There was a time when the BBC considered 1 Welsh and 1 English commentator as balance in this fixture. How long have the BBC insisted that balance is actually 2 Welsh and 1 English?
There was a time when the BBC considered 1 Welsh and 1 English commentator as balance in this fixture. How long have the BBC insisted that balance is actually 2 Welsh and 1 English?
Ever since they realised everyone in Wales would cancel their TV licence if they didn’t.
There was a time when the BBC considered 1 Welsh and 1 English commentator as balance in this fixture. How long have the BBC insisted that balance is actually 2 Welsh and 1 English?
Ever since England won the world cup, the Welsh inferiority complex exploded after that.
There was a time when the BBC considered 1 Welsh and 1 English commentator as balance in this fixture. How long have the BBC insisted that balance is actually 2 Welsh and 1 English?
Ever since England won the world cup, the Welsh inferiority complex exploded after that.
That was 18 years ago.*
Still, I suppose you haven’t won much since.
*Assuming we’re not talking about that other weird ball sport you English are so keen on for some reason.
There was a time when the BBC considered 1 Welsh and 1 English commentator as balance in this fixture. How long have the BBC insisted that balance is actually 2 Welsh and 1 English?
Ever since England won the world cup, the Welsh inferiority complex exploded after that.
That was 18 years ago.*
Still, I suppose you haven’t won much since.
*Assuming we’re not talking about that other weird ball sport you English are so keen on for some reason.
We've been to two finals since, robbed by the TMO in one.
Which is still two more than Wales in their history.
There was a time when the BBC considered 1 Welsh and 1 English commentator as balance in this fixture. How long have the BBC insisted that balance is actually 2 Welsh and 1 English?
Ever since England won the world cup, the Welsh inferiority complex exploded after that.
That was 18 years ago.*
Still, I suppose you haven’t won much since.
*Assuming we’re not talking about that other weird ball sport you English are so keen on for some reason.
We've been to two finals since, robbed by the TMO in one.
Which is still two more than Wales in their history.
Well, we’ve got to let you be better than us at something, otherwise you just complain all the time.
I listened to the entire testimony by Alex Salmond from his swearing of the oath to the end and it was a consummate performance, full of well presented arguments, and coruscating of Sturgeon and her government.
The hearing was also interesting for the shocking level of interrogation by his former SNP colleagues and the Lib Dem, who was plain embarrassing, and the way Salmond made them look incompetent in the extreme
Indeed, it seems to be generally accepted that Jackie Baillie (labour) and Murdo Fraser (consevstive) were far more forensic in their questions, and it has to be said they opened the door for Salmond to make his case
I understand the hearing has requested important documents from the Crown office by Tuesday and before Sturgeon's attendance at the meeting the following day
This story has many more twists and turns but it does make the SNP look as if it is at war with itself
And polls have not yet taken place post yesterday, and more importantly as this saga develops over the weeks and months ahead
The SNP may survive unscathed but it is less certain today, then before yesterday extraordinary events
The real issue, I think, is not so much Sturgeon herself, but who else is involved.
Salmond was claiming that he had written/typed evidence that a number of senior SNP people had conspired to get him convicted. And he really, really meant conspired.
The senior SNP people are likely to be staffers, rather than MPs or MSPs. People like Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick.
Just a theoretical - could Sturgeon survive her husband being found instrumental in conspiring to bring down Salmond to protect her?
Just watched the Anas Sawar give his speech after winning the Scottish Labour leadership . First impressions he speaks very well. Whether that will matter at all with dominant SNP and a split unionist opposition. It might if there was another independence referendum.
First ethinic minority leader of a major UK party I believe.
I listened to the entire testimony by Alex Salmond from his swearing of the oath to the end and it was a consummate performance, full of well presented arguments, and coruscating of Sturgeon and her government.
The hearing was also interesting for the shocking level of interrogation by his former SNP colleagues and the Lib Dem, who was plain embarrassing, and the way Salmond made them look incompetent in the extreme
Indeed, it seems to be generally accepted that Jackie Baillie (labour) and Murdo Fraser (consevstive) were far more forensic in their questions, and it has to be said they opened the door for Salmond to make his case
I understand the hearing has requested important documents from the Crown office by Tuesday and before Sturgeon's attendance at the meeting the following day
This story has many more twists and turns but it does make the SNP look as if it is at war with itself
And polls have not yet taken place post yesterday, and more importantly as this saga develops over the weeks and months ahead
The SNP may survive unscathed but it is less certain today, then before yesterday extraordinary events
The real issue, I think, is not so much Sturgeon herself, but who else is involved.
