It is noticeable that the break point in Israel is 4-5 weeks post first injection, or 1-2 post the second.
I wouldn't expect to see a vaccination effect for another couple of weeks.
I think given our strategy it would show up in the hospitalisation rate rather than the case data, from my own analysis I think the hospitalisation data is more favourable this time for targeted groups than in the last lockdown when one takes into account the Kent variant.
I don't think that we can yet separate a vaccine effect from a post Christmas lockdown effect, though I would expect such an effect to show by the end of the month.
Case numbers in the first wavevwere too poor in terms of test access to be reliable.
We are also vaccinating massively across categories.
So, in England, in the process of getting the first dose to
- 88% of the over 80s - 83% of the 75-79s
We have also
- 35% of the 70-74s - 8% of the under 70s - over 3 million people
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade. Its destruction as a competitor for the raw material cotton was quite deliberate.
Japan’s extraordinary industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have occurred had it been a colony.
Major beneficiary, Coats Paton and Baldwin of Paisley. Just saying.
Yes, the cases of India and Scotland really aren’t that similar. Which is not to deny the existence of grievances,
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade.
In other words our sin was providing them with cheap clothes they wanted to buy?
No. Which is why I provided, and you cut out, the counter example of Japan.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
Yes highland clearances and your colonial preferences that we must stay as a colony are really offensive. The 45 trillion is using some compound interest rate but it does highlight that whilst denuding India of huge wealth , England claimed they were in deficit. This is exactly the same position as Scotland. They also impoverished Scotland since the union and are denying us a democratic vote as they did in India. Your stupid remark at the end is pretty pathetic and juvenile. Perhaps you should stick to topics you know at least something about.
Scotland has a deficit of 8.6%, the UK has a deficit of 2.5%.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade. Its destruction as a competitor for the raw material cotton was quite deliberate.
Japan’s extraordinary industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have occurred had it been a colony.
Major beneficiary, Coats Paton and Baldwin of Paisley. Just saying.
Yes, the cases of India and Scotland really aren’t that similar. Which is not to deny the existence of grievances,
Plus of course it was Scotland who asked to create a Union after the failure of the Darien scheme and the British Empire only developed with Scotland a full part of that Union. Most of the North American colonies, all of the African colonies, Australia, New Zealand and India and the Asian colonies were all colonised by the UK not England and of course Ireland too joined the Union after Scotland with Scots playing a full part as Empire civil servants, political leaders, administrators, soldiers, engineers, traders etc
One of the things I most enjoyed as a child was heading over to Taunton on a Sunday to watch the John Player League and a team that contained Viv Richards, Joel Garner, and Ian Botham. I think it's a shame in many ways that the international squad don't seem to play for their counties any more.
One of the things I most enjoyed as a child was heading over to Taunton on a Sunday to watch the John Player League and a team that contained Viv Richards, Joel Garner, and Ian Botham. I think it's a shame in many ways that the international squad don't seem to play for their counties any more.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The ethnic cleansing of Highland culture after 1746, the Tranent Massacre which is comparable with that of Peterloo though nothing like as well known, the Highland Potato famine following on from that of Ireland which added to the hundreds of thousands of able bodied, young Scots who had to emigrate to make a living for themselves, the Highland Clearances contributing to same.
All Union dividends I'm sure.
Ireland's treatment by the UK in terms of massacres and famine is of course directly comparable to India's experience.
Thanks for a bit of honest context.
One of the great mysteries of our time how forgiving the Irish are towards the British.
Whenever you thought Britain couldn't sink any lower in Ireland we somehow managed it.
Priti's the woman to sooth any remaining wounds.
My thread tomorrow afternoon is about the island of Ireland, I have some suggestions to soothe wounds.
It’s easy. If the Scots get independence than as penance they must take NI with them. England and Wales then just sit back and count their money.
My solution is very elegant, although I fear I will upset some.
That said, the opening line to my piece is brilliant.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
I won't argue with that. There is a surge in English Nationalism now and I'm sure it could easily go up another gear or two. But one hopes not.
@HYUFD also assured us that Biden winning would lead to a surge of Georgian Republican sentiment to ensure the Dems didn't hold the Senate. Remember that?
It is certainly leading to a surge in secessionist sentiment in Trump voting Texas, Georgia voted for Biden so is not a valid comparison if England voted Tory but the UK voted Labour and SNP
Have you popped up on Texan secessionist forums to tell them about Quebec and Catalonia?
