Watching BBC news for first time in a while. The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
You - and @LostPassword - should be PILING on Con maj then. That's close to 40% at current prices and for that you get ANY majority not just one over 80.
This is when you make the big bucks. When you're miles away from consensus and turn out to be right.
Anyone who hasn't piled on the Con majority already needs to show their careful reasoning. Doubt it will be 80+, mind.
I haven't - but I did do Cons most seats a few months back @ 1.85. That was a gift.
Watching BBC news for first time in a while. The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.
'How dose it feel to' etc
It is the Americanisation of sports coverage. Human interest. A story. The journey. The actual sport is secondary.
Watching BBC news for first time in a while. The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.
..no wonder people are complaining. Even videos I have watched on the BBC website are very poor. I have watched about 5% of what I would usually watch. Dumbed down with inane commentary.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
Which seats do you have in mind and are you expecting the Tory poll vote margin to be in excess of the 11.7% of last time.
You also need to factor in the CON Remain seats where the LDs are in second place.
I think the LDs could possibly take 10 Tory Southern seats. That drops the majority to 60.
Without any swing there are 15 Lab seats that fall if the BXP vote goes to the Tories at the rate that they did in Hartlepool. If we put those Lab seats in the Tory column that lifts the majority to 90, after taking into account Lib Dem losses.
The Boundary reforms could be about 10 seats change. That lifts the baseline Tory majority, after LD losses and BXP-related Lab losses to 110.
Then obviously need to account for swing. No I don't think Tories will lead by 11.7% which is why I said odds-against over an 80 seat majority. A 2% swing would see the Tory lead cut to 7.7% and would lead to 19 losses to Labour cutting the majority to 72.
I'd probably expect a couple more losses to SNP dropping the majority down into the 60s. That's my expectation currently. But there's a possibility of a less than 2% swing which would take the Tory majority back above 80.
Thorough take down by Chris Snowden of the anti-vax and covid denier brigade. Especially the loons cheering the mad ex-nurse who thinks all doctors are Nazis:
"But without herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2, the refuseniks are on their own. They are facing an endemic disease armed with nothing but worming tablets and excessive faith in their immune system. That is their choice and whilst we should deter gullible people from being pulled into their orbit, we should not coerce them. There is no free ride this time. They alone will face the consequences of their actions."
Required reading for the contrarians of this world, though they are incapable of accepting it. But I disagree slightly with the conclusion: it's not only the refuseniks who will face the consequences, but also those for whom the vaccine is ineffective through luck or biology. There's some spillover to the innocent.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
You - and @LostPassword - should be PILING on Con maj then. That's close to 40% at current prices and for that you get ANY majority not just one over 80.
This is when you make the big bucks. When you're miles away from consensus and turn out to be right.
I'm not a professional gambler, I don't like tying my money up for years at such short odds. If it wasn't for that, I would. Its a bargain as far as value is concerned.
Not saying that there will be another Tory majority, there could be minority government or even unlikely a Lab one. But 40% for Tory majority is absolutely a bargain value.
Thorough take down by Chris Snowden of the anti-vax and covid denier brigade. Especially the loons cheering the mad ex-nurse who thinks all doctors are Nazis:
"But without herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2, the refuseniks are on their own. They are facing an endemic disease armed with nothing but worming tablets and excessive faith in their immune system. That is their choice and whilst we should deter gullible people from being pulled into their orbit, we should not coerce them. There is no free ride this time. They alone will face the consequences of their actions."
Required reading for the contrarians of this world, though they are incapable of accepting it. But I disagree slightly with the conclusion: it's not only the refuseniks who will face the consequences, but also those for whom the vaccine is ineffective through luck or biology. There's some spillover to the innocent.
--AS
Yes, I did think that myself after posting. And there's their family members who will miss a loved one when they are gone. And all the medics who have to deal with them begging to be vaccinated instead as they are put on the incubator.
Prof Francois Balloux @BallouxFrancois For some context about today's *resurgence* in case numbers in the UK, which might, or not, be concerning, the decrease of the prior winter wave below. Some days, cases were down on the day before, others they were up. Trends are best interpreted over multi-day smoothing windows.
