura HUHTASAARI (Finland, True Finns) 135
Mara BIZZOTTO (Italy, Lega) 130
Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI (Poland, Civic Platform) 169
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS (Greece, Syrza) 303
Fabio Massimo CASTALDO (Italy, 5 Stars) 143
3 still to be elected...
New ballot at 6.30 PM
Johnson seems to have no such abilities.
Whatever your opinion of Prescott, I think it's unarguable that politics has lost something now that it is dominated by people who have little experience of "real" jobs outside the Westminster bubble. How many ex-cabin boys (or ex-manual job of any description) are there in the Commons today?