After winning independence from Mexico in 1836, Texas was an independent Republic until 1845 when it joined the USA, though of course the last time states, including Texas, tried to secede from the Union in 1861 it did not end well for them
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade. Its destruction as a competitor for the raw material cotton was quite deliberate.
Japan’s extraordinary industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have occurred had it been a colony.
Even if that's true, there's no reason to suppose that India would have been like Japan rather than like, say, civil war-prone China.
Counterfactuals are always pretty meaningless, but in this case especially so.
One of the things I most enjoyed as a child was heading over to Taunton on a Sunday to watch the John Player League and a team that contained Viv Richards, Joel Garner, and Ian Botham. I think it's a shame in many ways that the international squad don't seem to play for their counties any more.
I remember that time and that team very well.
I was a keen Essex follower at the time but had a liking for Somerset too, partly because of those three players but also because, like Essex they seemed destined not to win any trophies. That changed at Essex, but Somerset continued to miss out.
I often wondered what went wrong at the Club. Recently I bought and read Vic Marks' book Original Spin, which went some way to explaining it all.
Of course I'm aware of all that. But is it settled in the minds of Scots? Maybe a permanent and irrevocable (because in theory the Scotland Act could be amended by a simple majority of English MPs) ceding of power to Holyrood would be just the kind of real action, rather than simple window dressing, that recognises Scotland's status as a sovereign equal to England?
I don't know. But tinkering like holding the odd of a cabinet meeting in Edinburgh is unlikely to change hearts and minds. I don't know what will.
I rarely, if ever, comment on independence threads, because they are so 'political' (forgive me) and rarely really about how people instinctively see themselves and others. Also, I'm not good at explaining myself. But, just this once, I'll try. (Cue new thread.)
To my mind, what would create the unbridgeable gulf between our nations is when, at times of tragedy or undue hardship, a majority of its people see the rest of us as Them/There rather than Us/Here. Not Othering in the ordinary sense, and not lack of compassion for those suffering wherever they are in the world. Just a sense of where are the boundaries of home for you.
And I'm not talking about trivial political spats between France/UK or UK/EU, but really big events.
When there's wildfire outbreaks in Australia or hurricanes in the US my heart goes out to the people affected; to 'them/there'.
When the Coronavirus outbreak first started in China, I was appalled for 'them/there', and perceived it rapidly coming closer to 'us/here'.
At the time of Aberfan, I perceived that as happening to 'us/here'.
During the troubles in NI, I perceived that as happening to 'us/here'.
At the time of Dunblane, I perceived that as happening to 'us/here'.
At the time of the Salisbury novichok attack, I perceived that as happening to 'us/here'.
So, for example, if a majority of Scots did indeed perceive the novichok attack as happening to 'them/there' and not to 'us/here', it's time to go our separate ways.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade. Its destruction as a competitor for the raw material cotton was quite deliberate.
Japan’s extraordinary industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have occurred had it been a colony.
Major beneficiary, Coats Paton and Baldwin of Paisley. Just saying.
Yes, the cases of India and Scotland really aren’t that similar. Which is not to deny the existence of grievances,
Plus of course it was Scotland who asked to create a Union after the failure of the Darien scheme and the British Empire only developed with Scotland a full part of that Union. Most of the North American colonies, all of the African colonies, Australia, New Zealand and India and the Asian colonies were all colonised by the UK not England and of course Ireland too joined the Union after Scotland with Scots playing a full part as Empire civil servants, political leaders, administrators, soldiers, engineers, traders etc
But how dominant was the gang leader - England?
If the crime went to court would the CPS be going for "joint enterprise"?
One of the things I most enjoyed as a child was heading over to Taunton on a Sunday to watch the John Player League and a team that contained Viv Richards, Joel Garner, and Ian Botham. I think it's a shame in many ways that the international squad don't seem to play for their counties any more.
I remember that time and that team very well.
I was a keen Essex follower at the time but had a liking for Somerset too, partly because of those three players but also because, like Essex they seemed destined not to win any trophies. That changed at Essex, but Somerset continued to miss out.
I often wondered what went wrong at the Club. Recently I bought and read Vic Marks' book Original Spin, which went some way to explaining it all.
Have you tried it?
Peter Roebuck went wrong.
A genuinely tragic man.
Met him as a student, even more than a decade on from the sacking of Garner & Richards he carried a certain amount of bitterness and absolute certainty he did the right thing.
