(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
And presumably also lost, if you follow the logic of your sad little bet.
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
That is truly excellent. Who is that Scottish journalist?
That's how it should be done. No overt emotion. No need for hugs with the locals
Just the bare honest facts and show some of the blood, because we need to see it. War is awful
Quentin Somerville, he’s always been pretty good. I’m sure Eabhal will confirm.
Did some good stuff when Syria kicked off.
There are people moaning on Twitter that he "shouldn't stand by freshly killed bodies" when reporting. Apparently it is "dishonourable"
Whining nonsense. War kills people in horrible ways, and that needs to be seen. It kills young men in excessive numbers, and their bright red blood will stain the snow: that, too, needs to be seen.
The images we remember from wars, the images we can't erase, are the images that change history because they are so honest and disturbing
To take just Vietnam: the execution of that VC in the street, the napalmed North Vietnamese girl, the GI igniting a village with his Zippo
"How Come Back Alive Helps Our Foundation stands with the Ukrainian Armed Forces by funding purely defensive initiatives. Since 2014, we have supplied nearly 1,000 thermal scopes and over 250 reconnaissance drones. Along with this material support, we’ve supported technological advancements with 1,500 tablets containing «Armor» artillery calculation software.
Come Back Alive also conducts training to give our troops broader skill sets. Since 2015, we’ve introduced courses for medical care workers, artillerymen, snipers, sappers, and defense analysts. After arriving home from the front line of defense, our troops receive support with sports rehabilitation and the development of veteran-run businesses.
Our organization does not use funds to buy weaponry. Our mission is purely to supply technology, training, and ammunition to help save the lives of Ukrainians and help our soldiers defend Ukraine."
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction I possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Let them play, but just don't let them win. Put the Klitchkos in charge of VAR.
'Sorry Chelsea fans, it was close but just offside.'
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
One nation Putin won't be fucking around with any time soon is Turkey.
It is odd. I thought Erdogan would be right behind Putin. I got it totally wrong
Seems that Erdogan
1. Values his NATO alliance 2. Feels quite confident that Putin can't harm him 3. Suspects his people will be on the Ukrainian side? 4. Saw what the Azeris did to Russ-backed Armenia with his drones, and perhaps made a clever deduction
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
I did think about whether I should feel guilty for that, but then remembered that the VDV is an elite, volunteer force, not a bunch of conscripts forced to be there, so meh.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction I possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Agreed but what are the legal constraints on their options? The govt. are pursuing a course they are confident can't unravel. Might even be worth a quick emergency bill, much though I dislike Chelsea as a club fans don't get to choose their loyalties really.
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
The phrase "there's a time and a place" comes to mind when reading this.
The optics are dreadful irrespective of right and wrong
So... perception matters more than right and wrong?
In this case common sense should prevail and yes, the optics are terrible
You are epically, heroically, legendarily wrong.
Maybe tell that to the Poles
Polish MEPs voted in favour of this.
After consulting with the constituents who elected them, or...?
It may surprise you to know that many Poles are angry with their government over its attacks on the judiciary. So, yes.
I've been really impressed by Poland's willingness to take so many refugees without whinging that they ought to be spread across all the EU countries. At the very least, I think they deserve financial help for that. But at the same time the Government is increasingly Trumpian in its attitude to opponents and notably willing to subvert the judiciary. Being penalised for it by the EU has been a long time coming. The juxtaposition doesn't look great, though, and it would have been sensible to delay the vote for a couple of months.
It's already been delayed for an unfeasibly long time. Kudos to the EU Parliament I say.
Poland was absolutely opposed to any spreading out of refugees the last time lots arrived in the EU and no doubt will be next time too. It is absurd to give them any credit for not "whinging that they ought to be spread across all the EU countries" (as NickPalmer seems to) this time around, especially as (unlike Poland last time) other EU countries are indeed making these refugees welcome, lots have arrived around here via Poland the last days (nobody knows how many).
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
One nation Putin won't be fucking around with any time soon is Turkey.
It is odd. I thought Erdogan would be right behind Putin. I got it totally wrong
Seems that Erdogan
1. Values his NATO alliance 2. Feels quite confident that Putin can't harm him 3. Suspects his people will be on the Ukrainian side? 4. Saw what the Azeris did to Russ-backed Armenia with his drones, and perhaps made a clever deduction
The Turks are playing their own game.
They've been the first non home turf venue for peace talks. Have supplied one of the most effective pieces of ordinance against the Russians to the Ukranians, and continue to supply Ukraine. Have an ongoing proxy cold front in Syria with the Russians. Were the main driving force behind the Azerbaijani victory against Russian backed Armenia. Despite all this, have not sanctioned Russia and continue to trade with them.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
Beth Rigby's interview seemed, to me, a little too reminiscent of the early covid interviews with PM.
When are we going to lockdown (do NFZ); why aren't we doing lockdown (NFZ); how long before we have to do lockdown (NFZ); surely the lockdown needs to be stricter/longer (more could be done to hit RU with bombs) etc etc.
I suspect that if Biden did go for the NFZ and Johnson trots along behind the very first question would be:
"How long will we have to maintain this NFZ? Surely there has to be an end to this?" etc etc
"How Come Back Alive Helps Our Foundation stands with the Ukrainian Armed Forces by funding purely defensive initiatives. Since 2014, we have supplied nearly 1,000 thermal scopes and over 250 reconnaissance drones. Along with this material support, we’ve supported technological advancements with 1,500 tablets containing «Armor» artillery calculation software.
Come Back Alive also conducts training to give our troops broader skill sets. Since 2015, we’ve introduced courses for medical care workers, artillerymen, snipers, sappers, and defense analysts. After arriving home from the front line of defense, our troops receive support with sports rehabilitation and the development of veteran-run businesses.
Our organization does not use funds to buy weaponry. Our mission is purely to supply technology, training, and ammunition to help save the lives of Ukrainians and help our soldiers defend Ukraine."
Generally I’d say that sounds like a worthy cause particularly with hindsight, but suggesting ammunition isn’t weaponry sounds a bit whiffy.
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
There's potential. As a mountain kind of guy, Snowdonia is good, but doesn't get a proper winter season like we enjoy up north. And the whole of Manchester is there.
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Edit: that's the weakness - you can't do a day trip to Edinburgh from England (even the NE). You can spend a day in Snowdonia from the NW and avoid paying the overnight fee.
These long-standing links need to be got rid of anyway. Unions are such a 19th Century concept anyway.
The Tories have similar awful baggage.
Comrade Len and Sharon on the one hand, Comrade Putin shills on the other.
Publicly funded and capped election campaigns can't come soon enough.
Absolutely not! Our taxes should be going to 'schools and hospitals' etc not funnelled to political parties.
If you can't get the public to voluntarily give your party money, then either convince them to do so, or just cope with spending less money.
You don't like who has been giving Labour money (nor do I). But just look at who has been filling your Party's trough.
I don't have a party.
People should give money voluntarily, but apart from micro amounts it should be publicly and subject to scrutiny. I have no qualms with caps on donations, equitably applied, but the principle of it being voluntary absolutely should be sacrosanct.
I would switch it around and have minimum donation sizes. So, if you want to contribute to a political party, and the minimum is 10k, you will need to find enough friends to bundle your donations to make a 10k one.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
That is truly excellent. Who is that Scottish journalist?
That's how it should be done. No overt emotion. No need for hugs with the locals
Just the bare honest facts and show some of the blood, because we need to see it. War is awful
Quentin Somerville, he’s always been pretty good. I’m sure Eabhal will confirm.
Did some good stuff when Syria kicked off.
There are people moaning on Twitter that he "shouldn't stand by freshly killed bodies" when reporting. Apparently it is "dishonourable"
Whining nonsense. War kills people in horrible ways, and that needs to be seen. It kills young men in excessive numbers, and their bright red blood will stain the snow: that, too, needs to be seen.
