We are Getting too excited over Galloway – politicalbetting.com
Batley and Spen might allow the Tories another rare and significant government by-election gain. But in the last few days attention has turned to the third party running: George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
While I largely agree with the comments by Pip Moss, its possible that he has done less well since 2015 because Corbin was the lab leader and a big anti War and 'friend of Palestine' that's not the case now.
Will it make a difference, probably only slightly.
Is there any danger of a sympathy vote for Labour here? I mean, a well-known local woman being heckled, pursued and assaulted by roving groups of possibly non-local ne'er-do-wells? Just a thought.
While I largely agree with the comments by Pip Moss, its possible that he has done less well since 2015 because Corbin was the lab leader and a big anti War and 'friend of Palestine' that's not the case now.
Will it make a difference, probably only slightly.
Fair point: I didn't consider this angle and it might have some impact. I doubt enough to make Galloway come 2nd, but still worth considering.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
The guy behind StatsBomb used to work for Brentford as their set piece analyst....lets just say I think he has gone thin on top from so much pulling of hair out at the one track nature of set pieces.
He regularly tweets about this and you can just see him as the angry one out of that Pixar movie about mental health.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
The glory of a successful shot from a free kick is too much of a draw.
BREAKING: British No 1 Johanna Konta has been forced to withdraw from Wimbledon after going into self-isolation having been identified as a close contact of a person with coronavirus.
Discussing the general situation with my wife and we are in agreement that it is now in a completely ridiculous situation.
Cases are rocketing, the government are in no way taking societal level actions to suppress case numbers but we still have to self isolate after being a "close contact"
It is a worst of all worlds situation. Either cases matter ro they don't. If they matter we must suppress, if they don't then fuck this self isolation nonsense.
With Edinburgh case numbers now dwarfing January what chance my daughters summer holiday activities going ahead uninterrupted/at all? Close to zero.
This is a key point. If it is official Government policy to largely disregard case numbers, then they need to do a lot better job of communicating this to the general public (and even, dare i say it, review their current testing policy which is almost designed to maximise case numbers).
Because i suspect that headline numbers are still what most people look at, and there is much less focus/knowledge of hospitalisation numbers (and perhaps deaths). Because throughout the pandemic people have become trained to the idea that the latter are lagging factors, and will dismiss low numbers for them unless given good reasons not to do so.
There is a big political danger if the Government lifts all restrictions on July 19th with case numbers still sky rocketing (there is the possibility, perhaps even probability by then that they will be on the turn, but that's not guaranteed) and it gets portrayed by sections of the media that this is just abandoning the health of the public to save money, end furlough etc.
But have they got the communicators for that, and are they even trying?
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
The glory of a successful shot from a free kick is too much of a draw.
It used to be like that with the long range shot, but it is slowly been "analysed" out of the game. Like free kicks, your probability of scoring is so low, especially at the highest levels were the keepers are so good.
Huge amount of noise, little light and the Tories seem to be running a stealth campaign (or no campaign at all).
I expect, but don't know, that the Torys are running a higly targeted campaign, delving, phoning and door knocking on people they think are pro-Brexit, and letting Labour and GG have an undignified fight without getting there hands too dirty.
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
"I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them."
It's somewhat of a double-take that Labour activists, rather than Tories, are being intimidated and abused.
Either way, it is of course unacceptable.
The irony is it is most likely intimidation from more extreme left wing brethren.
Are there any tory activists to even intimidate?
Don't be silly, but my point demonstrates, as I have said for many years, that the enemy as far as Momentum types are concerned are mainstream Labour supporters and not the Conservatives.
After all their efforts keep returning Conservative Governments.
Huge amount of noise, little light and the Tories seem to be running a stealth campaign (or no campaign at all).
I expect, but don't know, that the Torys are running a higly targeted campaign, delving, phoning and door knocking on people they think are pro-Brexit, and letting Labour and GG have an undignified fight without getting there hands too dirty.
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
Huge amount of noise, little light and the Tories seem to be running a stealth campaign (or no campaign at all).