Thorough take down by Chris Snowden of the anti-vax and covid denier brigade. Especially the loons cheering the mad ex-nurse who thinks all doctors are Nazis:
"But without herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2, the refuseniks are on their own. They are facing an endemic disease armed with nothing but worming tablets and excessive faith in their immune system. That is their choice and whilst we should deter gullible people from being pulled into their orbit, we should not coerce them. There is no free ride this time. They alone will face the consequences of their actions."
Required reading for the contrarians of this world, though they are incapable of accepting it. But I disagree slightly with the conclusion: it's not only the refuseniks who will face the consequences, but also those for whom the vaccine is ineffective through luck or biology. There's some spillover to the innocent.
--AS
Yes, I did think that myself after posting. And there's their family members who will miss a loved one when they are gone. And all the medics who have to deal with them begging to be vaccinated instead as they are put on the incubator.
Put them in the incubator? Are you suggesting that the anti-vaxxers are big babies?
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
Which seats do you have in mind and are you expecting the Tory poll vote margin to be in excess of the 11.7% of last time.
You also need to factor in the CON Remain seats where the LDs are in second place.
The remain seats are only at risk until the Lib Dems promise to put taxes up
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
Which seats do you have in mind and are you expecting the Tory poll vote margin to be in excess of the 11.7% of last time.
You also need to factor in the CON Remain seats where the LDs are in second place.
The remain seats are only at risk until the Lib Dems promise to put taxes up
Presumably LDs will sweep them when Cons put taxes up as proposed...
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
I'd put that as odds against.
I think there's only a 40% chance he'll increase his majority.
You - and @LostPassword - should be PILING on Con maj then. That's close to 40% at current prices and for that you get ANY majority not just one over 80.
This is when you make the big bucks. When you're miles away from consensus and turn out to be right.
I'm not a professional gambler, I don't like tying my money up for years at such short odds. If it wasn't for that, I would. Its a bargain as far as value is concerned.
Not saying that there will be another Tory majority, there could be minority government or even unlikely a Lab one. But 40% for Tory majority is absolutely a bargain value.
I agree, hence a column a few months back. I think the implied 65-70% on Tory Most Seats is arguably even better value, too.
It seems to me that since World War II neverhas a leader who has won a healthy majority not made it to the 5 year mark in office.
The last time that happened in the past century is arguably Ramsay MacDonald with the National government of 1931, and the only other occasion is Bonar Lee who resigned just shy of the 5 year mark due to his cancer.
The situation with Johnson is peculiar as it came more than nine years after his party entered government this time. So precedent may not be as good a guide.
Indeed but I'm still struggling to see how precendent or any other logic means that laying Boris making it to five years is value at 55%. That's essentially saying its a coin toss whether he gets to five years or not when almost every PM with a healthy majority has always done so.
I am still sticking by my prediction that Johnson will increase his majority at the next general election in 2023.
However, I don't find your argument convincing. General elections are unpredictable. British politics is in a volatile phase. There is no loyal core of Johnson supporters in the PCP.
I can see the outline of the case against, though I disagree with the assessment of the probabilities.
INCREASE his majority!!
Yes.
My reasoning is:
1. There's still more seats to win from Labour as part of the Brexit realignment.
2. The new boundaries.
3. The Lib Dems can easily win a lot of votes across the South but only a handful of seats.
4. Johnson has a good story to tell on delivering Brexit and the vaccines, so I could see why voters would trust him to deliver on future promises. Starmer will struggle to deliver a united Labour Party or a personality.
5. I think they can keep the economic plates spinning until the end of 2023.
I suspect the Brexit realignment will prove to be very much a five-minute wonder. By the next election most Leavers will have forgotten why they even voted for it, so negligible will seem its benefits. However, Boris might hang onto a reasonable chunk of Red Wallers who are just happy still to register how crap they think Labour is.
Watching BBC news for first time in a while. The Olympics report seems to be a handful of 5 second action clips filled in with minutes of reporters, athletes and officials talking.
BBC News is poor, however at least they have the hang of synchronising Huw Edwards words with his lips. GBNews to date, have not, unless Dan Wooton's words really do appear a second or two after his lips move, which is a possibility, I guess.