The images we remember from wars, the images we can't erase, are the images that change history because they are so honest and disturbing
To take just Vietnam: the execution of that VC in the street, the napalmed North Vietnamese girl, the GI igniting a village with his Zippo
All awful. But they brought peace, of a kind
The Buddhist monk setting himself on fire made front pages all across the USA. It was the first indication to most Americans that it wasn't quite as simple as good v evil.
The crucial bit of the question "to prevent Russia winning the war"....
Practically all analysts think Russia will win out in the end, its a matter of how long, how much damage and destruction both sides inflict and what "winning" means i.e. does that mean Russia have replaced the government and nominally controlling all the major cities, but there still being an insurgency?
Despite the amazing fight the Ukrainians are putting up, Russia are still moving forward, creeping forward inch by inch in some places, but in the South they are definitely "winning".
Isn't winning meeting your objectives within budget and timeline? Russia are miles away from winning. That does not mean Ukraine are winning either, in lots of wars there are only losers.
I’m not the most knowledgeable armchair general on PB (if I was a general I’d be known for falling off the horse on parade) so please correct me where wrong. But I think our media have been misleading us a bit on how badly this is going for Russia, because The whole Map they keep showing with zilch movement on it doesn’t have to turn red does it, progress is about taking key bits of infrastructure, like power and energy, ports, airports and cities? Getting the population out the country is in their favour, so this quietish period last few days could be to empty Ukraine of people, work on logistics and replenishment, and move into position for siege and squeeze on the cities all at the same time, has been their plan last few days? ☹️
Non-combatants leaving strengthens the defenders on balance.
It’s better for invading force to have population remaining in place, rather than fleeing before it? Really? How do you explain this?
Does it really need the whole map to turn red, as we are being led to believe, surely an alternate map showing the battle for key things would keep us more informed how it is going? As an example, if the invading force have had a great day on logistics, refuelling rearming, we would be told no more red on the map, another terrible day for them?
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
There's potential. As a mountain kind of guy, Snowdonia is good, but doesn't get a proper winter season like we enjoy up north. And the whole of Manchester is there.
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Actually I'd say the most beautiful part of Wales is the most ignored: the Marches. The bit where it meets England. In Herefordshire and Shropshire (and their equivalents in Wales - Powys? Brecknockshire?!) it produces some of the most quietly beautiful countryside on the planet. And mostly unspoiled, and speckled with Norman castles and medieval churches, and really good gastropubs
These long-standing links need to be got rid of anyway. Unions are such a 19th Century concept anyway.
The Tories have similar awful baggage.
Comrade Len and Sharon on the one hand, Comrade Putin shills on the other.
Publicly funded and capped election campaigns can't come soon enough.
Absolutely not! Our taxes should be going to 'schools and hospitals' etc not funnelled to political parties.
If you can't get the public to voluntarily give your party money, then either convince them to do so, or just cope with spending less money.
You don't like who has been giving Labour money (nor do I). But just look at who has been filling your Party's trough.
I don't have a party.
People should give money voluntarily, but apart from micro amounts it should be publicly and subject to scrutiny. I have no qualms with caps on donations, equitably applied, but the principle of it being voluntary absolutely should be sacrosanct.
I would switch it around and have minimum donation sizes. So, if you want to contribute to a political party, and the minimum is 10k, you will need to find enough friends to bundle your donations to make a 10k one.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
But what about some hypothetical miserable anti-social type who wants to give a few groats to the Alba party, what should he do?
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
These long-standing links need to be got rid of anyway. Unions are such a 19th Century concept anyway.
The Tories have similar awful baggage.
Comrade Len and Sharon on the one hand, Comrade Putin shills on the other.
Publicly funded and capped election campaigns can't come soon enough.
Absolutely not! Our taxes should be going to 'schools and hospitals' etc not funnelled to political parties.
If you can't get the public to voluntarily give your party money, then either convince them to do so, or just cope with spending less money.
You don't like who has been giving Labour money (nor do I). But just look at who has been filling your Party's trough.
I don't have a party.
People should give money voluntarily, but apart from micro amounts it should be publicly and subject to scrutiny. I have no qualms with caps on donations, equitably applied, but the principle of it being voluntary absolutely should be sacrosanct.
I would switch it around and have minimum donation sizes. So, if you want to contribute to a political party, and the minimum is 10k, you will need to find enough friends to bundle your donations to make a 10k one.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
But what about some hypothetical miserable anti-social type who wants to give a few groats to the Alba party, what should he do?
He should spend it on cocaine, hookers and blackjack. That will bring him far greater pleasure, and he won't have to be embarrassed about his financial choices.
These long-standing links need to be got rid of anyway. Unions are such a 19th Century concept anyway.
The Tories have similar awful baggage.
Comrade Len and Sharon on the one hand, Comrade Putin shills on the other.
Publicly funded and capped election campaigns can't come soon enough.
Absolutely not! Our taxes should be going to 'schools and hospitals' etc not funnelled to political parties.
If you can't get the public to voluntarily give your party money, then either convince them to do so, or just cope with spending less money.
You don't like who has been giving Labour money (nor do I). But just look at who has been filling your Party's trough.
I don't have a party.
People should give money voluntarily, but apart from micro amounts it should be publicly and subject to scrutiny. I have no qualms with caps on donations, equitably applied, but the principle of it being voluntary absolutely should be sacrosanct.
I would switch it around and have minimum donation sizes. So, if you want to contribute to a political party, and the minimum is 10k, you will need to find enough friends to bundle your donations to make a 10k one.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
But if the plan is a maximum donation of say £10k per donor to prevent trade unions from bankrolling Labour, that won't work.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Is anyone pushing them to the wall, though? They've been able to spend whatever the heck they liked for 20 years. Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth. They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Minor point of order: even the biggest of football clubs can't really be called a major business. I don't know exactly, but I would say guess Chelsea equal in size to, say, Oak Furniture Land.
Not particularly fussed about arguments about revenue though. If ticket sales are going to fund Russian tanks, then absolutely we shouldn't allow them to be selling tickets. If that's the case. Doesn't mean they can't play. Just that they can't be charging people to see it. If they can't afford to pay the wages of some mercenary professional, fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other people would like to play. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding the system here. The people who are deliberately misunderstanding the system are those who took a sport and tried to turn it into a business.
That is truly excellent. Who is that Scottish journalist?
That's how it should be done. No overt emotion. No need for hugs with the locals
Just the bare honest facts and show some of the blood, because we need to see it. War is awful
Quentin Somerville, he’s always been pretty good. I’m sure Eabhal will confirm.
Did some good stuff when Syria kicked off.
There are people moaning on Twitter that he "shouldn't stand by freshly killed bodies" when reporting. Apparently it is "dishonourable"
Whining nonsense. War kills people in horrible ways, and that needs to be seen. It kills young men in excessive numbers, and their bright red blood will stain the snow: that, too, needs to be seen.
The images we remember from wars, the images we can't erase, are the images that change history because they are so honest and disturbing
To take just Vietnam: the execution of that VC in the street, the napalmed North Vietnamese girl, the GI igniting a village with his Zippo
All awful. But they brought peace, of a kind
The Buddhist monk setting himself on fire made front pages all across the USA. It was the first indication to most Americans that it wasn't quite as simple as good v evil.
Ah yes, him. Absolutely: yes
Should that have been censored and deleted as "dishonourable"?!
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
One nation Putin won't be fucking around with any time soon is Turkey.
It is odd. I thought Erdogan would be right behind Putin. I got it totally wrong
Seems that Erdogan
1. Values his NATO alliance 2. Feels quite confident that Putin can't harm him 3. Suspects his people will be on the Ukrainian side? 4. Saw what the Azeris did to Russ-backed Armenia with his drones, and perhaps made a clever deduction
I don't think Erdogan wants Russia getting control of the Black Sea.
"How Come Back Alive Helps Our Foundation stands with the Ukrainian Armed Forces by funding purely defensive initiatives. Since 2014, we have supplied nearly 1,000 thermal scopes and over 250 reconnaissance drones. Along with this material support, we’ve supported technological advancements with 1,500 tablets containing «Armor» artillery calculation software.