I expect, but don't know, that the Torys are running a higly targeted campaign, delving, phoning and door knocking on people they think are pro-Brexit, and letting Labour and GG have an undignified fight without getting there hands too dirty.
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
Yeah. Me neither. Probably wedding preparations.
He was here earlier with some brief comments on French elections. An area on which he famously launched his PB career.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
The glory of a successful shot from a free kick is too much of a draw.
Players are putting their own vanity above the interests of the team.
Huge amount of noise, little light and the Tories seem to be running a stealth campaign (or no campaign at all).
I expect, but don't know, that the Torys are running a higly targeted campaign, delving, phoning and door knocking on people they think are pro-Brexit, and letting Labour and GG have an undignified fight without getting there hands too dirty.
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
HYUFD, and he is a PB hero (except when he cites Trafalgar voodoo polling as gospel).
Not sure the egg-throwing rumour is true - I've talked with four ex-MPs (male and female) who have been canvassing in the Muslim ward, and they've not had any trouble. They say there are lots of Galloway posters there, but a lot of quiet Labour support too (and presumably some Tories, though they're invisible).
I agree with Quincel, and have bet a fair sum in the same way. I think it's possible but unlikely that Labour will win, but I'm convinced we're well ahead of Galloway.
Speaking of invisibility, the Tory campaign approach is interesting - so low-key that it has to be a deliberate strategy, with the candidate declining to talk to reporters. They presumably rely on their GOTV operation to get their vote out while Galloway gnaws at Labour. But there's a risk that the anti-Galloway vote (which definitely exists) will coalesce around Kim including some Tories - I talked to two Tory couples who were voting for her.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
The glory of a successful shot from a free kick is too much of a draw.
It used to be like that with the long range shot, but it is slowly been "analysed" out of the game. Like free kicks, your probability of scoring is so low, especially at the highest levels were the keepers are so good.
I guess the lighter ball and new shooting techniques which evolved from them, led to an absolute rash of direct free kick goals round the turn of the millennium. But goalies, analysis and walls have caught up with that. Football is really conservative, isn't it?
BREAKING: British No 1 Johanna Konta has been forced to withdraw from Wimbledon after going into self-isolation having been identified as a close contact of a person with coronavirus.
Discussing the general situation with my wife and we are in agreement that it is now in a completely ridiculous situation.
Cases are rocketing, the government are in no way taking societal level actions to suppress case numbers but we still have to self isolate after being a "close contact"
It is a worst of all worlds situation. Either cases matter ro they don't. If they matter we must suppress, if they don't then fuck this self isolation nonsense.
With Edinburgh case numbers now dwarfing January what chance my daughters summer holiday activities going ahead uninterrupted/at all? Close to zero.
This is a key point. If it is official Government policy to largely disregard case numbers, then they need to do a lot better job of communicating this to the general public (and even, dare i say it, review their current testing policy which is almost designed to maximise case numbers).
Because i suspect that headline numbers are still what most people look at, and there is much less focus/knowledge of hospitalisation numbers (and perhaps deaths). Because throughout the pandemic people have become trained to the idea that the latter are lagging factors, and will dismiss low numbers for them unless given good reasons not to do so.
There is a big political danger if the Government lifts all restrictions on July 19th with case numbers still sky rocketing (there is the possibility, perhaps even probability by then that they will be on the turn, but that's not guaranteed) and it gets portrayed by sections of the media that this is just abandoning the health of the public to save money, end furlough etc.
But have they got the communicators for that, and are they even trying?
I think that's very accurate,
I also think:
1) That after the last few days news, there will be some maybe a lot of people who say 'sod it' minister is ignoring the rules/guidance then so will I. and this may push up cases.
2) That changing the rules will not make that big a difference, not that many people go to night clubs, masks don't do that much, there is not that much spread at outdoor events like football. overall some but not a massive effect.
but politically if 1, leads to a rise and it is blamed on the government allowing 2, then that might look bad. and this government does not like looking bad, even if it is the right thing to do,
Wonder if UEFA will end up pulling the Euro semis and finals from Wembley - not because we won't allow the 2,500 dignataries and sponsors in without quarantine, but because their home countries won't allow them back!