Salmond was claiming that he had written/typed evidence that a number of senior SNP people had conspired to get him convicted. And he really, really meant conspired.
The senior SNP people are likely to be staffers, rather than MPs or MSPs. People like Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick.
Just a theoretical - could Sturgeon survive her husband being found instrumental in conspiring to bring down Salmond to protect her?
I listened to the entire testimony by Alex Salmond from his swearing of the oath to the end and it was a consummate performance, full of well presented arguments, and coruscating of Sturgeon and her government.
The hearing was also interesting for the shocking level of interrogation by his former SNP colleagues and the Lib Dem, who was plain embarrassing, and the way Salmond made them look incompetent in the extreme
Indeed, it seems to be generally accepted that Jackie Baillie (labour) and Murdo Fraser (consevstive) were far more forensic in their questions, and it has to be said they opened the door for Salmond to make his case
I understand the hearing has requested important documents from the Crown office by Tuesday and before Sturgeon's attendance at the meeting the following day
This story has many more twists and turns but it does make the SNP look as if it is at war with itself
And polls have not yet taken place post yesterday, and more importantly as this saga develops over the weeks and months ahead
The SNP may survive unscathed but it is less certain today, then before yesterday extraordinary events
The real issue, I think, is not so much Sturgeon herself, but who else is involved.
Salmond was claiming that he had written/typed evidence that a number of senior SNP people had conspired to get him convicted. And he really, really meant conspired.
The senior SNP people are likely to be staffers, rather than MPs or MSPs. People like Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick.
Just a theoretical - could Sturgeon survive her husband being found instrumental in conspiring to bring down Salmond to protect her?
Yes, I think so.
She would take big damage. How many would believe she didn't know?
Nobody would believe it, but the people who still wanted Sturgeon at all costs (provided she continues to be an electoral asset) wouldn't care. It is very important that if Sturgeon is forced to resign, it is widely seen as justified. The clarity behind the reason for going is almost as important as the going.
I reckon there's a significant portion of SNP support that would have no truck with her if they believed she was a liar. Their support might depart at least until she was replaced as First Minister - regardless of being given a "clean bill of health" by the Scottish Establishment.
significant portion already know she is a liar. Most people will hold their noses and vote SNP 1 but many will vote other independence parties with vote 2. Hopefully she is gone before election. If Salmond and a few big hitters join one of the independence parties then the game is a bogey.
For my taste, Prince Charles has too few periods of design he likes, and it all ends up a bit "ersatz history" and "Trumpton".
The recent 'Build Beautiful' document by Scruton was quite good imo.
But what is good design? And what is beautiful?
(Remember that tastes change constantly - in the 1960s they were happily putting dual carriageways through medieval town centres)
And what matters? For example, should we have permeable estates and street patterns, or should we follow crime prevention guidelines of the last 25 years and prevent scrotes having so many escape routes they are never caught?
You raise a fascinating question - but I'd disagree with some of the points here. People in the 1960's knew those buildings and projects were f**k ugly. A vanguard of brutalists insisted on them, most went along with the Emperor's new clothes, and a few who called it right were dismissed.
There are certain universal principles as to what pleases the human eye, and they have good 'primeval' reasons. We prefer natural, or natural looking materials, as they evoke lush, fertile, natural landscape. We prefer curves and undulations to jagged edges for the same reason. We prefer thick looking walls with deeply recessed windows, because they look like the buildings will be safer and warmer. We prefer rich decoration to lack of ornament because it reflects wealth and abundance. If we develop these and other natural preferences into a set of principles for beautiful buildings, we can steer clear of monstrosities, whatever the trends of the future - that would be incredibly worthwhile.