Come Back Alive also conducts training to give our troops broader skill sets. Since 2015, we’ve introduced courses for medical care workers, artillerymen, snipers, sappers, and defense analysts. After arriving home from the front line of defense, our troops receive support with sports rehabilitation and the development of veteran-run businesses.
Our organization does not use funds to buy weaponry. Our mission is purely to supply technology, training, and ammunition to help save the lives of Ukrainians and help our soldiers defend Ukraine."
Generally I’d say that sounds like a worthy cause particularly with hindsight, but suggesting ammunition isn’t weaponry sounds a bit whiffy.
GOOD
Defensive sniping is also problematic, but it's exactly the sort of humanitarian non-violent activism I am very happy to get behind. So I have just had 50$ US worth
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
I did think about whether I should feel guilty for that, but then remembered that the VDV is an elite, volunteer force, not a bunch of conscripts forced to be there, so meh.
Even among the tragic background, there is something very funny about Lavrov's delegation being received in Ankara by a massive pro-Ukraine crowd singing the Bayraktar song.
One nation Putin won't be fucking around with any time soon is Turkey.
It is odd. I thought Erdogan would be right behind Putin. I got it totally wrong
Seems that Erdogan
1. Values his NATO alliance 2. Feels quite confident that Putin can't harm him 3. Suspects his people will be on the Ukrainian side? 4. Saw what the Azeris did to Russ-backed Armenia with his drones, and perhaps made a clever deduction
The Turks are playing their own game.
They've been the first non home turf venue for peace talks. Have supplied one of the most effective pieces of ordinance against the Russians to the Ukranians, and continue to supply Ukraine. Have an ongoing proxy cold front in Syria with the Russians. Were the main driving force behind the Azerbaijani victory against Russian backed Armenia. Despite all this, have not sanctioned Russia and continue to trade with them.
...and recently bought the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system from Russia.
These long-standing links need to be got rid of anyway. Unions are such a 19th Century concept anyway.
The Tories have similar awful baggage.
Comrade Len and Sharon on the one hand, Comrade Putin shills on the other.
Publicly funded and capped election campaigns can't come soon enough.
Absolutely not! Our taxes should be going to 'schools and hospitals' etc not funnelled to political parties.
If you can't get the public to voluntarily give your party money, then either convince them to do so, or just cope with spending less money.
You don't like who has been giving Labour money (nor do I). But just look at who has been filling your Party's trough.
I don't have a party.
People should give money voluntarily, but apart from micro amounts it should be publicly and subject to scrutiny. I have no qualms with caps on donations, equitably applied, but the principle of it being voluntary absolutely should be sacrosanct.
I would switch it around and have minimum donation sizes. So, if you want to contribute to a political party, and the minimum is 10k, you will need to find enough friends to bundle your donations to make a 10k one.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
Alternative: Maximum monthly donation of 5% of monthly minimum wage. Only individuals over 18 and only from their personal account. Removes all the shenanigans.
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
Despite that, tourism is about the only industry Wales has. And I imagine the Welsh government has precious few sources of revenue under a classically fudged devolution.
I support the concept of a tax, but I suspect that Drakeford will piss it up the wall.
That is truly excellent. Who is that Scottish journalist?
That's how it should be done. No overt emotion. No need for hugs with the locals
Just the bare honest facts and show some of the blood, because we need to see it. War is awful
Quentin Somerville, he’s always been pretty good. I’m sure Eabhal will confirm.
Did some good stuff when Syria kicked off.
There are people moaning on Twitter that he "shouldn't stand by freshly killed bodies" when reporting. Apparently it is "dishonourable"
Whining nonsense. War kills people in horrible ways, and that needs to be seen. It kills young men in excessive numbers, and their bright red blood will stain the snow: that, too, needs to be seen.
The images we remember from wars, the images we can't erase, are the images that change history because they are so honest and disturbing
To take just Vietnam: the execution of that VC in the street, the napalmed North Vietnamese girl, the GI igniting a village with his Zippo
All awful. But they brought peace, of a kind
The Buddhist monk setting himself on fire made front pages all across the USA. It was the first indication to most Americans that it wasn't quite as simple as good v evil.
Ah yes, him. Absolutely: yes
Should that have been censored and deleted as "dishonourable"?!
Ridiculous pathetic snowflakery
Can't remember if it was the AP or Reuters reporter, tipped off summat big would happen outside the Cambodian Embassy. One of them didn't take a camera. The other did.
"How Come Back Alive Helps Our Foundation stands with the Ukrainian Armed Forces by funding purely defensive initiatives. Since 2014, we have supplied nearly 1,000 thermal scopes and over 250 reconnaissance drones. Along with this material support, we’ve supported technological advancements with 1,500 tablets containing «Armor» artillery calculation software.
Come Back Alive also conducts training to give our troops broader skill sets. Since 2015, we’ve introduced courses for medical care workers, artillerymen, snipers, sappers, and defense analysts. After arriving home from the front line of defense, our troops receive support with sports rehabilitation and the development of veteran-run businesses.
Our organization does not use funds to buy weaponry. Our mission is purely to supply technology, training, and ammunition to help save the lives of Ukrainians and help our soldiers defend Ukraine."
Generally I’d say that sounds like a worthy cause particularly with hindsight, but suggesting ammunition isn’t weaponry sounds a bit whiffy.
GOOD
Defensive sniping is also problematic, but it's exactly the sort of humanitarian non-violent activism I am very happy to get behind. So I have just had 50$ US worth
ETA they take Visa/mastercard
Fair enough, I just think the cause could do without mealy mouthed bs.
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
There's potential. As a mountain kind of guy, Snowdonia is good, but doesn't get a proper winter season like we enjoy up north. And the whole of Manchester is there.
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Actually I'd say the most beautiful part of Wales is the most ignored: the Marches. The bit where it meets England. In Herefordshire and Shropshire (and their equivalents in Wales - Powys? Brecknockshire?!) it produces some of the most quietly beautiful countryside on the planet. And mostly unspoiled, and speckled with Norman castles and medieval churches, and really good gastropubs
Please don’t tell anyone about the Black Mountains. The last thing it needs is hordes of people.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Minor point of order: even the biggest of football clubs can't really be called a major business. I don't know exactly, but I would say guess Chelsea equal in size to, say, Oak Furniture Land.
Not particularly fussed about arguments about revenue though. If ticket sales are going to fund Russian tanks, then absolutely we shouldn't allow them to be selling tickets. If that's the case. Doesn't mean they can't play. Just that they can't be charging people to see it. If they can't afford to pay the wages of some mercenary professional, fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other people would like to play. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding the system here. The people who are deliberately misunderstanding the system are those who took a sport and tried to turn it into a business.
But Chelsea FC are an important part of the EPL, which is a fucking HUGE business and projects amazing soft power for the UK
It should be treated as such. Sure, carefully detach some particular oligarch, by all means, but don't destroy an historic and foundational club. That's like levelling a medieval cathedral because you hate the latest bishop
I sometimes think Brits don't understand what a massive asset the EPL is, in terms of selling the UK abroad. It is up there with the BBC, possibly bigger
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Sits uneasy with me too. It seems like it’s being done for positive publicity, but are we sure there are no loopholes such as the art market that saves all Roman’s real asset portfolio for him, whilst the devoted football fan and top English international product actually suffers?
To what extent have Arsenal beniffiteed from Putin Crony money? Their crony was much closer to Putin than Abramovich.
Why are Labour, Starmer and Corbyn so silent on Arsenal crony money 😠
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Is anyone pushing them to the wall, though? They've been able to spend whatever the heck they liked for 20 years. Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth. They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
While we're on good vs evil in football, remember that Chelsea do have some credit in the bank for their position against the European Super League, or whatever it was called. Anyway. Matthew Lynn wrote an article in the speccy this morning in which he made the claim which people who think in money often do that English football is better now than it was thirty years ago. It just isn't. There may be higher levels of technical skill, there may be more big foreign names. It may be making more money. But the end product is much less satisfying. Who among us wouldn't turn the footballing clock back to before the Premier League, given the chance? Granted there is less hooliganism now. Though I'm not convinced a much more pleasant atmosphere.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Minor point of order: even the biggest of football clubs can't really be called a major business. I don't know exactly, but I would say guess Chelsea equal in size to, say, Oak Furniture Land.