Huge amount of noise, little light and the Tories seem to be running a stealth campaign (or no campaign at all).
I expect, but don't know, that the Torys are running a higly targeted campaign, delving, phoning and door knocking on people they think are pro-Brexit, and letting Labour and GG have an undignified fight without getting there hands too dirty.
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
HYUFD, and he is a PB hero (except when he cites Trafalgar voodoo polling as gospel).
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
The glory of a successful shot from a free kick is too much of a draw.
It used to be like that with the long range shot, but it is slowly been "analysed" out of the game. Like free kicks, your probability of scoring is so low, especially at the highest levels were the keepers are so good.
I guess the lighter ball and new shooting techniques which evolved from them, led to an absolute rash of direct free kick goals round the turn of the millennium. But goalies, analysis and walls have caught up with that. Football is really conservative, isn't it?
Its true of lots of sports. NFL coaches rarely go for 4th down attempts, despite the analysts explaining for years how sub optimal it is not to in kany scenarios. NBA until about 5 years ago still encouraged players to try and make mid range 2 point shots, again despite all the analytical teams telling them the better strategy was that you either get it in close for an easy 2, or you kick it out for a 3. What seemed to finally swing it was Steph Curry showing the rest how you could win this way.
Baseball has long been way ahead. Cricket via IPL is rapidly catching up, and football as well (but not in all areas, the dick swinging contest of direct free kicks seems still to be there).
Has there ever been a by-election in which the odds on favourite to take the seat has had so little publicity and flown so much under the radar? I only heard him mentioned by name for the first time today.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
Argentina scored a great free kick against us in 98 like that. I have tried it a few times it does catch defenders out
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
I would be interested to see Carlos Vela on there.
Has there ever been a by-election in which the odds on favourite to take the seat has had so little publicity and flown so much under the radar? I only heard him mentioned by name for the first time today.
More than I have. Thanks to your post I now know their gender (or at least their preferred pronoun).
Part of me wonders if Labour will get a bit of sympathy vote or Galloway gets a backlash so they can save it, but it would be pretty amusing for [Insert name here] to win the seat after so little notice - the ultimate 'don't interrupt your enemies' by-election.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
As an aside, the dots inside the box are all presumably indirect free kicks, and therefore shouldn't be included in the statistics.
Not sure the egg-throwing rumour is true - I've talked with four ex-MPs (male and female) who have been canvassing in the Muslim ward, and they've not had any trouble. They say there are lots of Galloway posters there, but a lot of quiet Labour support too (and presumably some Tories, though they're invisible).
I agree with Quincel, and have bet a fair sum in the same way. I think it's possible but unlikely that Labour will win, but I'm convinced we're well ahead of Galloway.
Speaking of invisibility, the Tory campaign approach is interesting - so low-key that it has to be a deliberate strategy, with the candidate declining to talk to reporters. They presumably rely on their GOTV operation to get their vote out while Galloway gnaws at Labour. But there's a risk that the anti-Galloway vote (which definitely exists) will coalesce around Kim including some Tories - I talked to two Tory couples who were voting for her.
That last possibility is probably a very real posibiaty, its going to be hard to predict haw big, because it may be the next few days such switches change there mind as more story's photos come out.
Speaking of under the radar candidates, the Christian People's Alliance is standing, and theirs is a party name that is certainly familiar from myriad by-elections, but that never seems to shoot for controversy attention (or if they do they don't manage it successfully), yet stood over 20 candidates in the 2019 GE which is quite a lot for such a minor outfit. What drives them, I wonder.
Speaking of under the radar candidates, the Christian People's Alliance is standing, and theirs is a party name that is certainly familiar from myriad by-elections, but that never seems to shoot for controversy attention (or if they do they don't manage it successfully), yet stood over 20 candidates in the 2019 GE which is quite a lot for such a minor outfit. What drives them, I wonder.