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade. Its destruction as a competitor for the raw material cotton was quite deliberate.
Japan’s extraordinary industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century could not have occurred had it been a colony.
Major beneficiary, Coats Paton and Baldwin of Paisley. Just saying.
Yes, the cases of India and Scotland really aren’t that similar. Which is not to deny the existence of grievances,
Plus of course it was Scotland who asked to create a Union after the failure of the Darien scheme and the British Empire only developed with Scotland a full part of that Union. Most of the North American colonies, all of the African colonies, Australia, New Zealand and India and the Asian colonies were all colonised by the UK not England and of course Ireland too joined the Union after Scotland with Scots playing a full part as Empire civil servants, political leaders, administrators, soldiers, engineers, traders etc
But how dominant was the gang leader - England?
If the crime went to court would the CPS be going for "joint enterprise"?
Every nation of the Union played its part, though I don't consider the British empire a crime either, it had a mixed record but it was not the Nazi Empire or the Belgian Empire either.
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
I won't argue with that. There is a surge in English Nationalism now and I'm sure it could easily go up another gear or two. But one hopes not.
@HYUFD also assured us that Biden winning would lead to a surge of Georgian Republican sentiment to ensure the Dems didn't hold the Senate. Remember that?
It is certainly leading to a surge in secessionist sentiment in Trump voting Texas, Georgia voted for Biden so is not a valid comparison if England voted Tory but the UK voted Labour and SNP and that then led to a surge in English nationalist sentiment.
Mr. Irish2, if it makes you feel better, it's started to ease at last.
The river running outside my house has become a little less powerful.
Mr. kinabalu, aye, and yet MPs representing Scottish constituencies can vote on English and Welsh taxes, which can then be amended in Scotland by MSPs.
There are micro areas of valid English grievance but the macro - the big picture - is nevertheless that Westminster rules the UK and England dominates Westminster.
If however the Tories win a majority in England in 2024 but there is a hung parliament across the UK and Starmer becomes PM thanks to the support of the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs, as is very possible on some current polls, there will be a surge in English nationalism.
That surge will grow even further if Starmer gives Scotland's Parliament devomax, as he probably would but does not do anything about the West Lothian question
I won't argue with that. There is a surge in English Nationalism now and I'm sure it could easily go up another gear or two. But one hopes not.
@HYUFD also assured us that Biden winning would lead to a surge of Georgian Republican sentiment to ensure the Dems didn't hold the Senate. Remember that?
It is certainly leading to a surge in secessionist sentiment in Trump voting Texas, Georgia voted for Biden so is not a valid comparison if England voted Tory but the UK voted Labour and SNP
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
There’s no way Liverpool would have gone down 1-0 to Brighton, if there had been 50,000 reds packed into Anfield the other night.
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
One of the things I most enjoyed as a child was heading over to Taunton on a Sunday to watch the John Player League and a team that contained Viv Richards, Joel Garner, and Ian Botham. I think it's a shame in many ways that the international squad don't seem to play for their counties any more.
Big Bird!
Seeing him come in to bowl at some luckless county tail-ender who needed to score eight off the last over was always a joy.
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
One of the things I most enjoyed as a child was heading over to Taunton on a Sunday to watch the John Player League and a team that contained Viv Richards, Joel Garner, and Ian Botham. I think it's a shame in many ways that the international squad don't seem to play for their counties any more.
I remember that time and that team very well.
I was a keen Essex follower at the time but had a liking for Somerset too, partly because of those three players but also because, like Essex they seemed destined not to win any trophies. That changed at Essex, but Somerset continued to miss out.
I often wondered what went wrong at the Club. Recently I bought and read Vic Marks' book Original Spin, which went some way to explaining it all.
Have you tried it?
I'm not much of a one for sports books, but it sounds like one I should get for my brother, who is.
Does anyone know if Handforth Parish Council has elections this year? And if, so will Betfair have a market?
Read the rules. Read them and understand them.
I think you mean:
READ THE RULES. READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM.
I was left on the side of the Chair. He’s a cock, but he’s an elected cock and most likely right that he’s in the Chair. I was very disappointed yesterday to discover that the TORs and standing orders has gone from the Council website. I wanted to have a dig into it and find out for sure.
I’m that anal.
Agreed, he should not have been kicked off. He was the elected Chair. Now, other councillors could presumably call for a vote on replacing him, but it was not appropriate for him to be kicked out by an unelected official, no matter how much of a cock he was being.