Not particularly fussed about arguments about revenue though. If ticket sales are going to fund Russian tanks, then absolutely we shouldn't allow them to be selling tickets. If that's the case. Doesn't mean they can't play. Just that they can't be charging people to see it. If they can't afford to pay the wages of some mercenary professional, fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other people would like to play. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding the system here. The people who are deliberately misunderstanding the system are those who took a sport and tried to turn it into a business.
But Chelsea FC are an important part of the EPL, which is a fucking HUGE business and projects amazing soft power for the UK
It should be treated as such. Sure, carefully detach some particular oligarch, by all means, but don't destroy an historic and foundational club. That's like levelling a medieval cathedral because you hate the latest bishop
I sometimes think Brits don't understand what a massive asset the EPL is, in terms of selling the UK abroad. It is up there with the BBC, possibly bigger
I don’t give a fuck about the EPL, but I’m constantly surprised by the number of people from Kazakhstan to Kalamazoo who do.
The UK is second only to the US in terms of soft power. The government needs to handle with care.
"How Come Back Alive Helps Our Foundation stands with the Ukrainian Armed Forces by funding purely defensive initiatives. Since 2014, we have supplied nearly 1,000 thermal scopes and over 250 reconnaissance drones. Along with this material support, we’ve supported technological advancements with 1,500 tablets containing «Armor» artillery calculation software.
Come Back Alive also conducts training to give our troops broader skill sets. Since 2015, we’ve introduced courses for medical care workers, artillerymen, snipers, sappers, and defense analysts. After arriving home from the front line of defense, our troops receive support with sports rehabilitation and the development of veteran-run businesses.
Our organization does not use funds to buy weaponry. Our mission is purely to supply technology, training, and ammunition to help save the lives of Ukrainians and help our soldiers defend Ukraine."
Generally I’d say that sounds like a worthy cause particularly with hindsight, but suggesting ammunition isn’t weaponry sounds a bit whiffy.
GOOD
Defensive sniping is also problematic, but it's exactly the sort of humanitarian non-violent activism I am very happy to get behind. So I have just had 50$ US worth
ETA they take Visa/mastercard
Fair enough, I just think the cause could do without mealy mouthed bs.
My impression is they are being mealy mouthed to satisfy hosting or payment handling services who have a No Crowdfunding Violence rule, rather than seriously trying to mislead. Defensive artillery? Thermal scopes?
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Sits uneasy with me too. It seems like it’s being done for positive publicity, but are we sure there are no loopholes such as the art market that saves all Roman’s real asset portfolio for him, whilst the devoted football fan and top English international product actually suffers?
To what extent have Arsenal beniffiteed from Putin Crony money? Their crony was much closer to Putin than Abramovich.
Why are Labour, Starmer and Corbyn so silent on Arsenal crony money 😠
That is truly excellent. Who is that Scottish journalist?
That's how it should be done. No overt emotion. No need for hugs with the locals
Just the bare honest facts and show some of the blood, because we need to see it. War is awful
Quentin Somerville, he’s always been pretty good. I’m sure Eabhal will confirm.
Did some good stuff when Syria kicked off.
There are people moaning on Twitter that he "shouldn't stand by freshly killed bodies" when reporting. Apparently it is "dishonourable"
Whining nonsense. War kills people in horrible ways, and that needs to be seen. It kills young men in excessive numbers, and their bright red blood will stain the snow: that, too, needs to be seen.
The images we remember from wars, the images we can't erase, are the images that change history because they are so honest and disturbing
To take just Vietnam: the execution of that VC in the street, the napalmed North Vietnamese girl, the GI igniting a village with his Zippo
All awful. But they brought peace, of a kind
The Buddhist monk setting himself on fire made front pages all across the USA. It was the first indication to most Americans that it wasn't quite as simple as good v evil.
Ah yes, him. Absolutely: yes
Should that have been censored and deleted as "dishonourable"?!
Ridiculous pathetic snowflakery
Can't remember if it was the AP or Reuters reporter, tipped off summat big would happen outside the Cambodian Embassy. One of them didn't take a camera. The other did.
Thich Quang Duc
Browne of AP took photo. later he said he could have stopped it all by simply kicking away the petrol can but then he would not no longer have been a reporter.
These long-standing links need to be got rid of anyway. Unions are such a 19th Century concept anyway.
The Tories have similar awful baggage.
Comrade Len and Sharon on the one hand, Comrade Putin shills on the other.
Publicly funded and capped election campaigns can't come soon enough.
Absolutely not! Our taxes should be going to 'schools and hospitals' etc not funnelled to political parties.
If you can't get the public to voluntarily give your party money, then either convince them to do so, or just cope with spending less money.
You don't like who has been giving Labour money (nor do I). But just look at who has been filling your Party's trough.
I don't have a party.
People should give money voluntarily, but apart from micro amounts it should be publicly and subject to scrutiny. I have no qualms with caps on donations, equitably applied, but the principle of it being voluntary absolutely should be sacrosanct.
I would switch it around and have minimum donation sizes. So, if you want to contribute to a political party, and the minimum is 10k, you will need to find enough friends to bundle your donations to make a 10k one.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
Alternative: Maximum monthly donation of 5% of monthly minimum wage. Only individuals over 18 and only from their personal account. Removes all the shenanigans.
The main reason political funding in Britain isn't yet as bad as in the US is that we are able and willing to restrict the spending of political parties, which then reduces the amount of money they have to raise in donations.
We should do more to update these rules to limit spending on online adverts, particularly those that are demographically or geographically targeted. And we also need to do something about fake campaign groups created for the purpose of spreading online attack ads.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Is anyone pushing them to the wall, though? They've been able to spend whatever the heck they liked for 20 years. Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth. They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
While we're on good vs evil in football, remember that Chelsea do have some credit in the bank for their position against the European Super League, or whatever it was called. Anyway. Matthew Lynn wrote an article in the speccy this morning in which he made the claim which people who think in money often do that English football is better now than it was thirty years ago. It just isn't. There may be higher levels of technical skill, there may be more big foreign names. It may be making more money. But the end product is much less satisfying. Who among us wouldn't turn the footballing clock back to before the Premier League, given the chance? Granted there is less hooliganism now. Though I'm not convinced a much more pleasant atmosphere.
I went to see Chelsea play Juventus this year, at Stamford Bridge
The entire experience was - in nearly all ways - vastly superior to my memories of football decades back, before the EPL
From the skill of the players to the glamour of the ground, it was superbly impressive. And the food was good
The one thing it lacked is the earthy viscerality of primeval football, the sense you might die due to hooliganism, but then, as you suggest, that is an acquired taste, at best
If you want that you could always support Mexican football teams
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
Is that what he said? I haven't watched this but I have read a couple of his anti-diabetes books and I very much doubt he just said everything is about quantity.
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
The Airbnb situation in edinburgh was utterly out of control.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
There's potential. As a mountain kind of guy, Snowdonia is good, but doesn't get a proper winter season like we enjoy up north. And the whole of Manchester is there.
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Actually I'd say the most beautiful part of Wales is the most ignored: the Marches. The bit where it meets England. In Herefordshire and Shropshire (and their equivalents in Wales - Powys? Brecknockshire?!) it produces some of the most quietly beautiful countryside on the planet. And mostly unspoiled, and speckled with Norman castles and medieval churches, and really good gastropubs
Please don’t tell anyone about the Black Mountains. The last thing it needs is hordes of people.
This. 100x this.