Regarding Prince Charles, all the criticism I have seen of Poundbury and his other architectural pastiches seems to be that they lack authenticity - comparing them to real 18th and 19th century buildings. That is not a valid comparison, because there was never any possibility of 18th and 19th century buildings being conjured up. The real comparison is with modern grey rabbit hutches, and I think few of his critics would not overcome their aversion to Poundbury if their alternative was living on a grey estate in Crawley or Milton Keynes.
I think you somewhat stereotype by decade. There was far more than "Brutalist" (let's not argue about the precise meaning) built in the 60s/early 70s (allowing for time to build), and some of the brutalist that was built was very attractive; much of it is still popular.
One or two that are arguably brutalist and works in say London: Barbican & Silver Lane, Brentford Dock for housing estates, and many in Camden. Plus plenty of others.
Where they don't work I would say it is more down to people who are put there, or insufficient concern for the human scale, or skimping on the design / care / maintenance of the building. Equally non-brutalist things fail for similar reasons.
And some brutalist materials are back in the last 15 years eg textured concrete.
Plus the 60s gave us things like Span and Segal. If I point you at one good 1960s place to visit it would be Peter Aldington's House at Turn End in Bucks. https://www.turnend.org.uk/
On your 'universal principles' - is that in part a "Royal We"?
I agree some way on proportions etc, but the definition of "monstrosity" is very personal. OTOH the proportions for urban highways in the Manual for Streets policy document are not dissimilar to those used by Haussman for rebuilding Paris in the 1850s-1880s.
My preferred architectural style is probably what I call 'humanist' which emerged in the early 60s/70s, and relies on light, space, proportion, simplicity, practicality. For eg churches I am more attracted to Wren preaching boxes or East Anglian wool churches, rather than Baroque or High Gothic (say St Giles, Cheadle), perhaps for similar reasons. That is different to your suggestions wrt to eg decoration.
Have you read "A Pattern Language"? - which is very interesting on how people live socially in their spaces. Somewhere there is a website with much content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language
On Prince Charles, I think Poundbury can arguably be called a little post-modern, because the exterior is in some ways a curtain wrapped around a different style of interior - like a stage set.
Enough for now.
I'd suggest the Home Office building also works.
I suppose also the Economist Building qualifies, as it was built by the Smithsons.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
I can't comment on the building that you have a sketch of, but I am afraid I don't agree that the Home Office building pictured is an attractive building. I think it's a very ugly building. We develop sentimental attachments to long standing buildings like The National Theatre, but I don't think that means they're not ugly. In a few cases, a very few cases, I'd preserve such buildings as museum pieces. In all other instances, a large amount of semtex would improve things no end for the actual victims who live there.
Yes, there are times when more sparsely decorated buildings have a power about them, I'd agree. However, as a rule, most buildings are enhanced by some decorative flourishes. Even when we lived in caves we were still painting them.
Interesting.
What's your viiew of the sparsely decorated (but probably not 'brutalist')
a - British Library. b - Coventry Cathedral.
For me, those both probably rate amongst the top 50 buildings in the country.
I've been to Coventry Cathedral when I was very little, and The British Library never. From pictures, I think they're both great buildings, and both, in different ways, fit their surroundings.
I listened to the entire testimony by Alex Salmond from his swearing of the oath to the end and it was a consummate performance, full of well presented arguments, and coruscating of Sturgeon and her government.
The hearing was also interesting for the shocking level of interrogation by his former SNP colleagues and the Lib Dem, who was plain embarrassing, and the way Salmond made them look incompetent in the extreme
Indeed, it seems to be generally accepted that Jackie Baillie (labour) and Murdo Fraser (consevstive) were far more forensic in their questions, and it has to be said they opened the door for Salmond to make his case
I understand the hearing has requested important documents from the Crown office by Tuesday and before Sturgeon's attendance at the meeting the following day
This story has many more twists and turns but it does make the SNP look as if it is at war with itself
And polls have not yet taken place post yesterday, and more importantly as this saga develops over the weeks and months ahead
The SNP may survive unscathed but it is less certain today, then before yesterday extraordinary events
The SNP could win the May election at a canter with Pol Pot in charge.
Not Salmond’s biggest fan but it seems harsh to compare him to Pol Pot.
In any case, the question is how well they will do under Sturgeon.
Now now, you know perfectly well what I'm getting it. Sturgeon isn't relevant to the result one way or another.
