Quite right too ! And after what she said about Johnson in the GE2017 debates. They all like chauffer driven cars !
Good riddance to her . A complete sell out , I really hope Bozo fires her and she can sit friendless on the backbenches , a fate deserving of Hancock aswell .
Quite right too ! And after what she said about Johnson in the GE2017 debates. They all like chauffer driven cars !
Good riddance to her . A complete sell out , I really hope Bozo fires her and she can sit friendless on the backbenches , a fate deserving of Hancock aswell .
I think I saw Hancock sitting next to John Major for a while at Lords today.
Quite right too ! And after what she said about Johnson in the GE2017 debates. They all like chauffer driven cars !
Good riddance to her . A complete sell out , I really hope Bozo fires her and she can sit friendless on the backbenches , a fate deserving of Hancock aswell .
I think I saw Hancock sitting next to John Major for a while at Lords today.
Honestly, on Bastille Day you could at least have the decency to talk about the Tour de France. Granted it waa a fairly soporific stage today, but compared to cricket...
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
I have just met up with my remainer Conservative friend. He is still sticking with the Conservatives despite it. He did say he appreciated better why I had continued to support Corbyn despite not really being in tune with him. I guess there's a little bit if HYUFD in all of us.
(I didn't have the heart to tell him I've switched to Lib Dems.)
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
How do you objectively determine who are the objective observers?
He can be a twat if he likes, or he was attempting a joke, but unless he knows nothing about cricket at all I'm amazed he did not see the obvious replies coming .
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
Objective observers presumably think the tie break rules are a bit odd but it's a very unusual situation to need to tie break your tie break and everyone was under the same rules so thems the breaks.
I doubt most people will give it a second thought.
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
How do you objectively determine who are the objective observers?
Honestly, on Bastille Day you could at least have the decency to talk about the Tour de France. Granted it waa a fairly soporific stage today, but compared to cricket...
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
It is not a matter of thinking anything.
The objective fact is that the rules were known. England won by the rules.
You may wish to argue that rules were wrong - but that is your opinion. And thus subjective.
By all measures of objectivity, England won the Cricket World Cup. It was an unusual route to a win - but it was a valid win.
He ruined his man of the people pitch by mentioning he through privilge had recieved a racket! Is he incapable of message discipline? Or does he just add things into tweets that he hopes a public figures popularity will rub off on him? I said it the other day and will say it again: He is just like Gordon Brown for his blatent attempts to get a boost from others hard work....
I wonder how many that is a new revelation for. I dont wonder if anyone new will care though.
As many will know, I bet against Boris because no sensible Conservative MP would back a man who is susceptible to the same attacks made against Jeremy Corbyn, and worse. I was wrong. But just imagine the headlines if it were Corbyn on that tape.
From comments made by those who work for him, he is a pretty nasty piece of work.
Source? All conventional reports are that Mercedes staff (to the extent that they could be described as working ‘for’ him, but not sure who else you might be referring to) absolutely love him, and that is a major part of the team’s, and by extension his, success.
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
It is not a matter of thinking anything.
The objective fact is that the rules were known. England won by the rules.
You may wish to argue that rules were wrong - but that is your opinion. And thus subjective.
By all measures of objectivity, England won the Cricket World Cup. It was an unusual route to a win - but it was a valid win.
The tiebreak rules influenced the approach of the players. If England had needed 3 to win off 2 balls then they would have taken a different approach to get them. Previous rules would have determined the result based on finishing position in the group stage so they would have won on those anyway.
They were extremely fortunate to win because of the outrageous slices of fortune that went their way in the last couple of overs, but that is the nature of close matches. The losing side can always look back and say ‘what if?). Sometimes the sporting Gods are just against you.
Just watching the cricket highlights, New Zealand must be pig sick - on about ten counts. How the hell England won is a mystery.
I think they deserved to win. Feel very sorry for them.
Indeed. But tempered by the knowledge there is someone wandering home dressed up in a full kiwi costume. Complete with a yellow bill - that does look like a jaundiced dick.
Hur hur hur.....
'Winning' the competition in that way rather exposes the entire event to ridicule - and worth very little.
Is the super over really any different to a penalty shoot-out?
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
You may think that , but I doubt that objective observers will agree!
It is not a matter of thinking anything.