Herefordshire is the secret county of England and long may it remain.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Maybe the fans and the PL should have thought about what they were getting involved with when they allowed Oligarchs and other corrupt state affiliated operations to buy into the league. Chelsea fans always knew this day would come, I'm sure Newcastle and Man City fans realise it too. The sooner we get the dodgy money out of the league the better. If that means Chelsea, Newcastle and Man City go bankrupt then that's their problem. No sympathy.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Is anyone pushing them to the wall, though? They've been able to spend whatever the heck they liked for 20 years. Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth. They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
While we're on good vs evil in football, remember that Chelsea do have some credit in the bank for their position against the European Super League, or whatever it was called. Anyway. Matthew Lynn wrote an article in the speccy this morning in which he made the claim which people who think in money often do that English football is better now than it was thirty years ago. It just isn't. There may be higher levels of technical skill, there may be more big foreign names. It may be making more money. But the end product is much less satisfying. Who among us wouldn't turn the footballing clock back to before the Premier League, given the chance? Granted there is less hooliganism now. Though I'm not convinced a much more pleasant atmosphere.
Well, I have no memory of domestic league football from before the Premiership. So how could I say?
One of the obvious differences is that the best English players always used to leave to play abroad for the big money in Spain or Italy. Now plenty of the world's best players earn big money in the English league. That's a plus isn't it?
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
No, fundamentally its about creating a calorie deficit, exercise is part of that as much as reducing intake. Someone who adds 2000 calories worth of exercise to their week has the same or better benefit as someone who reduces their intake by 2000 calories per week.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
Is that what he said? I haven't watched this but I have read a couple of his anti-diabetes books and I very much doubt he just said everything is about quantity.
I have had to control my diet for years and it is true to eat less, cut out snacking , but also exercise all helps but most of all discipline
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
It's not the how, it's the why. Why do people continue to eat once they've eaten sufficient calories?
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
There's potential. As a mountain kind of guy, Snowdonia is good, but doesn't get a proper winter season like we enjoy up north. And the whole of Manchester is there.
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Actually I'd say the most beautiful part of Wales is the most ignored: the Marches. The bit where it meets England. In Herefordshire and Shropshire (and their equivalents in Wales - Powys? Brecknockshire?!) it produces some of the most quietly beautiful countryside on the planet. And mostly unspoiled, and speckled with Norman castles and medieval churches, and really good gastropubs
Yes, I agree. Absolutely lovely. The best bike ride I ever did was in that neck of the woods - Lyonshall to Painscastle, over the Begwns via the Roundabout, Glasbury, Hay, Eardisley, Almely, Lyonshall. Heartbreakingly beautiful. Have you ever heard of the Begwns? I hadn't, before I went there. The view from there over Hay to the Black Mountains is one of the loveliest in Britain. An absolutely magical spot, especially at dawn or dusk. But if you're visiting the Marches, do you stay in Radnor, or do you stay in Kington, where everything is suddenly £3 per person more competitive than over the border?
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
It's not the how, it's the why. Why do people continue to eat once they've eaten sufficient calories?
Because eating is nice. Your reward triggers reward you for it, because they are worried you'll starve to death.
Walking up Charlotte St. Generally one of London’s most vibrant streets (“a man could be happy living on Charlotte Street” - Saul Bellow). I remember strolling down here in spring last year and it was desolate. Almost every bar and restaurant shuttered. Some in deep decay. I thought “this will never recover. Or it will take many years”
It has recovered. Already. Apart from a small section above Goodge Street, all the premises are buzzing - either with customers, or the sounds of building work. Several places are brand new
Highly encouraging. The resilience of cities. They can take a lot of punishment
I was in town yesterday and walked from Liverpool Street to the West End in the spring sunshine. The amazing thing is how many interesting new businesses have sprung up, often in the place of dull chains that got the hell of out of dodge when the pandemic hit. I came to the conclusion that the reset might benefit London in the medium term. Emulation has been replaced with innovation upon her fair streets.
Yes. Exactly my impression
Lots of boring chain coffee shops and the like have disappeared. Replaced by “Mongolian wine bars” and “Nepalese bubble tea boutiques”
So parts of london are actually looking MORE attractive and diverse than they did pre-plague
I never had any doubt that London would bounce back. It has a vitality that can't be tamed. If the pandemic cleared out some boring businesses and boring people (moving to the sticks, not dying) so much the better. I am really looking forward to summer in the city, there is so much going on especially here in SE London.
If anything it feels more youthful than before. It is the young who have flooded back. In numbers
As they should
Yeah, although everyone looks young to me these days! What London really needs is a property price reset to make it more affordable to the young, creative types etc but that doesn't seem imminent.
Young creatives need to do what they've always done: descend on a cheaper, grimier part of town and gentrify the crap out of it.
Trouble is, there literally aren't many areas like that left, anywhere near the centre. Lots of rubbish bits further out, but who wants to gentrify Edmonton or Wembley? To be a good candidate for gentrification you need lots of intriguing period buildings, and old industrial spaces, that can be spruced up, but also enough urban density and good transport for liveliness
Wembley actually has reasonable opportunity at gentrification because of the international branding of the place, home of football etc.
The home of Arsenal has been 100% gentrified. Woolwich workshop where it began is now this bar, and the arsenal a yuppie warren, or whatever the equivalent term now is. Annoyingly the artillery museum had to move out. Still not reopened somewhere in Wilts yet AFAIK
Quite; and up the hill from the Arsenal. I didn't get to see them, spending so much time messing around the fragments of RN Dockyard which exist in the former supply base on the other side of the ferry from the Arsenal, and whizzing round the artillery museum whiuch was being packed up at the time. Definitely on the list for another London visit, together with Spitalfields, etc.
I lived for 4 years about 200 yards from the barracks. Spent one happy evening in the Officers Mess. Also remember taking the salute as they exercised their right to drive their mobile units through the streets of Woolwich. The shooting events of the Olympic Games were held in the grounds.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
The politics of it are interesting, because without Unite's block vote, the left will always be outnumbered at the party conference, so paradoxically it's good news for Starmer as he pursues his centrist stance. The General Secretary was elected against a left-wing competitor who had worked that out. I doubt if she's too bothered either way.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Gaining muscle mass also increases your base metabolic rate, so exercising to lose weight (fat) isn't just a question of burning calories.
Excercise also helps to regulate appetite and mood so it's beneficial in other ways.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
No, fundamentally its about creating a calorie deficit, exercise is part of that as much as reducing intake. Someone who adds 2000 calories worth of exercise to their week has the same or better benefit as someone who reduces their intake by 2000 calories per week.
In my experience the only time I lose significant amounts of weight is when I reduce the calorie intake and count it, very carefully. I've found this is far more effective than exercise. However, one thing I would say, is that if I stop exercising, for instance with an injury - then I put a lot of weight on, quickly.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
Well - increasing calorie expenditure will also lose you weight all other things being equal. Trouble is that other things tend not to be equal because exercise makes you hungrier.
Exercise increases metabolic rate - especially when you are lifting weights. The additional calorie burn lasts well past your workout. Also at least you are not snacking when you are working out (presumably).
But I do agree that cutting calories is easier to do - a quicker fix - than exercising the weight off. If people banned themselves from snacking between meals that would help.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Sits uneasy with me too. It seems like it’s being done for positive publicity, but are we sure there are no loopholes such as the art market that saves all Roman’s real asset portfolio for him, whilst the devoted football fan and top English international product actually suffers?
To what extent have Arsenal beniffiteed from Putin Crony money? Their crony was much closer to Putin than Abramovich.
Why are Labour, Starmer and Corbyn so silent on Arsenal crony money 😠
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Is anyone pushing them to the wall, though? They've been able to spend whatever the heck they liked for 20 years. Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth. They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
While we're on good vs evil in football, remember that Chelsea do have some credit in the bank for their position against the European Super League, or whatever it was called. Anyway. Matthew Lynn wrote an article in the speccy this morning in which he made the claim which people who think in money often do that English football is better now than it was thirty years ago. It just isn't. There may be higher levels of technical skill, there may be more big foreign names. It may be making more money. But the end product is much less satisfying. Who among us wouldn't turn the footballing clock back to before the Premier League, given the chance? Granted there is less hooliganism now. Though I'm not convinced a much more pleasant atmosphere.