I disagree. I think Sturgeon is very key. She is a very talented politician, and has a very carefully cultivated public image, which many, especially women, can strongly identify with, and results in a softening of the image of the SNP. She is also widely believed - when she says independence would be fine, it adds significant credibility to that message. Personally I wouldn't believe her if she told me the time, but it is foolish to pretend that's a majority view. When she goes, there isn't any talent to replace her. I think Salmond, great operator as he is, isn't going to replace her - that's a pipe dream.
I see no way back for Salmond, but the way he presented his case yesterday must have sent shivers through Sturgeon, her husband, and the SNP hierarchy
If any of his case is substantiated it would put an earthquake through the SNP and Sturgeon's own future
I watched it quite closely but wasn't sure what case he was trying to make. The newscasters seemed to be saying the his case was that nine women orchestrated by NS got together to have him prosecuted. What did you think his case was?
I listened to the entire testimony by Alex Salmond from his swearing of the oath to the end and it was a consummate performance, full of well presented arguments, and coruscating of Sturgeon and her government.
The hearing was also interesting for the shocking level of interrogation by his former SNP colleagues and the Lib Dem, who was plain embarrassing, and the way Salmond made them look incompetent in the extreme
Indeed, it seems to be generally accepted that Jackie Baillie (labour) and Murdo Fraser (consevstive) were far more forensic in their questions, and it has to be said they opened the door for Salmond to make his case
I understand the hearing has requested important documents from the Crown office by Tuesday and before Sturgeon's attendance at the meeting the following day
This story has many more twists and turns but it does make the SNP look as if it is at war with itself
And polls have not yet taken place post yesterday, and more importantly as this saga develops over the weeks and months ahead
The SNP may survive unscathed but it is less certain today, then before yesterday extraordinary events
The real issue, I think, is not so much Sturgeon herself, but who else is involved.
Salmond was claiming that he had written/typed evidence that a number of senior SNP people had conspired to get him convicted. And he really, really meant conspired.
The senior SNP people are likely to be staffers, rather than MPs or MSPs. People like Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick.
Fairlie surely you know well some of the close circle involved, more than staffers involved in this conspiracy.
I listened to the entire testimony by Alex Salmond from his swearing of the oath to the end and it was a consummate performance, full of well presented arguments, and coruscating of Sturgeon and her government.
The hearing was also interesting for the shocking level of interrogation by his former SNP colleagues and the Lib Dem, who was plain embarrassing, and the way Salmond made them look incompetent in the extreme
Indeed, it seems to be generally accepted that Jackie Baillie (labour) and Murdo Fraser (consevstive) were far more forensic in their questions, and it has to be said they opened the door for Salmond to make his case
I understand the hearing has requested important documents from the Crown office by Tuesday and before Sturgeon's attendance at the meeting the following day
This story has many more twists and turns but it does make the SNP look as if it is at war with itself
And polls have not yet taken place post yesterday, and more importantly as this saga develops over the weeks and months ahead
The SNP may survive unscathed but it is less certain today, then before yesterday extraordinary events
The real issue, I think, is not so much Sturgeon herself, but who else is involved.
Salmond was claiming that he had written/typed evidence that a number of senior SNP people had conspired to get him convicted. And he really, really meant conspired.
The senior SNP people are likely to be staffers, rather than MPs or MSPs. People like Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick.
Just a theoretical - could Sturgeon survive her husband being found instrumental in conspiring to bring down Salmond to protect her?
Yes, I think so.
No chance , they are going down together
Is it his birthday?
Down Down as if it was all his birthdays rolled up
Comments
*Dons tinfoil hat, looks anxiously towards Sheffield and London for incoming missiles*
"the Sunshine Home in Dublin, for blind Irish referees!'
Still, I suppose you haven’t won much since.
*Assuming we’re not talking about that other weird ball sport you English are so keen on for some reason.
Which is still two more than Wales in their history.
Edit: preempted I see.
Pascal Gauzere: Hold my beer.
Drop, to foot, to an English player who knocked it backwards.
Very, very unlucky for England, that one.
Hopefully she is gone before election.
If Salmond and a few big hitters join one of the independence parties then the game is a bogey.
NEW THREAD
He gives far too many penalties and then plays advantage for way too long.
This distorts the play.