From what I can understand, he had been avoiding holding council meetings, and this was an emergency meeting called (in accordance with standing orders) by two other councillors. The acting clerk was quite in order to throw out abusive participants (also in accordance with standing orders). They were offered readmittance if they behaved, but did not take up the offer.
Quite odd for a clerk to have that level of authority in standing orders it seem, usually the Chair would throw people out (which does make it hard when the Chair is being abusive), but did they then specify who actually presides?
Yes, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that what transpired there was in accordance with the rules. The normal chair remains entitled to chair an extraordinary meeting, even one that he (or she) does not call. Green’s so-called legal opinion ignores the rules and the law and concentrates on the practical realities.
The rules don’t really cater for a situation when the chair is disruptive (but then it appears that he was disruptive largely because he had been illegitimately ejected from the chair). In such a situation you’d expect the members of the committee to propose and vote through some procedural motion to deal with the matter; if on the other hand the chair retains the support of a majority of members, then those members in a minority are going to struggle to get a hearing.
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
Tricky in the Tropics.
There are plenty of tropical countries with ice rinks I am sure, far more than those with artificial ski slopes of which there are a number
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
You know, I am starting to have reservations as to whether or not this game is compatible with Covid safe distancing. I think we should maybe call a halt. Now.
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
Tricky in the Tropics.
There are plenty of tropical countries with ice rinks I am sure, far more than those with artificial ski slopes of which there are a number
Yes, but these are hardly equal-opportunities ski-slopes and curling establishments.
I could be wrong. I have no direct knowledge of these places.
Watching this does remind me of OJ:made in America. That guy would have been one hell of a rugby player. Watching him run with the ball was just...mesmerizing.
Watching this does remind me of OJ:made in America. That guy would have been one hell of a rugby player. Watching him run with the ball was just...mesmerizing.
Norman Lamb on the BBC making the point that the leaked NHS England reforms (no longer having to go out to private contractors for tenders) is only because we've left the EU & their competition rules.....
This is what happens to the home advantage, when there’s no crowd in the stadium.
It's been weird in the EPL this season. Knowing the stadium, angles etc seems to make little difference. Not having the crowd: massive. United still get their share of penalties though.
Hmm should sport discussion be restricted maybe to those sports of equal interest to all races and genders? Curling maybe
Tricky in the Tropics.
There are plenty of tropical countries with ice rinks I am sure, far more than those with artificial ski slopes of which there are a number
Yes, but these are hardly equal-opportunities ski-slopes and curling establishments.
I could be wrong. I have no direct knowledge of these places.
I was more taking a somewhat chuckling side swipe at the comment from a few days ago that the site had a gender imbalance and that might be partially due to the sports drool that occasionally erupts here. I like sport and when younger took part in a fair amount. However watching it always felt to me like I would rather go watch paint dry than watch cricket, rugby, tennis,F1, football. Apparently a lot of females in that demographic too
England are playing a boring kicking game. And what's worse, their kicking is shite
I have this irrational hatred of Farrell - I've no idea why. Anyway I'd like to see the back of him. He's almost certainly a great chap. I can't really cheer England on though.
Watching this does remind me of OJ:made in America. That guy would have been one hell of a rugby player. Watching him run with the ball was just...mesmerizing.
You're gonna win. Relax. And much deserved
Scotland absolutely deserve to win. We have been by far the better team for 75 minutes now. I am not relaxed.
Watching this does remind me of OJ:made in America. That guy would have been one hell of a rugby player. Watching him run with the ball was just...mesmerizing.
You're gonna win. Relax. And much deserved
Scotland absolutely deserve to win. We have been by far the better team for 75 minutes now. I am not relaxed.
Totally deserved. And relax. I know a losing England team and this is one
England are playing a boring kicking game. And what's worse, their kicking is shite
I have this irrational hatred of Farrell - I've no idea why. Anyway I'd like to see the back of him. He's almost certainly a great chap. I can't really cheer England on though.
From a Rugby League family. Not got the class of those from the playing fields of Eton?
Also it is pretty offensive to compare India and Scotland.
Scotland had a plebiscite to leave, which they declined.
Can you also compare anything similar to say the Bengal Famine or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre that happened in Scotland since 1707?
Next you'll be comparing the Union to the Holocaust.
The 45 trillion number, which I've dissected on this board before, is based on using ridiculously inflated numbers from the period of British (and Dutch and East India Company) occupation and administration of India.
They work out a trade deficit number, without looking at the fact the deficit was financed by... errr... the UK, and without reference to the fact that the India got things in return for the trade deficit. If we send $1 to Ethopia, and they used it to buy food from abroad, that would count as (according the "research") the $1 being extracted from Ethiopia.
Then to make it even more ridiculous, they then compound the sum based around a ridiculous interest rate. So, a sum equivalent to 10% of Indian GDP in about 1900 somehow becomes 20,000% of GDP today.
That someone could actually claim that the UK had extracted massively more from India than their cumulative GDP in the period is just absurd and ridiculous. That it is lapped up and trumpeted is just embarassing.
The numbers are silly, but it’s true that we wreaked devastation on the 19thC Indian economy by taking away their ability to protect a large domestic textile industry against the newly industrialised British cotton trade.
In other words our sin was providing them with cheap clothes they wanted to buy?
Plus of course bringing Westminster style democracy, common law, railways and stopping widows being thrown on funeral pyres, it was not all bad
Hang on, the "widows on pyres" thing was a very effective way of avoiding an inverted population pyramid. Are we sure we did the right thing there?
England are playing a boring kicking game. And what's worse, their kicking is shite
I have this irrational hatred of Farrell - I've no idea why. Anyway I'd like to see the back of him. He's almost certainly a great chap. I can't really cheer England on though.
From a Rugby League family. Not got the class of those from the playing fields of Eton?
The playing fields of Eton are mostly for football rather than Rugby (or at least were the last time I was in charge of a visiting team there, which was about twenty years ago now).
I moved to Edinburgh with my wife in 1996. The deal was that we would both (and subsequent children too) support England AND Scotland unless they were playing each other, in which case I should expect to be on my own. Readers, she (and they) all reneged on the deal. The mood in my house is currently rampant tartan. And fair enough.
England are playing a boring kicking game. And what's worse, their kicking is shite
I have this irrational hatred of Farrell - I've no idea why. Anyway I'd like to see the back of him. He's almost certainly a great chap. I can't really cheer England on though.
From a Rugby League family. Not got the class of those from the playing fields of Eton?
No, no - I'm pure peasant. (Admittedly Cambridge thereafter)
It does make you wonder, as David says, how much difference a REAL crowd makes to a match. I saw some Welsh rugby geek say, the other day, that home advantage for Wales in Cardiff meant they started 10 points ahead. But that is with a crowd, of course.
However. Scotland were so good then, and England so bad, I don't think ten millions fans in Twickers could have made a difference
England did not produce one decent attack by the backs, or by anyone. Shockingly poor
Comments
Which is not to deny the existence of grievances,
It'll be fine.
Which is why I provided, and you cut out, the counter example of Japan.
Counterfactuals are always pretty meaningless, but in this case especially so.
I was a keen Essex follower at the time but had a liking for Somerset too, partly because of those three players but also because, like Essex they seemed destined not to win any trophies. That changed at Essex, but Somerset continued to miss out.
I often wondered what went wrong at the Club. Recently I bought and read Vic Marks' book Original Spin, which went some way to explaining it all.
Have you tried it?
If the crime went to court would the CPS be going for "joint enterprise"?
England just lamentable
A genuinely tragic man.
Met him as a student, even more than a decade on from the sacking of Garner & Richards he carried a certain amount of bitterness and absolute certainty he did the right thing.
From Scotland that is.
Feck. Still less than a converted try ahead.
Make England Great Again and get Priti Patel to deport Eddie Jones.
So they'll lose.
🙂
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1357928530630365189?s=19
Some of our team is a bit raw too.
The fake crowd noises on TV are really annoying.
Damn. you've changed it. Preferred the original.
The rules don’t really cater for a situation when the chair is disruptive (but then it appears that he was disruptive largely because he had been illegitimately ejected from the chair). In such a situation you’d expect the members of the committee to propose and vote through some procedural motion to deal with the matter; if on the other hand the chair retains the support of a majority of members, then those members in a minority are going to struggle to get a hearing.
So many errors, no imagination, no running, nothing
What a kick.
And I doubt it. England are like Tim Henman playing tennis when they're on the back foot.
I could be wrong. I have no direct knowledge of these places.
I mean, if I'm going to watch a total and utterly crushing defeat.
https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1357859606077136899
Well done Scotland anyway.
However. Scotland were so good then, and England so bad, I don't think ten millions fans in Twickers could have made a difference
England did not produce one decent attack by the backs, or by anyone. Shockingly poor