Well, I have no memory of domestic league football from before the Premiership. So how could I say?
One of the obvious differences is that the best English players always used to leave to play abroad for the big money in Spain or Italy. Now plenty of the world's best players earn big money in the English league. That's a plus isn't it?
Not for me. I'd rather see the top flight staffed by players I know something about and can identify with. In the 1980s, I could name a good handful of first team players of pretty much every top flight team. Because they were much the same as last year. Familiarity was part of the story. Now, they come in from Lille, and go off a year later to Milan. Much harder to keep track of, and frankly, there is less incentive to do so. And very difficult to like players who are in such different worlds. You used to see Gary Pallister in the lane next to you at the bowling alley, Paul Ince pushing the baby in the park. Now they're all off in a gated community somewhere. It's the lament of old men the world over that things were better in their day. But that's honestly the way I see it. I don't mind the odd sprinkling of foreigners, but it's very hard to care who wins a match between two arbitrary teams of professionals drawn from all over the world.
🚨Russian state television has broadcast calls for Vladimir Putin, the country’s president, to stop his war in Ukraine during a programme in which pundits openly likened the invasion to "Afghanistan, but even worse"
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Minor point of order: even the biggest of football clubs can't really be called a major business. I don't know exactly, but I would say guess Chelsea equal in size to, say, Oak Furniture Land.
Not particularly fussed about arguments about revenue though. If ticket sales are going to fund Russian tanks, then absolutely we shouldn't allow them to be selling tickets. If that's the case. Doesn't mean they can't play. Just that they can't be charging people to see it. If they can't afford to pay the wages of some mercenary professional, fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other people would like to play. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding the system here. The people who are deliberately misunderstanding the system are those who took a sport and tried to turn it into a business.
But Chelsea FC are an important part of the EPL, which is a fucking HUGE business and projects amazing soft power for the UK
It should be treated as such. Sure, carefully detach some particular oligarch, by all means, but don't destroy an historic and foundational club. That's like levelling a medieval cathedral because you hate the latest bishop
I sometimes think Brits don't understand what a massive asset the EPL is, in terms of selling the UK abroad. It is up there with the BBC, possibly bigger
It is. But Chelsea aren't a special case. They were a bankrupt basket case for a very long time. They are no more integral to the league than Sunderland, Forest or Leeds (for 20 years) were. Nor than Everton will be. There'll still be a 20 team league to sell abroad. Regardless of who is in it.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Gaining muscle mass also increases your base metabolic rate, so exercising to lose weight (fat) isn't just a question of burning calories.
Excercise also helps to regulate appetite and mood so it's beneficial in other ways.
That's absolutely true, as I said I am fully in support of exercise. I run a lot and I lift weights a lot.
My point is that exercise is not the magic bullet to weight loss as it is often sold. If overweight people cut down the caloric intake they'd see a much bigger impact. People give up and quit because they see no impact.
(YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales/Wales Governance Centre; 1,086; 25 Feb-1 Mar 2022)
Landslide win for Labour.
GE2024, Labour Government almost certainly.
Welsh poll They were +5 even in 2019
+5 becomes +15
Boris = Bozo
Wales will be a lot closer by GE24 with a hard left government enacting job destroying policies, a failing NHS, and in North Wales a tourist tax of all things
Wales is implementing a tourist tax?!
Yes
I like the conceit that Wales is SO seductive it can afford to tax the odd person who ends up there through no fault of their own
Gonnae be 10x higher in Penarth I hear.
I had a sad little private bet with myself that you would be the first to make this remark; I won
It's becoming a thing in Edinburgh with a tourist tax and controls on Airbnbs.
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Sure. But Edinburgh is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and Scotland has the Highlands and Islands. The weather ain't great, but if you go you are guaranteed spectacle and majesty, and lots of fabulous history
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
There's potential. As a mountain kind of guy, Snowdonia is good, but doesn't get a proper winter season like we enjoy up north. And the whole of Manchester is there.
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Actually I'd say the most beautiful part of Wales is the most ignored: the Marches. The bit where it meets England. In Herefordshire and Shropshire (and their equivalents in Wales - Powys? Brecknockshire?!) it produces some of the most quietly beautiful countryside on the planet. And mostly unspoiled, and speckled with Norman castles and medieval churches, and really good gastropubs
Yes, I agree. Absolutely lovely. The best bike ride I ever did was in that neck of the woods - Lyonshall to Painscastle, over the Begwns via the Roundabout, Glasbury, Hay, Eardisley, Almely, Lyonshall. Heartbreakingly beautiful. Have you ever heard of the Begwns? I hadn't, before I went there. The view from there over Hay to the Black Mountains is one of the loveliest in Britain. An absolutely magical spot, especially at dawn or dusk. But if you're visiting the Marches, do you stay in Radnor, or do you stay in Kington, where everything is suddenly £3 per person more competitive than over the border?
Lyonshall (plus various numbers and symbols!) is one of my go-to passwords
I was lucky enough to grow up in Herefordshire, I didn't really appreciate its beauty until almost too late - age 17, when I got my first motorbike, and was truly mobile. But then I went for it. Zipping around the lanes and hills of the Marches, up to Hergest Ridge, down to Hay Bluff, over to Craswall, the Olchon, down to Tintern, over to Rhayader, Symond's Yat, Kilpeck. Eardisley, Grosmont, Garway, it is sublime sublime sublime
Back then, tho, the food was rubbish. Now it is gorgeous. Great chefs using the amazing local Anglo-Welsh produce
All it lacks is the sea, but then, that is probably why it is still unspoiled and relatively untouristed. It is still oddly remote and hard to reach. No motorways
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Is anyone pushing them to the wall, though? They've been able to spend whatever the heck they liked for 20 years. Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth. They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
While we're on good vs evil in football, remember that Chelsea do have some credit in the bank for their position against the European Super League, or whatever it was called. Anyway. Matthew Lynn wrote an article in the speccy this morning in which he made the claim which people who think in money often do that English football is better now than it was thirty years ago. It just isn't. There may be higher levels of technical skill, there may be more big foreign names. It may be making more money. But the end product is much less satisfying. Who among us wouldn't turn the footballing clock back to before the Premier League, given the chance? Granted there is less hooliganism now. Though I'm not convinced a much more pleasant atmosphere.
Well, I have no memory of domestic league football from before the Premiership. So how could I say?
One of the obvious differences is that the best English players always used to leave to play abroad for the big money in Spain or Italy. Now plenty of the world's best players earn big money in the English league. That's a plus isn't it?
The English players leaving to play abroad was a very short period. And relatively few at their peak did. There were usually more foreign players in England than English players abroad by some distance after the overseas ban was lifted in 78-79.
The Mélenchon bet was smart albeit I'd rather be on him in the second round - I have given this up for now though. He is the only candidate who can get votes from the anti-Macron left and right. It seems all the living ex-presidents are quietly for Macron, which hurts Pécresse most and helps Macron most.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
🚨Russian state television has broadcast calls for Vladimir Putin, the country’s president, to stop his war in Ukraine during a programme in which pundits openly likened the invasion to "Afghanistan, but even worse"
Recorded Stanley Tucci's Searching For Italy and watched the first two episodes tonight; very entertaining and while Tucci is always teetering on the edge of extreme self satisfaction, he mostly avoids falling in.
God, I've got the horn for getting back to Rome, particularly with a couple of new places to go.
Abramovich sanctions: We will go bust, Chelsea warn government
Chelsea will hold talks with the government this afternoon, warning that the club could soon face financial ruin because of the sanctions imposed on their owner Roman Abramovich.
The club will request that a number of amendments are made to the licence that has been issued by government officials, which allows Chelsea to continue “football-related activities” but has frozen Abramovich’s asset. It means the club has been forced to cease many of its commercial activities, including future ticket sales.
Chelsea, however, will argue that they need the revenue. “If we aren’t allowed to continue operating normally we will very quickly run into the red,” a senior Stamford Bridge source told The Times.
They have a point. It is no one's interest for a major business (and part of the EPL) to go bust, that doesn't benefit Putin it just harms the UK and London economies.