Tim Spector (who is normally very quick on positive new on cases falling) is very wary of the fall over the past week. He isn't convinced it is necessarily real (or at least as large as numbers suggest), combination of schools kids not getting tested, people avoiding reporting symptoms because they have holiday booked or have gone on holiday and won't be tested (as part of their job) so not picking up as many asymptotic and mild cases etc.
Zoe app data shows no fall over past week. Plus side, double vaxxed cases still only 15% of daily totals, still overwhelming unvaxxed, but obviously this will change.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
If Cons put taxes up as proposed they risk losing my vote.
How does one pay for the cost of furlough? And I don't believe economic growth feeding bigger tax receipts cuts the mustard, so you'll have to come up with something else.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Has anyone ever been inspired to get into sports by watching human interest filler rather than stumbling upon an exciting contest? The beauty of the Olympics is that there's always some action to broadcast so there should be no need to bore people with filler.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
They sent them all to Salford to witter to each other, rather than send them to Tokyo to witter to each other. It works for me.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
Discovery Plus are bloody hopeless. 9 Eurosport channels this morning. Only 3 showing live sports 2 of them simultaneously showing the same gymnastics feed despite there being loads of live action to choose from. 5 of 9 channels showing repeats of football, tennis etc when should have been showing live swimming, shooting, archery, sailing, fencing,judo.
Dedicated channel for handball.
Dedicated channel for tennis
Dedicated channel for football
Disastrous to give rights to a channel that is completely useless.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
Discovery Plus are bloody hopeless. 9 Eurosport channels this morning. Only 3 showing live sports 2 of them simultaneously showing the same gymnastics feed despite there being loads of live action to choose from. 5 of 9 channels showing repeats of football, tennis etc when should have been showing live swimming, shooting, archery, sailing, fencing,judo.
Dedicated channel for handball.
Dedicated channel for tennis
Dedicated channel for football
Disastrous to give rights to a channel that is completely useless.
Perhaps you should call the service, Starmer Plus.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
No, thats not the deal. Otherwise, the BBC wouldn't be able to show anything at all, certainly none of the blue ribbon events.
My understanding is the deal is the BBC can show 2 live streams of their choosing at any one time. Most of last night it was swimming and rowing, which were the big sports on offer, but I think they got in a muddle and stuck with rowing rather than switch to events more important for Team GB after the big rowing finals that Team GB screwed up.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
Discovery Plus are bloody hopeless. 9 Eurosport channels this morning. Only 3 showing live sports 2 of them simultaneously showing the same gymnastics feed despite there being loads of live action to choose from. 5 of 9 channels showing repeats of football, tennis etc when should have been showing live swimming, shooting, archery, sailing, fencing,judo.
Dedicated channel for handball.
Dedicated channel for tennis
Dedicated channel for football
Disastrous to give rights to a channel that is completely useless.
Perhaps you should call the service, Starmer Plus.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Has anyone ever been inspired to get into sports by watching human interest filler rather than stumbling upon an exciting contest? The beauty of the Olympics is that there's always some action to broadcast so there should be no need to bore people with filler.
The obscure sports with no Brit medal prospects are being squeezed out totally. Handball, table tennis, archery and the like. You don't fully understand what is going on, but one can admire the skill, and become absorbed and possibly inspired... Except you can't.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
Eurosport obsessed with non GB events Handball,volleyball,basketball,male football.
9 channels and most are dedicated to single sports even when they have no live action.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
You see, I disagree. I am a rugby fan. There is plenty of rugby of both codes available year round. Sevens isn't rugby. I want the Olympics to be summat different every 4 years.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Has anyone ever been inspired to get into sports by watching human interest filler rather than stumbling upon an exciting contest? The beauty of the Olympics is that there's always some action to broadcast so there should be no need to bore people with filler.
The obscure sports with no Brit medal prospects are being squeezed out totally. Handball, table tennis, archery and the like. You don't fully understand what is going on, but one can admire the skill, and become absorbed and possibly inspired... Except you can't.
Although with most of the action happening in the middle of the night, i doubt many kids are up at 4am just to stumble across wiff waff or bows and arrows....and they are showing them in the non-live coverage.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
Eurosport obsessed with non GB events Handball,volleyball,basketball,male football.
9 channels and most are dedicated to single sports even when they have no live action.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
Eurosport obsessed with non GB events Handball,volleyball,basketball,male football.
9 channels and most are dedicated to single sports even when they have no live action.
We have gone back 12 years in coverage choice
The sports you name are the big European sports. Selling by continent was daft. India watches hockey. Japan, Korea and Taiwan baseball. Philippines, Taiwan, China basketball. Indonesia, Malaysia, China badminton. And so on.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Has anyone ever been inspired to get into sports by watching human interest filler rather than stumbling upon an exciting contest? The beauty of the Olympics is that there's always some action to broadcast so there should be no need to bore people with filler.
The obscure sports with no Brit medal prospects are being squeezed out totally. Handball, table tennis, archery and the like. You don't fully understand what is going on, but one can admire the skill, and become absorbed and possibly inspired... Except you can't.
Although with most of the action happening in the middle of the night, i doubt many kids are up at 4am just to stumble across wiff waff or bows and arrows....and they are showing them in the non-live coverage.
I went to see archery at Lords in 2012 loved it.
Bloody Eurosport not covering hardly at all yet ramming repeats of non live Handball down our throats.
Having to resort to live score Olympic site that is excellent tbf.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Has anyone ever been inspired to get into sports by watching human interest filler rather than stumbling upon an exciting contest? The beauty of the Olympics is that there's always some action to broadcast so there should be no need to bore people with filler.
The obscure sports with no Brit medal prospects are being squeezed out totally. Handball, table tennis, archery and the like. You don't fully understand what is going on, but one can admire the skill, and become absorbed and possibly inspired... Except you can't.
Although with most of the action happening in the middle of the night, i doubt many kids are up at 4am just to stumble across wiff waff or bows and arrows....and they are showing them in the non-live coverage.
Well, yes. This really is just an Olympics in a very inconvenient time zone. Many of the complaints stem from that. What time is the athletics starting? 7 or 8 am to midday I reckon.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
You see, I disagree. I am a rugby fan. There is plenty of rugby of both codes available year round. Sevens isn't rugby. I want the Olympics to be summat different every 4 years.
I love the sevens.
From someone who grew up with Edwards, Bennett, JJ and Gerald Davies, sevens takes me back to the days of running rugby and "that try".
I can't stand the attritional collision game. I was doing work for a former professional union front row (Ospreys, Wasps) a couple of years back. He said when he started in the game he was looking at a maximum of 20 collisions in 80 minutes, when he finished playing a decade later it was over 60. That is no spectacle, give me a try from a jinking Phil Bennet run any day of the week.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
You see, I disagree. I am a rugby fan. There is plenty of rugby of both codes available year round. Sevens isn't rugby. I want the Olympics to be summat different every 4 years.
I love the sevens.
From someone who grew up with Edwards, Bennett, JJ and Gerald Davies, sevens takes me back to the days of running rugby and "that try".
I can't stand the attritional collision game. I was doing work for a former professional union front row (Ospreys, Wasps) a couple of years back. He said when he started in the game he was looking at a maximum of 20 collisions in 80 minutes, when he finished playing a decade later it was over 60. That is no spectacle, give me a try from a jinking Phil Bennet run any day of the week.
You will love the 3*3 basketball see Eurosport 8 for detail!!
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
You see, I disagree. I am a rugby fan. There is plenty of rugby of both codes available year round. Sevens isn't rugby. I want the Olympics to be summat different every 4 years.
I love the sevens.
From someone who grew up with Edwards, Bennett, JJ and Gerald Davies, sevens takes me back to the days of running rugby and "that try".
I can't stand the attritional collision game. I was doing work for a former professional union front row (Ospreys, Wasps) a couple of years back. He said when he started in the game he was looking at a maximum of 20 collisions in 80 minutes, when he finished playing a decade later it was over 60. That is no spectacle, give me a try from a jinking Phil Bennet run any day of the week.
Kick into touch and have a line out you mean? 2 minutes to set a scrum? 1970's rugby union provided flashes of excitement. Mainly because no one knew, or was expected to know, how to tackle properly.
I think BBC problem is combination of the rights deal they have done and also COVID means they haven't sent the usual 5 million members of staff out there, who make outside VT of host cities, interviews, etc. So there is loads more filler of people just sitting in the studio in the UK wittering to one another.
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
Blame Discovery +
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
The BBC does seem to get the stuff no one else wants, although the Sevens have been sublime. The skateboarding and the dancing horses not so much.
You see, I disagree. I am a rugby fan. There is plenty of rugby of both codes available year round. Sevens isn't rugby. I want the Olympics to be summat different every 4 years.
I love the sevens.
From someone who grew up with Edwards, Bennett, JJ and Gerald Davies, sevens takes me back to the days of running rugby and "that try".
I can't stand the attritional collision game. I was doing work for a former professional union front row (Ospreys, Wasps) a couple of years back. He said when he started in the game he was looking at a maximum of 20 collisions in 80 minutes, when he finished playing a decade later it was over 60. That is no spectacle, give me a try from a jinking Phil Bennet run any day of the week.
Kick into touch and have a line out you mean? 2 minutes to set a scrum? 1970's rugby union provided flashes of excitement. Mainly because no one knew, or was expected to know, how to tackle properly.
Sport. What do I know? I follow the Baggies.
You must have been brought up on England when Rob Andrew was outside half. It was different in Wales, Jiffy didn't kick to touch if he could send Eeuan Evans on his way, that said my hero Phil Bennett was a terrible tackler.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if you wanted to do the vaxxport route then open up the Nightingales for hospital treatment for the unvaccinated, and deny them mainstream hospital entry. If they don't want to take the vaccine, then still offer treatment but do so from a tent instead.
Air circulation might be better in a tent.
Do we have a name yet for the brave "ministerial adviser" in France who told the media he wanted to create "a life of shit for the unvaccinated" ("vie de merde pour les non-vaccinés")?
Macron is reaching for shock and awe but he's not quite there yet. That's an awful combination. The approval rating for his presidency is at about -20%. He is nowhere near as strong as De Gaulle was when he called and won the legislative election of June 1968. De Gaulle wasn't even particularly strong then but he was strong enough. (He also said things as coarse as what that adviser said, but he was president, a military guy, and he said them openly.) Laying Macron at 1.92 is surely value.
One doesn't have to back Dupont-Aignan to realise he's catching the mood when he says Macron is dangerous:
IF Macron runs and IF he gets through to the second round, I could see him losing to Le Pen, Mélenchon, or Dupont-Aignan. The polls say differently about Macron vs Le Pen, but polls can get it wrong. As for Bertrand, he supports the pass sanitaire, so it's hard to see why anyone should vote for him in the first round. If you support the PS, vote Macron.
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if you wanted to do the vaxxport route then open up the Nightingales for hospital treatment for the unvaccinated, and deny them mainstream hospital entry. If they don't want to take the vaccine, then still offer treatment but do so from a tent instead.
Air circulation might be better in a tent.
Do we have a name yet for the brave "ministerial adviser" in France who told the media he wanted to create "a life of shit for the unvaccinated" ("vie de merde pour les non-vaccinés")?
Macron is reaching for shock and awe but he's not quite there yet. That's an awful combination. The approval rating for his presidency is at about -20%. He is nowhere near as strong as De Gaulle was when he called and won the legislative election of June 1968. De Gaulle wasn't even particularly strong then but he was strong enough. (He also said things as coarse as what that adviser said, but he was president, a military guy, and he said them openly.) Laying Macron at 1.92 is surely value.
One doesn't have to back Dupont-Aignan to realise he's catching the mood when he says Macron is dangerous:
IF Macron runs and IF he gets through to the second round, I could see him losing to Le Pen, Mélenchon, or Dupont-Aignan. The polls say differently about Macron vs Le Pen, but polls can get it wrong. As for Bertrand, he supports the pass sanitaire, so it's hard to see why anyone should vote for him in the first round. If you support the PS, vote Macron.
But what if this action means France has put Covid behind it, while other (more vaccine hesitant) countries still struggle with it?
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if you wanted to do the vaxxport route then open up the Nightingales for hospital treatment for the unvaccinated, and deny them mainstream hospital entry. If they don't want to take the vaccine, then still offer treatment but do so from a tent instead.
Air circulation might be better in a tent.
Do we have a name yet for the brave "ministerial adviser" in France who told the media he wanted to create "a life of shit for the unvaccinated" ("vie de merde pour les non-vaccinés")?
Macron is reaching for shock and awe but he's not quite there yet. That's an awful combination. The approval rating for his presidency is at about -20%. He is nowhere near as strong as De Gaulle was when he called and won the legislative election of June 1968. De Gaulle wasn't even particularly strong then but he was strong enough. (He also said things as coarse as what that adviser said, but he was president, a military guy, and he said them openly.) Laying Macron at 1.92 is surely value.
One doesn't have to back Dupont-Aignan to realise he's catching the mood when he says Macron is dangerous:
IF Macron runs and IF he gets through to the second round, I could see him losing to Le Pen, Mélenchon, or Dupont-Aignan. The polls say differently about Macron vs Le Pen, but polls can get it wrong. As for Bertrand, he supports the pass sanitaire, so it's hard to see why anyone should vote for him in the first round. If you support the PS, vote Macron.
But what if this action means France has put Covid behind it, while other (more vaccine hesitant) countries still struggle with it?
Indeed, we see in this country is much more keen on harsh lockdown measures than the PB commentariat. Is there ant French polling on this?
The likes of Farage and Grimes need to say that the RNLI should be blocked from rescuing immigrants because their preferred option is for the immigrants to drown. If they don't say that then it's moral cowardice on their part.
"Début août, il sera également obligatoire dans les cafés, restaurants, centres commerciaux, hôpitaux, maisons de retraite, établissements médico-sociaux, ainsi que pour les voyages en avion, train et car pour les trajets de longue distance."
Translation: "From the start of August, it [the pass sanitaire] will also be mandatory in cafés, restaurants, shopping centres, hospitals, old people's homes, and care homes, as well as for long-distance travel by air, train, and coach."
I couldn't find anything on that page restricting the meaning to those who work in hospitals, or who visit patients in hospitals. If it really is unrestricted, it means "no vaccine passport, no hospital treatment", even for example if an unvaccinated person gets run over in the street.
The document continues:
"Cette obligation s’appliquera aux 12-17 ans à partir du 30 septembre."
Translation: "This obligation will apply to those aged 12-17 from 30 September."
It seems that my interpretation was correct: Macron wants to deny all hospital treatment to the unvaccinated. They simply will not be allowed inside hospitals.
"Sky News Australia host James Morrow said: 'That is just a complete violation of the Hippocratic oath. I think that any doctor that obeyed that sort of mandate would be in absolute violation of their own ethics as a doctor.
'It doesn't matter when somebody comes into the ER on a gurney if they are some horrible person, a neo-nazi skinhead, whatever, a child molester. Any sort of evil person, they still get treatment.'"
I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that if you wanted to do the vaxxport route then open up the Nightingales for hospital treatment for the unvaccinated, and deny them mainstream hospital entry. If they don't want to take the vaccine, then still offer treatment but do so from a tent instead.
Air circulation might be better in a tent.
Do we have a name yet for the brave "ministerial adviser" in France who told the media he wanted to create "a life of shit for the unvaccinated" ("vie de merde pour les non-vaccinés")?
Macron is reaching for shock and awe but he's not quite there yet. That's an awful combination. The approval rating for his presidency is at about -20%. He is nowhere near as strong as De Gaulle was when he called and won the legislative election of June 1968. De Gaulle wasn't even particularly strong then but he was strong enough. (He also said things as coarse as what that adviser said, but he was president, a military guy, and he said them openly.) Laying Macron at 1.92 is surely value.
One doesn't have to back Dupont-Aignan to realise he's catching the mood when he says Macron is dangerous:
IF Macron runs and IF he gets through to the second round, I could see him losing to Le Pen, Mélenchon, or Dupont-Aignan. The polls say differently about Macron vs Le Pen, but polls can get it wrong. As for Bertrand, he supports the pass sanitaire, so it's hard to see why anyone should vote for him in the first round. If you support the PS, vote Macron.
But what if this action means France has put Covid behind it, while other (more vaccine hesitant) countries still struggle with it?
Indeed, we see in this country is much more keen on harsh lockdown measures than the PB commentariat. Is there ant French polling on this?
Don't forget France is more carrot than stick with its widely lauded advertising showing the country opening up and young people, erm, bonding. Even the Pass Sanitaire is about carrots. Perhaps we should have offered more to encourage vaccination but we had become wedded to the risk and age-based timetable.
Boris will be pleased with this morning's front pages. Flags and Olympians everywhere and the headlines are good too.
Mail: Britain's back in business! Express: Welcome back! Britain opens up for business. i: Travel hope as UK opens borders with EU and US Metro: Doubley Jabbly (not sure I get that one tbh) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-58006958
Meanwhile the Star leads on the disappearance of Northern accents.
Alex Cole-Hamilton boasting that he will be the first Lib Dem leader anywhere in the UK not tainted by the coalition government with the Conservatives.
To save anyone else the trouble, I looked it up.
Apparently he is a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and apparently the Scottish Liberal Democrats are having a leadership election, in which he is a candidate (or actually the only candidate).
And here was me thinking he was world famous. He certainly acts like he is.
He's helped by you and everyone else on here getting into a flap about some comments.
If he is the irrelevance you assert, why even mention it?
I can feel an ‘AC-H, the one the Nats fear’ coming on.
I seem to recall Carmichael was once described as a colossus on this site.
Out of curiosity, what annoys you more: that he lied, that he got away with it, or that he’s the one MP in Scotland who seems to be genuinely out of reach of the SNP?
I’m guessing that 1 and 2 are less than important to supporters of Nicola Sturgeon, if I’m honest...
Not sure why you think he figures so prominently in my thoughts, I don’t remember mentioning him for ages.
I’d say Ian Murray with the largest majority in Scotland is easily as unassailable. Those Morningside Tories are not for turning.
It’s not the size of his majority though - that’s always going to be tiny given the seat. It’s how hard his vote is to squeeze. I think I’m right in saying that his is the only seat in Scotland held by one party continuously since before 1979.
I just thought I detected a certain acerbity in your response. At no point did I suggest you were obsessed with him AFAICS.
He is of no consequence in Scotland , like the tiny amount of MSP's they could not fill a taxi with all combined. As a lying cheating toerag he fits their profile perfectly. Have not seen or heard him since he was proven to be a liar in court. He is making easy money at the trough.
According to this he's not making much at the trough.
Comments
(I used to hang out with her and Jeremy at university)
https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-demarai-gray-almost-killed-by-helicopter-blades-20160425
I have watched about 5% of what I would usually watch. Dumbed down with inane commentary.
Without any swing there are 15 Lab seats that fall if the BXP vote goes to the Tories at the rate that they did in Hartlepool. If we put those Lab seats in the Tory column that lifts the majority to 90, after taking into account Lib Dem losses.
The Boundary reforms could be about 10 seats change. That lifts the baseline Tory majority, after LD losses and BXP-related Lab losses to 110.
Then obviously need to account for swing. No I don't think Tories will lead by 11.7% which is why I said odds-against over an 80 seat majority. A 2% swing would see the Tory lead cut to 7.7% and would lead to 19 losses to Labour cutting the majority to 72.
I'd probably expect a couple more losses to SNP dropping the majority down into the 60s. That's my expectation currently. But there's a possibility of a less than 2% swing which would take the Tory majority back above 80.
--AS
Not saying that there will be another Tory majority, there could be minority government or even unlikely a Lab one. But 40% for Tory majority is absolutely a bargain value.
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
For some context about today's *resurgence* in case numbers in the UK, which might, or not, be concerning, the decrease of the prior winter wave below. Some days, cases were down on the day before, others they were up. Trends are best interpreted over multi-day smoothing windows.
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1420480087607152646
https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1420496181831114752?s=19
Search giant becomes one of the largest employers to require the jab
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/07/28/google-tells-staff-get-vaccinated-coming-back-office/amp/
No more than that.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1420290283732930560
"So Keir will make Britain the best place to work - unless you work for
@UKLabour"
France reports 27,934 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase since April (and this is still after they don't test much)
Zoe app data shows no fall over past week. Plus side, double vaxxed cases still only 15% of daily totals, still overwhelming unvaxxed, but obviously this will change.
Who would you vote for instead?
It does seem though the production people are asleep at the wheel some of the time. Last night they were doing massive filler on BBC One and red button was rowing with no British interest, while missing rugby 7s semi final and Eng vs India in crucial hockey match.
His mental health advert showing him being knocked down by an invisible opponent is striking.
Big man in more than one way.
Dedicated channel for handball.
Dedicated channel for tennis
Dedicated channel for football
Disastrous to give rights to a channel that is completely useless.
BBC only has choice of stuff they are showing doesn't it?
My understanding is the deal is the BBC can show 2 live streams of their choosing at any one time. Most of last night it was swimming and rowing, which were the big sports on offer, but I think they got in a muddle and stuck with rowing rather than switch to events more important for Team GB after the big rowing finals that Team GB screwed up.
Handball, table tennis, archery and the like. You don't fully understand what is going on, but one can admire the skill, and become absorbed and possibly inspired...
Except you can't.
9 channels and most are dedicated to single sports even when they have no live action.
We have gone back 12 years in coverage choice
Wall to wall Basketball on Eurosport 8
Bloody Eurosport not covering hardly at all yet ramming repeats of non live Handball down our throats.
Having to resort to live score Olympic site that is excellent tbf.
What time is the athletics starting?
7 or 8 am to midday I reckon.
https://olympics.com/tokyo-2020/olympic-games/en/results/all-sports/noc-schedule-great-britain.htm
From someone who grew up with Edwards, Bennett, JJ and Gerald Davies, sevens takes me back to the days of running rugby and "that try".
I can't stand the attritional collision game. I was doing work for a former professional union front row (Ospreys, Wasps) a couple of years back. He said when he started in the game he was looking at a maximum of 20 collisions in 80 minutes, when he finished playing a decade later it was over 60. That is no spectacle, give me a try from a jinking Phil Bennet run any day of the week.
Nate Odenkirk
@birthdaynate
29m
He's going to be okay.
1970's rugby union provided flashes of excitement. Mainly because no one knew, or was expected to know, how to tackle properly.
You must have been brought up on England when Rob Andrew was outside half. It was different in Wales, Jiffy didn't kick to touch if he could send Eeuan Evans on his way, that said my hero Phil Bennett was a terrible tackler.
Do we have a name yet for the brave "ministerial adviser" in France who told the media he wanted to create "a life of shit for the unvaccinated" ("vie de merde pour les non-vaccinés")?
Macron is reaching for shock and awe but he's not quite there yet. That's an awful combination. The approval rating for his presidency is at about -20%. He is nowhere near as strong as De Gaulle was when he called and won the legislative election of June 1968. De Gaulle wasn't even particularly strong then but he was strong enough. (He also said things as coarse as what that adviser said, but he was president, a military guy, and he said them openly.) Laying Macron at 1.92 is surely value.
One doesn't have to back Dupont-Aignan to realise he's catching the mood when he says Macron is dangerous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOU8gXBuz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRw5wMcLURY
The Fifth Republic may well be losing this...
IF Macron runs and IF he gets through to the second round, I could see him losing to Le Pen, Mélenchon, or Dupont-Aignan. The polls say differently about Macron vs Le Pen, but polls can get it wrong. As for Bertrand, he supports the pass sanitaire, so it's hard to see why anyone should vote for him in the first round. If you support the PS, vote Macron.
https://twitter.com/bnodesk/status/1420550256287264771
With apologies to Mock the Week who will need a new joke.
As is always the case (see the Uk with India), they have pretty much managed to call the top of cases.
Mail: Britain's back in business!
Express: Welcome back! Britain opens up for business.
i: Travel hope as UK opens borders with EU and US
Metro: Doubley Jabbly (not sure I get that one tbh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-58006958
Meanwhile the Star leads on the disappearance of Northern accents.