Given their targeting of Stella Creasy at the last GE, my guess would be that they are primarily motivated and sustained by a determination to make abortion an election issue, though obviously they'll accept votes from people motivated by homophobia too.
Here's the best free kick goal ever - Willie Carr, Coventry, 1970. Watch it to the end (only 40 seconds) because you need to see the replay. I remember this as a little kid.
What's the ratio of free kick shots on goal to goals from them in this tournament ?
In general it is actually very very low. Off the top of my head, I seemed to remember there was an analysis done a couple of seasons ago and Eriksen was the best performer with ~25% of free kick on target and he was well ahead of everybody else.
Best free kick team would be Ward-Prowse on the left, Dybala on the right.
I did say on target not scored...but cool graphic. Does emphasize how infrequent people score. Makes you wonder if it is even worth it, rather than just to manipulate the ball.
But if no one tried to shoot for goal then the defense would setup differently making it harder to manipulate the ball.
Obviously. But it is a rarity that there isn't a direct shot, which is categorised as often a "trick play". You can still set up as if to shoot is an option, with no intention of doing so.
This has long been a bugbear of mine. 6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall. You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
Argentina scored a great free kick against us in 98 like that. I have tried it a few times it does catch defenders out
Yes. I recall the USA almost equalizing v Belgium (?) in the WC. The guy ran up as if to shoot, but played a one-two with his own player standing in front of the wall. A fortunate deflection prevented it. It is so rare we can remember specific examples...
Here's the best free kick goal ever - Willie Carr, Coventry, 1970. Watch it to the end (only 40 seconds) because you need to see the replay. I remember this as a little kid.
Has there ever been a by-election in which the odds on favourite to take the seat has had so little publicity and flown so much under the radar? I only heard him mentioned by name for the first time today.
More than I have. Thanks to your post I now know their gender (or at least their preferred pronoun).
Part of me wonders if Labour will get a bit of sympathy vote or Galloway gets a backlash so they can save it, but it would be pretty amusing for [Insert name here] to win the seat after so little notice - the ultimate 'don't interrupt your enemies' by-election.
Yes. Until today I thought the Tory candidate was an Asian female! Don't know where I got that idea from.
Here's the best free kick goal ever - Willie Carr, Coventry, 1970. Watch it to the end (only 40 seconds) because you need to see the replay. I remember this as a little kid.
I grew up in the days of dirty Leeds, where Norman Hunter "bites her legs" was a code for breaks legs. Even my own Baggies under Johnny Giles got a reputation for bone breaking dangerous play. It is therefore something of a disappointment when the Euros have been peppered with European Super Players writhing around in agony having been gently brushed by an opponent. It annoys me that TV summarises are condoning this by saying how well a player has done by "buying a penalty or free kick".
Here's the best free kick goal ever - Willie Carr, Coventry, 1970. Watch it to the end (only 40 seconds) because you need to see the replay. I remember this as a little kid.
Speaking of under the radar candidates, the Christian People's Alliance is standing, and theirs is a party name that is certainly familiar from myriad by-elections, but that never seems to shoot for controversy attention (or if they do they don't manage it successfully), yet stood over 20 candidates in the 2019 GE which is quite a lot for such a minor outfit. What drives them, I wonder.
Given their targeting of Stella Creasy at the last GE, my guess would be that they are primarily motivated and sustained by a determination to make abortion an election issue, though obviously they'll accept votes from people motivated by homophobia too.
I don’t understand why being anti-abortion is put in the same category as being homophobic as if it’s a cruel thing. When I was 23, my girlfriend got pregnant and we had an abortion, mainly because we were on the rocks. I’d say it is the one thing I’ve done in my life that haunts me, and that if there is a day of reckoning could do for me.
Obviously having been part of a couple that decided to have one, I am in no position to lecture anyone else about it, but I just can’t believe, when I think about it, that it is even legal.
Not sure the egg-throwing rumour is true - I've talked with four ex-MPs (male and female) who have been canvassing in the Muslim ward, and they've not had any trouble. They say there are lots of Galloway posters there, but a lot of quiet Labour support too (and presumably some Tories, though they're invisible).
I agree with Quincel, and have bet a fair sum in the same way. I think it's possible but unlikely that Labour will win, but I'm convinced we're well ahead of Galloway.
Speaking of invisibility, the Tory campaign approach is interesting - so low-key that it has to be a deliberate strategy, with the candidate declining to talk to reporters. They presumably rely on their GOTV operation to get their vote out while Galloway gnaws at Labour. But there's a risk that the anti-Galloway vote (which definitely exists) will coalesce around Kim including some Tories - I talked to two Tory couples who were voting for her.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
There is also the question - if vaccinated people can catch and spread the virus, but at no risk to themselves - where the "threat" from unvaccinated children is any greater than the "threat" from vaccinated adults.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
What does "medium risk" mean? I can't see them authorising AZ as a booster or otherwise. And Novavax isn't approved yet. Europe are also only accepting vaccines approved by the EMA.
BREAKING: British No 1 Johanna Konta has been forced to withdraw from Wimbledon after going into self-isolation having been identified as a close contact of a person with coronavirus.
Discussing the general situation with my wife and we are in agreement that it is now in a completely ridiculous situation.
Cases are rocketing, the government are in no way taking societal level actions to suppress case numbers but we still have to self isolate after being a "close contact"
It is a worst of all worlds situation. Either cases matter ro they don't. If they matter we must suppress, if they don't then fuck this self isolation nonsense.
With Edinburgh case numbers now dwarfing January what chance my daughters summer holiday activities going ahead uninterrupted/at all? Close to zero.
This is a key point. If it is official Government policy to largely disregard case numbers, then they need to do a lot better job of communicating this to the general public (and even, dare i say it, review their current testing policy which is almost designed to maximise case numbers).
Because i suspect that headline numbers are still what most people look at, and there is much less focus/knowledge of hospitalisation numbers (and perhaps deaths). Because throughout the pandemic people have become trained to the idea that the latter are lagging factors, and will dismiss low numbers for them unless given good reasons not to do so.
There is a big political danger if the Government lifts all restrictions on July 19th with case numbers still sky rocketing (there is the possibility, perhaps even probability by then that they will be on the turn, but that's not guaranteed) and it gets portrayed by sections of the media that this is just abandoning the health of the public to save money, end furlough etc.
But have they got the communicators for that, and are they even trying?
The effing axiomatic obsession with ‘cases’ (positive tests) has to end, yet as you say the government is beyond hopeless at communicating this. One can only hope Javid will do better.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
During the 1992 election campaign, John Major was hit in the face by an egg, which left him with a cut face. I don't think the person who threw the egg got into very much trouble for doing it.
Speaking of under the radar candidates, the Christian People's Alliance is standing, and theirs is a party name that is certainly familiar from myriad by-elections, but that never seems to shoot for controversy attention (or if they do they don't manage it successfully), yet stood over 20 candidates in the 2019 GE which is quite a lot for such a minor outfit. What drives them, I wonder.
Given their targeting of Stella Creasy at the last GE, my guess would be that they are primarily motivated and sustained by a determination to make abortion an election issue, though obviously they'll accept votes from people motivated by homophobia too.
I don’t understand why being anti-abortion is put in the same category as being homophobic as if it’s a cruel thing. When I was 23, my girlfriend got pregnant and we had an abortion, mainly because we were on the rocks. I’d say it is the one thing I’ve done in my life that haunts me, and that if there is a day of reckoning could do for me.
Obviously having been part of a couple that decided to have one, I am in no position to lecture anyone else about it, but I just can’t believe, when I think about it, that it is even legal.
Fair play for posting that - I don't think many would admit to it.
And I think that's actually what makes it such a viscerally savage debate. Everyone in their heart of hearts knows it's wrong - so a lot of people are having to quiet their own doubts, before making a case for it. You can see it in the language that the "pro-choice" activists use - they call it a "fetus", because that's less human than a baby - they call it a "procedure" - all little euphemisms so they don't have to talk about what they are really doing.
And they certainly never talk about the potential for a lifetime of haunting guilt as a side effect. I've a friend who works in a care home - he was telling me about a resident with dementia whose few remaining decipherable phrases are to repeatedly call herself a murderer, because of a abortion in her past. I can't really think of anything more tragic or terrible to happen to a person.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
All of the most recent polls in Sweden but the opposition parties on 47% to 48%. Should be enough to win an election because of parties falling below the 4% threshold.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
Aren’t they being picked up by the British Navy in the channel, or arriving on a beach in Kent in a rickety old boat, and then claiming asylum?
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Quite often, a video on YouTube with roughly an equal number of up and down votes is one that tells people something they need, but don't want to, hear.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
Aren’t they being picked up by the British Navy in the channel, or arriving on a beach in Kent in a rickety old boat, and then claiming asylum?
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. They could - in theory, if not actuality - be on there way to Dover to report at the immigration office, and are therefore claiming to have been intercepted on there way there.
If they land on the beach, mind, then they aren't attempting to get to an immigration officer at Dover. So, I don't see how they could claim asylum, and would therefore simply be in violation of the UK's immigration laws and therefore subject to immediate deportation.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
Aren’t they being picked up by the British Navy in the channel, or arriving on a beach in Kent in a rickety old boat, and then claiming asylum?
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. They could - in theory, if not actuality - be on there way to Dover to report at the immigration office, and are therefore claiming to have been intercepted on there way there.
If they land on the beach, mind, then they aren't attempting to get to an immigration officer at Dover. So, I don't see how they could claim asylum, and would therefore simply be in violation of the UK's immigration laws and therefore subject to immediate deportation.
"We got lost at sea and couldn't work out where Dover was. We were going to go there now."
End of course student trips from mainland to Majorca have triggered around 900 cases all over Spain as infected students return home from a few days of revelry. A sign of what is to come next month and in August? Meanwhile the rules continue to be relaxed and the vax target is 70% at least one jab by end of August. Very hard not to be somewhat nervous.
Looks like ufo disclosure might happen in the most American way possible - litigation.
Kevin Day was the carrier group radar operator during David Fravor’s 2004 tic tac encounter from the USS Nimitz. Day says that trying to speak out about it within the military’s structures effectively cost him his career. Now the Pentagon has formally acknowledged not only the “sociocultural stigmas” hampering data collection but at least 18 Navy interactions with ultra tech UFO’s (presumably one of which is the Nimitz incident), Day is seeking an apology and financial compensation.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
Johanna Konta out of Wimbledon due to Covid contact.
I assume that in 22 days' time it wouldn't have mattered.
We just don't know, do we? What may very well happen is that the roadmap is completed on schedule on the new date of July 19th, but cases are still high (and quite possibly continuing to rise) and the existing policies on self-isolation remain in place. Even if masks and social distancing go, we shouldn't automatically assume that anything will change with regard to the encouragement to use home testing kits, signing into venues and contact tracing.
Javid's presence might change things, but one should never underestimate the incompetence of this Government. We could quite easily find ourselves in a situation come September where the hospitals are coping easily, deaths are running at perhaps a couple of hundred, mostly unvaccinated or very old, people a week, but millions of us are stuck at home going through repeated cycles of being locked up by the test and trace system.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
Presumably they've not been properly whacked by Delta - yet.
Two cases in my extended family, both in the Greater Blackburn area, both recently vaccinated. One of them described it as rather like mild 'flu; isolated, but nothing to worry about. Both in their mid 20's.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
This is the risk that the govt faces. In the ebb and flow of Us vs The Rest and in particular the EU we may yet fall behind and therefore see the "vaccine boost" evaporate.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
Javid’s for job in my view is deciding about kids. Is he happy to let covid rip through kids or not. If yes, stop with the stupid school bubbles and routine testing and isolation of kids. If not (long covid in kids?) what’s the plan Saj?
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Johanna Konta out of Wimbledon due to Covid contact.
I assume that in 22 days' time it wouldn't have mattered.
We just don't know, do we? What may very well happen is that the roadmap is completed on schedule on the new date of July 19th, but cases are still high (and quite possibly continuing to rise) and the existing policies on self-isolation remain in place. Even if masks and social distancing go, we shouldn't automatically assume that anything will change with regard to the encouragement to use home testing kits, signing into venues and contact tracing.
Javid's presence might change things, but one should never underestimate the incompetence of this Government. We could quite easily find ourselves in a situation come September where the hospitals are coping easily, deaths are running at perhaps a couple of hundred, mostly unvaccinated or very old, people a week, but millions of us are stuck at home going through repeated cycles of being locked up by the test and trace system.
All the measures that we have got were put in place by Hancock and Gove over a period of 16 months. Now that Javid is Health Secretary he is in a position to change things. If he wants to revise all these policies he will need to keep his job as Health Secretary for some time. That may not be easy.
Comments
Either way, it is of course unacceptable.
Will it make a difference, probably only slightly.
I mean, a well-known local woman being heckled, pursued and assaulted by roving groups of possibly non-local ne'er-do-wells?
Just a thought.
6 or so defenders in the wall. Pass to the wing and get a cross in. Or pass and get a shot from a different angle negating the wall.
You virtually never see it. And you have spare, unmarked attackers all around.
He regularly tweets about this and you can just see him as the angry one out of that Pixar movie about mental health.
Because i suspect that headline numbers are still what most people look at, and there is much less focus/knowledge of hospitalisation numbers (and perhaps deaths). Because throughout the pandemic people have become trained to the idea that the latter are lagging factors, and will dismiss low numbers for them unless given good reasons not to do so.
There is a big political danger if the Government lifts all restrictions on July 19th with case numbers still sky rocketing (there is the possibility, perhaps even probability by then that they will be on the turn, but that's not guaranteed) and it gets portrayed by sections of the media that this is just abandoning the health of the public to save money, end furlough etc.
But have they got the communicators for that, and are they even trying?
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
After all their efforts keep returning Conservative Governments.
Only intimidation i saw was in the Joe 7 min piece.
That was from a right wing person
Do you have a particular incident in mind?
I thought Kim would be a decent candidate but she looks very inexperienced.
Hope she wins and Hancock has surely made that a possibility
Yet they're never called out on it.
I agree with Quincel, and have bet a fair sum in the same way. I think it's possible but unlikely that Labour will win, but I'm convinced we're well ahead of Galloway.
Speaking of invisibility, the Tory campaign approach is interesting - so low-key that it has to be a deliberate strategy, with the candidate declining to talk to reporters. They presumably rely on their GOTV operation to get their vote out while Galloway gnaws at Labour. But there's a risk that the anti-Galloway vote (which definitely exists) will coalesce around Kim including some Tories - I talked to two Tory couples who were voting for her.
But goalies, analysis and walls have caught up with that.
Football is really conservative, isn't it?
I also think:
1) That after the last few days news, there will be some maybe a lot of people who say 'sod it' minister is ignoring the rules/guidance then so will I. and this may push up cases.
2) That changing the rules will not make that big a difference, not that many people go to night clubs, masks don't do that much, there is not that much spread at outdoor events like football. overall some but not a massive effect.
but politically if 1, leads to a rise and it is blamed on the government allowing 2, then that might look bad. and this government does not like looking bad, even if it is the right thing to do,
Baseball has long been way ahead. Cricket via IPL is rapidly catching up, and football as well (but not in all areas, the dick swinging contest of direct free kicks seems still to be there).
I only heard him mentioned by name for the first time today.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/27/labour-activists-allegedly-egged-kicked-batley-and-spen-campaign-trail
Part of me wonders if Labour will get a bit of sympathy vote or Galloway gets a backlash so they can save it, but it would be pretty amusing for [Insert name here] to win the seat after so little notice - the ultimate 'don't interrupt your enemies' by-election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjq2xT-tx38
A fortunate deflection prevented it.
It is so rare we can remember specific examples...