There must be a way of allowing Chelsea to function as a business while denying income to Abramovich, until the mess can be sorted
Yes, I loathe Chelsea with a passion for footballing reasons, but governments pushing football clubs to the wall is just bloody stupid. No-one should want clubs to go bust. As you suggest, finding a bridging option until a sale can be made would seem wise. A points deduction is possibly valid under some circumstances, but deliberately rendering them insolvent is negligent.
Minor point of order: even the biggest of football clubs can't really be called a major business. I don't know exactly, but I would say guess Chelsea equal in size to, say, Oak Furniture Land.
Not particularly fussed about arguments about revenue though. If ticket sales are going to fund Russian tanks, then absolutely we shouldn't allow them to be selling tickets. If that's the case. Doesn't mean they can't play. Just that they can't be charging people to see it. If they can't afford to pay the wages of some mercenary professional, fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other people would like to play. I'm not deliberately misunderstanding the system here. The people who are deliberately misunderstanding the system are those who took a sport and tried to turn it into a business.
But Chelsea FC are an important part of the EPL, which is a fucking HUGE business and projects amazing soft power for the UK
It should be treated as such. Sure, carefully detach some particular oligarch, by all means, but don't destroy an historic and foundational club. That's like levelling a medieval cathedral because you hate the latest bishop
I sometimes think Brits don't understand what a massive asset the EPL is, in terms of selling the UK abroad. It is up there with the BBC, possibly bigger
It is. But Chelsea aren't a special case. They were a bankrupt basket case for a very long time. They are no more integral to the league than Sunderland, Forest or Leeds (for 20 years) were. Nor than Everton will be. There'll still be a 20 team league to sell abroad. Regardless of who is in it.
I'm certainly backing Oak Furniture Land FC's promotion push
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Gaining muscle mass also increases your base metabolic rate, so exercising to lose weight (fat) isn't just a question of burning calories.
Excercise also helps to regulate appetite and mood so it's beneficial in other ways.
That's absolutely true, as I said I am fully in support of exercise. I run a lot and I lift weights a lot.
My point is that exercise is not the magic bullet to weight loss as it is often sold. If overweight people cut down the caloric intake they'd see a much bigger impact. People give up and quit because they see no impact.
Agreed. At my heaviest, having decided to cut my calorific intake (Eventually I found it easier to think in terms of weekly rather than daily deficits), I pretty quickly (after a month or two) started to feel motivated to exercise but always thought of it in terms of fitness rather than as a further weightloss strategy. While I might have motivated a particularly strenuous run with a promise of something quick and tasty to pop in the oven, any calories burned were considered incidental rather than the goal.
Recorded Stanley Tucci's Searching For Italy and watched the first two episodes tonight; very entertaining and while Tucci is always teetering on the edge of extreme self satisfaction, he mostly avoids falling in.
God, I've got the horn for getting back to Rome, particularly with a couple of new places to go.
A minor poker ethical conundrum (if that's not a contradiction in terms) - Pokerstars has suspended all Russian players, but is not refunding their balances; they are going to sit on them "until the situation changes". There's a vigorous dispute running on Twitter - "keep war criminals out" vs "victimising ordinary players".
What are the rights and wrongs of that? I think they're entitled to decide who they want as customers, in the same way as a pub landlord can decline to serve someone with dodgy-looking mates, and as pressures on Russia go it's a pretty minor one. But I'd have thought they're on shaky legal ground to retain (and presumably earn interest) on cash given them for a service they aren't providing. Refunding the money might actually be difficult with the collapse of foreign exchange with Russia, though, and I don't fancy the chance of any Russian player trying to sue.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Obviously, the heavier you are, the more energy it takes to drag yourself around, and therefore the maintenance calorie level rises.
But you wrote "the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance".
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Gaining muscle mass also increases your base metabolic rate, so exercising to lose weight (fat) isn't just a question of burning calories.
Excercise also helps to regulate appetite and mood so it's beneficial in other ways.
That's absolutely true, as I said I am fully in support of exercise. I run a lot and I lift weights a lot.
My point is that exercise is not the magic bullet to weight loss as it is often sold. If overweight people cut down the caloric intake they'd see a much bigger impact. People give up and quit because they see no impact.
Agreed. At my heaviest, having decided to cut my calorific intake (Eventually I found it easier to think in terms of weekly rather than daily deficits), I pretty quickly (after a month or two) started to feel motivated to exercise but always thought of it in terms of fitness rather than as a further weightloss strategy. While I might have motivated a particularly strenuous run with a promise of something quick and tasty to pop in the oven, any calories burned were considered incidental rather than the goal.
I had a massive burger and an Oreo milkshake after my last half, it was delicious!
I hope Lavrov wakes every night at 4am in cold sweat and thinks of Ratko Mladić.
His colleague Karadzic is apparently serving his time in a British prison. I would be happy for Putin to share a cell with him and Charles Taylor.
Blimey. I didn't know he was doing british porridge. Let's hope the food is shit and Grouty has got him polishing his boots every morning with his tongue.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Obviously, the heavier you are, the more energy it takes to drag yourself around, and therefore the maintenance calorie level rises.
But you wrote "the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance".
And I stand by that, the average person is something like 500 calories over. Every year obesity gets worse which would support that statement.
Recorded Stanley Tucci's Searching For Italy and watched the first two episodes tonight; very entertaining and while Tucci is always teetering on the edge of extreme self satisfaction, he mostly avoids falling in.
God, I've got the horn for getting back to Rome, particularly with a couple of new places to go.
Is that Netflix? Sounds watchable
Good, ol’ BBC, but I think it’s a CNN production originally.
Comments
Whining nonsense. War kills people in horrible ways, and that needs to be seen. It kills young men in excessive numbers, and their bright red blood will stain the snow: that, too, needs to be seen.
The images we remember from wars, the images we can't erase, are the images that change history because they are so honest and disturbing
To take just Vietnam: the execution of that VC in the street, the napalmed North Vietnamese girl, the GI igniting a village with his Zippo
All awful. But they brought peace, of a kind
"How Come Back Alive Helps
Our Foundation stands with the Ukrainian Armed Forces by funding purely defensive initiatives. Since 2014, we have supplied nearly 1,000 thermal scopes and over 250 reconnaissance drones. Along with this material support, we’ve supported technological advancements with 1,500 tablets containing «Armor» artillery calculation software.
Come Back Alive also conducts training to give our troops broader skill sets. Since 2015, we’ve introduced courses for medical care workers, artillerymen, snipers, sappers, and defense analysts. After arriving home from the front line of defense, our troops receive support with sports rehabilitation and the development of veteran-run businesses.
Our organization does not use funds to buy weaponry. Our mission is purely to supply technology, training, and ammunition to help save the lives of Ukrainians and help our soldiers defend Ukraine."
I always assumed it was just — tea.
But no, from the descriptions on here, it sounds like the fifth circle of hell, in a glass. With chewy sweet bits 🤮
'Sorry Chelsea fans, it was close but just offside.'
Given the council trashes Princes Street gardens every year and generally takes the piss (see the tram works in Leith right now - delayed, again), they aren't doing it for the benefit of people who actually live here.
Seems that Erdogan
1. Values his NATO alliance
2. Feels quite confident that Putin can't harm him
3. Suspects his people will be on the Ukrainian side?
4. Saw what the Azeris did to Russ-backed Armenia with his drones, and perhaps made a clever deduction
I did think about whether I should feel guilty for that, but then remembered that the VDV is an elite, volunteer force, not a bunch of conscripts forced to be there, so meh.
Wales, which I am very fond of, does not really have these things. A tourist tax seems ambitious
They've been the first non home turf venue for peace talks.
Have supplied one of the most effective pieces of ordinance against the Russians to the Ukranians, and continue to supply Ukraine.
Have an ongoing proxy cold front in Syria with the Russians.
Were the main driving force behind the Azerbaijani victory against Russian backed Armenia.
Despite all this, have not sanctioned Russia and continue to trade with them.