The objective fact is that the rules were known. England won by the rules.
You may wish to argue that rules were wrong - but that is your opinion. And thus subjective.
By all measures of objectivity, England won the Cricket World Cup. It was an unusual route to a win - but it was a valid win.
The tiebreak rules influenced the approach of the players. If England had needed 3 to win off 2 balls then they would have taken a different approach to get them. Previous rules would have determined the result based on finishing position in the group stage so they would have won on those anyway.
They were extremely fortunate to win because of the outrageous slices of fortune that went their way in the last couple of overs, but that is the nature of close matches. The losing side can always look back and say ‘what if?). Sometimes the sporting Gods are just against you.
That was an amazing match, and worthy of the final. Feel genuinely sorry for the Kiwis (in a way that I wouldn’t have done had it been Australia or India!) for putting on a great show, and unfortunate that someone had to be on the losing side of a dead heat.
I wonder how many that is a new revelation for. I dont wonder if anyone new will care though.
As many will know, I bet against Boris because no sensible Conservative MP would back a man who is susceptible to the same attacks made against Jeremy Corbyn, and worse. I was wrong. But just imagine the headlines if it were Corbyn on that tape.
The more cynical might suggest the attacks on Corbyn were designed to open up the way to Johnson and make him more acceptable....
I wonder how many that is a new revelation for. I dont wonder if anyone new will care though.
As many will know, I bet against Boris because no sensible Conservative MP would back a man who is susceptible to the same attacks made against Jeremy Corbyn, and worse. I was wrong. But just imagine the headlines if it were Corbyn on that tape.
The more cynical might suggest the attacks on Corbyn were designed to open up the way to Johnson and make him more acceptable....
Clear error in the application of law 19.8 by the umpire when awarding 6 runs on the stokes / overthrow incident should have been 5.
It appears so. Actually I think they might well change the laws on this (overthrows after deflection off a batsman). Cricketing etiquette says you don’t take runs after such deflections (where you have a choice) it is an anomaly that this isn’t formalised to prevent the umpire awarding them either.
I wonder how many that is a new revelation for. I dont wonder if anyone new will care though.
As many will know, I bet against Boris because no sensible Conservative MP would back a man who is susceptible to the same attacks made against Jeremy Corbyn, and worse. I was wrong. But just imagine the headlines if it were Corbyn on that tape.
The more cynical might suggest the attacks on Corbyn were designed to open up the way to Johnson and make him more acceptable....
I wonder how many that is a new revelation for. I dont wonder if anyone new will care though.
As many will know, I bet against Boris because no sensible Conservative MP would back a man who is susceptible to the same attacks made against Jeremy Corbyn, and worse. I was wrong. But just imagine the headlines if it were Corbyn on that tape.
The more cynical might suggest the attacks on Corbyn were designed to open up the way to Johnson and make him more acceptable....
Yeah! Wake up sheeple!
Everything seems to be a conspiracy with you....
A common characteristic of political extremists at both ends of the spectrum is a belief that they are being thwarted by shadowy conspiracies, usually by "the establishment" and/or "the mainstream media". Ultra Brexiters and Corbynistas both imagine themselves to be victims of such conspiracies. When all else fails it's a handy excuse for the unpopularity and unrealism of their political positions.
Comments
I had a very good day’s gardening. Actually spent all weekend gardening. Most satisfying.
Presumably our pillock politicians are still being pillocks ......
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1150535567010123781?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48984959
Hur hur hur.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/sports/cricket/england-cricket-world-cup.html
Is taking into consideration the number of boundaries scored that different to goal or points difference in football or other sports?
England won within the rules as known to all sides at the start of the competition and so their win is perfectly valid.
(I didn't have the heart to tell him I've switched to Lib Dems.)
I doubt most people will give it a second thought.
The objective fact is that the rules were known. England won by the rules.
You may wish to argue that rules were wrong - but that is your opinion. And thus subjective.
By all measures of objectivity, England won the Cricket World Cup. It was an unusual route to a win - but it was a valid win.
Real “man of the people”!
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1150413741349048320
They were extremely fortunate to win because of the outrageous slices of fortune that went their way in the last couple of overs, but that is the nature of close matches. The losing side can always look back and say ‘what if?). Sometimes the sporting Gods are just against you.