I grew up in the days of dirty Leeds, where Norman Hunter "bites her legs" was a code for breaks legs. Even my own Baggies under Johnny Giles got a reputation for bone breaking dangerous play. It is therefore something of a disappointment when the Euros have been peppered with European Super Players writhing around in agony having been gently brushed by an opponent. It annoys me that TV summarises are condoning this by saying how well a player has done by "buying a penalty or free kick". I got to know Ernie Hunt, he became the landlord of the Full Pitcher pub in Ledbury. The donkey kick was soon after made illegal. Still a great goal.
She must have this wrong
@MaltaTourism
habe just confirmed to me in an email they are not accepting visitors between the ages of 12 and 16
https://twitter.com/rebeccagil83/status/1409056298088419334
Obviously having been part of a couple that decided to have one, I am in no position to lecture anyone else about it, but I just can’t believe, when I think about it, that it is even legal.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tracy-brabin-labour-batley-west-yorkshire-keir-starmer-b942884.html
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1409258209001541632?s=20
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
There is also the question - if vaccinated people can catch and spread the virus, but at no risk to themselves - where the "threat" from unvaccinated children is any greater than the "threat" from vaccinated adults.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Fact for the day: in Norway they don't bother deporting failed asylum seekers as it's cheaper to let them self deport themselves https://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/07/31/life-too-difficult-for-illegal-aliens/
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116
1 France 5.3 18.9%
2 England 6.4 15.6%
3 Italy 6.2 16.1%
4 Germany 7.6 13.2%
5 Spain 8.6 11.6%
6 Belgium 9 11.1%
7 Denmark 13 7.7%
8 Czechia 36 2.8%
9 Sweden 60 1.7%
10 Croatia 90 1.1%
110 bar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG4NCHuvCC4&ab_channel=RobertSmithson
And I think that's actually what makes it such a viscerally savage debate. Everyone in their heart of hearts knows it's wrong - so a lot of people are having to quiet their own doubts, before making a case for it.
You can see it in the language that the "pro-choice" activists use - they call it a "fetus", because that's less human than a baby - they call it a "procedure" - all little euphemisms so they don't have to talk about what they are really doing.
And they certainly never talk about the potential for a lifetime of haunting guilt as a side effect. I've a friend who works in a care home - he was telling me about a resident with dementia whose few remaining decipherable phrases are to repeatedly call herself a murderer, because of a abortion in her past. I can't really think of anything more tragic or terrible to happen to a person.
Romania has access to the same level of vaccines as all other EU nations, but run out of people who want to have it.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Swedish_general_election#Vote_share
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
If they land on the beach, mind, then they aren't attempting to get to an immigration officer at Dover. So, I don't see how they could claim asylum, and would therefore simply be in violation of the UK's immigration laws and therefore subject to immediate deportation.
Double vaccinated anyone without quarantine
Kids under 12 don’t need to be jabbed
Unfortunately there’s a gap
Kevin Day was the carrier group radar operator during David Fravor’s 2004 tic tac encounter from the USS Nimitz. Day says that trying to speak out about it within the military’s structures effectively cost him his career. Now the Pentagon has formally acknowledged not only the “sociocultural stigmas” hampering data collection but at least 18 Navy interactions with ultra tech UFO’s (presumably one of which is the Nimitz incident), Day is seeking an apology and financial compensation.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/27/navy-tic-tac-ufo-witness-demands-public-apology-for-ridicule/
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
Javid's presence might change things, but one should never underestimate the incompetence of this Government. We could quite easily find ourselves in a situation come September where the hospitals are coping easily, deaths are running at perhaps a couple of hundred, mostly unvaccinated or very old, people a week, but millions of us are stuck at home going through repeated cycles of being locked up by the test and trace system.
Two cases in my extended family, both in the Greater Blackburn area, both recently vaccinated. One of them described it as rather like mild 'flu; isolated, but nothing to worry about. Both in their mid 20's.
It would be intolerable if we get to Sept and are still isolating school kids with no or mild symptoms and shutting down whole classes over it.