When are we going to lockdown (do NFZ); why aren't we doing lockdown (NFZ); how long before we have to do lockdown (NFZ); surely the lockdown needs to be stricter/longer (more could be done to hit RU with bombs) etc etc.
I suspect that if Biden did go for the NFZ and Johnson trots along behind the very first question would be:
"How long will we have to maintain this NFZ? Surely there has to be an end to this?" etc etc
Fishguard and the Llyn peninsula were both great.
Edit: that's the weakness - you can't do a day trip to Edinburgh from England (even the NE). You can spend a day in Snowdonia from the NW and avoid paying the overnight fee.
By making it harder to hand money over, I reckon this would increase the quality of political donations.
It was the first indication to most Americans that it wasn't quite as simple as good v evil.
Does it really need the whole map to turn red, as we are being led to believe, surely an alternate map showing the battle for key things would keep us more informed how it is going? As an example, if the invading force have had a great day on logistics, refuelling rearming, we would be told no more red on the map, another terrible day for them?
Now they can't. They are perfectly capable of surviving on TV money. They'll just have to cut their cloth.
They'd have had hundreds of points deducted under FFP. The European Super League Maintenance Regulations.
Not particularly fussed about arguments about revenue though. If ticket sales are going to fund Russian tanks, then absolutely we shouldn't allow them to be selling tickets. If that's the case. Doesn't mean they can't play. Just that they can't be charging people to see it. If they can't afford to pay the wages of some mercenary professional, fine, I'm sure there's plenty of other people would like to play.
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding the system here. The people who are deliberately misunderstanding the system are those who took a sport and tried to turn it into a business.
Should that have been censored and deleted as "dishonourable"?!
Ridiculous pathetic snowflakery
Defensive sniping is also problematic, but it's exactly the sort of humanitarian non-violent activism I am very happy to get behind. So I have just had 50$ US worth
ETA they take Visa/mastercard
Maximum monthly donation of 5% of monthly minimum wage. Only individuals over 18 and only from their personal account. Removes all the shenanigans.
I support the concept of a tax, but I suspect that Drakeford will piss it up the wall.
One of them didn't take a camera. The other did.
It should be treated as such. Sure, carefully detach some particular oligarch, by all means, but don't destroy an historic and foundational club. That's like levelling a medieval cathedral because you hate the latest bishop
I sometimes think Brits don't understand what a massive asset the EPL is, in terms of selling the UK abroad. It is up there with the BBC, possibly bigger
To what extent have Arsenal beniffiteed from Putin Crony money? Their crony was much closer to Putin than Abramovich.
Why are Labour, Starmer and Corbyn so silent on Arsenal crony money 😠
Anyway.
Matthew Lynn wrote an article in the speccy this morning in which he made the claim which people who think in money often do that English football is better now than it was thirty years ago.
It just isn't.
There may be higher levels of technical skill, there may be more big foreign names. It may be making more money. But the end product is much less satisfying.
Who among us wouldn't turn the footballing clock back to before the Premier League, given the chance?
Granted there is less hooliganism now. Though I'm not convinced a much more pleasant atmosphere.
The UK is second only to the US in terms of soft power. The government needs to handle with care.
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
Browne of AP took photo. later he said he could have stopped it all by simply kicking away the petrol can but then he would not no longer have been a reporter.
We should do more to update these rules to limit spending on online adverts, particularly those that are demographically or geographically targeted. And we also need to do something about fake campaign groups created for the purpose of spreading online attack ads.
The entire experience was - in nearly all ways - vastly superior to my memories of football decades back, before the EPL
From the skill of the players to the glamour of the ground, it was superbly impressive. And the food was good
The one thing it lacked is the earthy viscerality of primeval football, the sense you might die due to hooliganism, but then, as you suggest, that is an acquired taste, at best
If you want that you could always support Mexican football teams
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10582847/Up-17-fans-killed-22-seriously-injured-brawl-Mexican-football-match.html
Maybe less taking funding from dodgy sources is the answer?
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Herefordshire is the secret county of England and long may it remain.
One of the obvious differences is that the best English players always used to leave to play abroad for the big money in Spain or Italy. Now plenty of the world's best players earn big money in the English league. That's a plus isn't it?
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
The best bike ride I ever did was in that neck of the woods - Lyonshall to Painscastle, over the Begwns via the Roundabout, Glasbury, Hay, Eardisley, Almely, Lyonshall. Heartbreakingly beautiful. Have you ever heard of the Begwns? I hadn't, before I went there. The view from there over Hay to the Black Mountains is one of the loveliest in Britain. An absolutely magical spot, especially at dawn or dusk.
But if you're visiting the Marches, do you stay in Radnor, or do you stay in Kington, where everything is suddenly £3 per person more competitive than over the border?
Excercise also helps to regulate appetite and mood so it's beneficial in other ways.
Exercise increases metabolic rate - especially when you are lifting weights. The additional calorie burn lasts well past your workout. Also at least you are not snacking when you are working out (presumably).
But I do agree that cutting calories is easier to do - a quicker fix - than exercising the weight off. If people banned themselves from snacking between meals that would help.
I'd rather see the top flight staffed by players I know something about and can identify with.
In the 1980s, I could name a good handful of first team players of pretty much every top flight team. Because they were much the same as last year. Familiarity was part of the story. Now, they come in from Lille, and go off a year later to Milan. Much harder to keep track of, and frankly, there is less incentive to do so.
And very difficult to like players who are in such different worlds. You used to see Gary Pallister in the lane next to you at the bowling alley, Paul Ince pushing the baby in the park. Now they're all off in a gated community somewhere.
It's the lament of old men the world over that things were better in their day. But that's honestly the way I see it. I don't mind the odd sprinkling of foreigners, but it's very hard to care who wins a match between two arbitrary teams of professionals drawn from all over the world.
Look at this. This is how I used to feel about football.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCm3bS6wXvk
I know in practice there were a lot of turgid and dull 1-0s. But I honestly don't think the quality of entertainment is any better.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/10/afghanistan-even-worse-ukraine-war-denounced-russian-state/
But Chelsea aren't a special case. They were a bankrupt basket case for a very long time. They are no more integral to the league than Sunderland, Forest or Leeds (for 20 years) were.
Nor than Everton will be.
There'll still be a 20 team league to sell abroad.
Regardless of who is in it.
My point is that exercise is not the magic bullet to weight loss as it is often sold. If overweight people cut down the caloric intake they'd see a much bigger impact. People give up and quit because they see no impact.
I was lucky enough to grow up in Herefordshire, I didn't really appreciate its beauty until almost too late - age 17, when I got my first motorbike, and was truly mobile. But then I went for it. Zipping around the lanes and hills of the Marches, up to Hergest Ridge, down to Hay Bluff, over to Craswall, the Olchon, down to Tintern, over to Rhayader, Symond's Yat, Kilpeck. Eardisley, Grosmont, Garway, it is sublime sublime sublime
Back then, tho, the food was rubbish. Now it is gorgeous. Great chefs using the amazing local Anglo-Welsh produce
All it lacks is the sea, but then, that is probably why it is still unspoiled and relatively untouristed. It is still oddly remote and hard to reach. No motorways
There were usually more foreign players in England than English players abroad by some distance after the overseas ban was lifted in 78-79.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election.
“"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
God, I've got the horn for getting back to Rome, particularly with a couple of new places to go.
Strangely it even seems to be denting exports *outside* the EU, perhaps because it’s buggered some manufacturers ability to get parts etc.
https://twitter.com/johnspringford/status/1501966414080532481?s=21
What are the rights and wrongs of that? I think they're entitled to decide who they want as customers, in the same way as a pub landlord can decline to serve someone with dodgy-looking mates, and as pressures on Russia go it's a pretty minor one. But I'd have thought they're on shaky legal ground to retain (and presumably earn interest) on cash given them for a service they aren't providing. Refunding the money might actually be difficult with the collapse of foreign exchange with Russia, though, and I don't fancy the chance of any Russian player trying to sue.
But you wrote "the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance".