I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
My abiding memory of the BBC series about Bodyline was the squad singing “To Be A Pilgrim” on the ship to Oz
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
It's a broad church ?
Possibly also written by Chris Chibnall. Which would explain a great deal. With Farage as the TimelessShit
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
It was easy to spot the posho cricketers in those days by the placement of their initials.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
He disqualified himself when he said 'Israel has the right to defend itself'
Even the BBC were better informed
He's dropped the "her" for "it" though. Not behaving like a lady now.
More significantly he seemed to have forgotten who attacked who? An amnesia the Israelis have benefitted from many times since and including 1967
Iran has attacked Israel directly and indirectly for years, no decades. Iran officially calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran is seeking WMDs that could make that possible.
Yet Israel has no right to self-defence?
Do you not realise how ridiculous you sound. Pre-emptive self-defence is well established in international actions, look at Tony Blair for instance.
Israel has attacked Iran directly and indirectly for years, no decades. Israel officially calls for regime change in Iran. Israel has WMDs that could make that possible.
Are those also true?
Yes. What of it?
If Iran wants to start a war with Israel it can, and again then Israel too would have the right to self defence.
Either way, Israel has the right to self defence.
Maybe there’s a better approach to international relations that involves less starting wars?
Well ideally, yes; and with normal enemies who are motivated by bettering their own lot, this is the case. With enemies like Iran whose instructions come straight from their wrathful gids and whise dearest wish is that Israel and all Jews be wiped from the map and ideally from history, gentle negotiation becomes more difficult.
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
It's a broad church ?
Possibly also written by Chris Chibnall. Which would explain a great deal. With Farage as the TimelessShit
I see that Farage is descended from Georgius Ferauge, who came from the Ardennes border area will Belgium. No wonder he hates Brussels.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
ISTR Larwood honed his craft by bowling with lumps of coal.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of this, but right up until as late as 2005, there seemed to be a notable posh/not posh split between batsmen and bowlers. Perhaps because batsmen need more kit to practice with, while all a bowler needs is a lump of coal.
Yes, that's featured in the 1984/5 miniseries on bodyline. Jardine visited him and bought him new cricket boots and got him and Voce in to London to discuss Leg Theory and if they felt they could bowl accurately and fast on a leg stump line which they said they could. Fast bowling was very much more a working class pursuit although not exclusively, it was seen more as grunt work. We had some great working class batsmen too though - Hobbs and Sutcliffe were both from poor backgrounds for example
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
My abiding memory of the BBC series about Bodyline was the squad singing “To Be A Pilgrim” on the ship to Oz
I was going to say what a disgrace it was having an Australian, Hugo 'Mr Matrix' Weaving, playing captain of England but I read he was born in England. Of course Jardine, though born in India, was Scotch so I guess it doesn't really matter anyway.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
It was easy to spot the posho cricketers in those days by the placement of their initials.
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
On-brand, though;
👻 Good news for Reform's new chairman Dr David Bull and former presenter of 'Most Haunted': our new polling finds that he's in tune with a good chunk of his party with Reform UK supporters more likely to believe in ghosts than the public as a whole
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
Tbf, it was the case when I was growing up that you were considered a posho if you went to the local grammar school! If you're interested in Northern club cricket, I can recommend "Slipless in Settle" by Harry Pearson.
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
He disqualified himself when he said 'Israel has the right to defend itself'
Even the BBC were better informed
He's dropped the "her" for "it" though. Not behaving like a lady now.
More significantly he seemed to have forgotten who attacked who? An amnesia the Israelis have benefitted from many times since and including 1967
Iran has attacked Israel directly and indirectly for years, no decades. Iran officially calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran is seeking WMDs that could make that possible.
Yet Israel has no right to self-defence?
Do you not realise how ridiculous you sound. Pre-emptive self-defence is well established in international actions, look at Tony Blair for instance.
I suppose it is pre-emptive self-defence when Israel attacks Syria and Lebanon? Pre-emptive self defence is another word for attack. I don't want to look at Tony Blair thank you.
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
It's a broad church ?
Possibly also written by Chris Chibnall. Which would explain a great deal. With Farage as the TimelessShit
I see that Farage is descended from Georgius Ferauge, who came from the Ardennes border area will Belgium. No wonder he hates Brussels.
I bet his rellies were conflicted on who to back in the Ardennes Offensive.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
My abiding memory of the BBC series about Bodyline was the squad singing “To Be A Pilgrim” on the ship to Oz
They collected the thoroughly English English man The Nawab of Pataudi en route who refused to field in the leg theory cordon. Jardine apparently remarked 'i see his highness is a conscientious objector'
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
ISTR Larwood honed his craft by bowling with lumps of coal.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of this, but right up until as late as 2005, there seemed to be a notable posh/not posh split between batsmen and bowlers. Perhaps because batsmen need more kit to practice with, while all a bowler needs is a lump of coal.
There was certainly a long line of posh batsmen as England captains up to then:
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
'ave at it, boys. - DavidL as PM.
You're too kind but who would prosecute all these rapes? Off to Inverness on Monday for another one.
What is it about that place?
'Four and twenty virgins went down to Inverness. When the ball was over there were four and twenty less....'
From Inverness. The ball was about a hundred miles away in Kirriemuir.
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
It's a broad church ?
Possibly also written by Chris Chibnall. Which would explain a great deal. With Farage as the TimelessShit
I see that Farage is descended from Georgius Ferauge, who came from the Ardennes border area will Belgium. No wonder he hates Brussels.
I bet his rellies were conflicted on who to back in the Ardennes Offensive.
He also apparently has some German ancestors, and with his history of apparently enjoying some certain "colourful" german marching songs while a teenager on certain school trips, one does have one"s ideas.
We were discussing pseudonyms the other day. I think currently one of he few I know who is maintaining anonymity and not even appearing on his own videos whilst having become authoritative is Perun, the military analyst who makes his videos from Powerpoint presentations.
[0] His forename (cody) is known [1] His face is not in his videos but occasionally in his shorts [2] I dislike his video game reviews (I am not a gamer) but his hardware stuff is enjoyable [3] Started by one guy, who now spends his time producing "The Sojourn". The newer presenter is anonymous and goes by "hoojiwana"
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
'ave at it, boys. - DavidL as PM.
You're too kind but who would prosecute all these rapes? Off to Inverness on Monday for another one.
What is it about that place?
'Four and twenty virgins went down to Inverness. When the ball was over there were four and twenty less....'
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
On-brand, though;
👻 Good news for Reform's new chairman Dr David Bull and former presenter of 'Most Haunted': our new polling finds that he's in tune with a good chunk of his party with Reform UK supporters more likely to believe in ghosts than the public as a whole
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
That's interesting, playing against those legends!
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
This has been brewing for a while now, and while I can’t discount the fact that it is perhaps politically convenient for Netanyahu to continue his conflicts, I think there is more to it than that.
The debate has always been one of timing. We have known for ages that Israel were primed to strike the nuclear facilities should they wish to. The question was when the stakes would be high enough, and the window of opportunity open enough, for them to hit go.
With Iran’s proxies weakened but mounting concern over their nuclear programme, and the taboo on direct strikes between the countries having been broken, I think the Israelis decided it was now or never.
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
'ave at it, boys. - DavidL as PM.
You're too kind but who would prosecute all these rapes? Off to Inverness on Monday for another one.
What is it about that place?
'Four and twenty virgins went down to Inverness. When the ball was over there were four and twenty less....'
The header is bullshit. I've cycled with a Chalfont the size, colour and texture of a monkey's fist. Honestly, not that bad with loads crème de chamois. All the nerve endings down there are dead after about 200,000km anyway.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
ISTR Larwood honed his craft by bowling with lumps of coal.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of this, but right up until as late as 2005, there seemed to be a notable posh/not posh split between batsmen and bowlers. Perhaps because batsmen need more kit to practice with, while all a bowler needs is a lump of coal.
There was certainly a long line of posh batsmen as England captains up to then:
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
From a practical pov it makes sense for them to try to take out the Iranian regime's nukes.
Preventive rather than pre-emptive though, which is why it's legally questionable, Trying for regime change is plainly illegal, of course, whether or not you support it.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
ISTR Larwood honed his craft by bowling with lumps of coal.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of this, but right up until as late as 2005, there seemed to be a notable posh/not posh split between batsmen and bowlers. Perhaps because batsmen need more kit to practice with, while all a bowler needs is a lump of coal.
Yes, that's featured in the 1984/5 miniseries on bodyline. Jardine visited him and bought him new cricket boots and got him and Voce in to London to discuss Leg Theory and if they felt they could bowl accurately and fast on a leg stump line which they said they could. Fast bowling was very much more a working class pursuit although not exclusively, it was seen more as grunt work. We had some great working class batsmen too though - Hobbs and Sutcliffe were both from poor backgrounds for example
I find these characters fascinating. I've just looked at Sutcliffe's wikipedia page: the picture is of a very smartly dressed, handsome chap with (I think) a ferrett on his shoulder. It also, mystifyingly, informs us that ". In 1911, his prowess at cricket earned him an offer of clerical employment in a local textile mill", which seems something of a non-sequitur but presumably made some sort of sense in those days.
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
He disqualified himself when he said 'Israel has the right to defend itself'
Even the BBC were better informed
He's dropped the "her" for "it" though. Not behaving like a lady now.
More significantly he seemed to have forgotten who attacked who? An amnesia the Israelis have benefitted from many times since and including 1967
Iran has attacked Israel directly and indirectly for years, no decades. Iran officially calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran is seeking WMDs that could make that possible.
Yet Israel has no right to self-defence?
Do you not realise how ridiculous you sound. Pre-emptive self-defence is well established in international actions, look at Tony Blair for instance.
I suppose it is pre-emptive self-defence when Israel attacks Syria and Lebanon? Pre-emptive self defence is another word for attack. I don't want to look at Tony Blair thank you.
There's a clear legal distinction between pre-emptive and preventive. Though quite where the line is drawn isn't clear at all.
Meanwhile, and quite remarkably, it appears as if both Iran and Israel have ignored Starmer's call for peace and diplomacy. It's almost as if he had never spoken.
He disqualified himself when he said 'Israel has the right to defend itself'
Even the BBC were better informed
He's dropped the "her" for "it" though. Not behaving like a lady now.
More significantly he seemed to have forgotten who attacked who? An amnesia the Israelis have benefitted from many times since and including 1967
Iran has attacked Israel directly and indirectly for years, no decades. Iran officially calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran is seeking WMDs that could make that possible.
Yet Israel has no right to self-defence?
Do you not realise how ridiculous you sound. Pre-emptive self-defence is well established in international actions, look at Tony Blair for instance.
Israel has attacked Iran directly and indirectly for years, no decades. Israel officially calls for regime change in Iran. Israel has WMDs that could make that possible.
Are those also true?
Yes. What of it?
If Iran wants to start a war with Israel it can, and again then Israel too would have the right to self defence.
Either way, Israel has the right to self defence.
Maybe there’s a better approach to international relations that involves less starting wars?
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
ISTR Larwood honed his craft by bowling with lumps of coal.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of this, but right up until as late as 2005, there seemed to be a notable posh/not posh split between batsmen and bowlers. Perhaps because batsmen need more kit to practice with, while all a bowler needs is a lump of coal.
Yes, that's featured in the 1984/5 miniseries on bodyline. Jardine visited him and bought him new cricket boots and got him and Voce in to London to discuss Leg Theory and if they felt they could bowl accurately and fast on a leg stump line which they said they could. Fast bowling was very much more a working class pursuit although not exclusively, it was seen more as grunt work. We had some great working class batsmen too though - Hobbs and Sutcliffe were both from poor backgrounds for example
I find these characters fascinating. I've just looked at Sutcliffe's wikipedia page: the picture is of a very smartly dressed, handsome chap with (I think) a ferrett on his shoulder. It also, mystifyingly, informs us that ". In 1911, his prowess at cricket earned him an offer of clerical employment in a local textile mill", which seems something of a non-sequitur but presumably made some sort of sense in those days.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
Indeed so, of the Bodyline tour, the main protagonists with the ball Larwood and Bill Voce were both Working class lads from the Notts coalfields and Bill Bowes who got Bradman for a duck in the first Bodyline test was from a very ordinary Yorkshire railway family learning cricket from playing in the street
ISTR Larwood honed his craft by bowling with lumps of coal.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of this, but right up until as late as 2005, there seemed to be a notable posh/not posh split between batsmen and bowlers. Perhaps because batsmen need more kit to practice with, while all a bowler needs is a lump of coal.
Yes, that's featured in the 1984/5 miniseries on bodyline. Jardine visited him and bought him new cricket boots and got him and Voce in to London to discuss Leg Theory and if they felt they could bowl accurately and fast on a leg stump line which they said they could. Fast bowling was very much more a working class pursuit although not exclusively, it was seen more as grunt work. We had some great working class batsmen too though - Hobbs and Sutcliffe were both from poor backgrounds for example
I find these characters fascinating. I've just looked at Sutcliffe's wikipedia page: the picture is of a very smartly dressed, handsome chap with (I think) a ferrett on his shoulder. It also, mystifyingly, informs us that ". In 1911, his prowess at cricket earned him an offer of clerical employment in a local textile mill", which seems something of a non-sequitur but presumably made some sort of sense in those days.
Herbert Sutcliffe was an officer and a gentleman but not a Gentleman.
As he was not a Gentleman he was ruled out from captaining Yorkshire but his son was a Gentleman and so did captain Yorkshire.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
This has been brewing for a while now, and while I can’t discount the fact that it is perhaps politically convenient for Netanyahu to continue his conflicts, I think there is more to it than that.
The debate has always been one of timing. We have known for ages that Israel were primed to strike the nuclear facilities should they wish to. The question was when the stakes would be high enough, and the window of opportunity open enough, for them to hit go.
With Iran’s proxies weakened but mounting concern over their nuclear programme, and the taboo on direct strikes between the countries having been broken, I think the Israelis decided it was now or never.
I don't hold a candle for Trump's deal-making capabilities, but there were negotiations due to take place, and it's possible the Iranians were willing to do a deal given their recent reverses.
The timing might have been because the Israelis judged that it would be harder for them to retain American support if they attacked Iran after a deal had been reached.
This is entirely conjecture, and I'm refraining from judgement overall.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
I don't agree with this logic.
If you're willing to strike, then you have to be prepared for the other side to strike back.
To prepare for the other side to strike back, it is logical that when you strike you hit as hard as you can, to diminish the other sides ability to hit back.
The binary question is do you strike or not. Once you've accepted a strike is necessary and legitimate then hitting as hard as you can, rather than surgical, is entirely logical.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
This has been brewing for a while now, and while I can’t discount the fact that it is perhaps politically convenient for Netanyahu to continue his conflicts, I think there is more to it than that.
The debate has always been one of timing. We have known for ages that Israel were primed to strike the nuclear facilities should they wish to. The question was when the stakes would be high enough, and the window of opportunity open enough, for them to hit go.
With Iran’s proxies weakened but mounting concern over their nuclear programme, and the taboo on direct strikes between the countries having been broken, I think the Israelis decided it was now or never.
I don't hold a candle for Trump's deal-making capabilities, but there were negotiations due to take place, and it's possible the Iranians were willing to do a deal given their recent reverses.
The timing might have been because the Israelis judged that it would be harder for them to retain American support if they attacked Iran after a deal had been reached.
This is entirely conjecture, and I'm refraining from judgement overall.
Negotiations had already been taking place. A deadline had been set of 60 days for them. That deadline had lapsed.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
I don't agree with this logic.
If you're willing to strike, then you have to be prepared for the other side to strike back.
To prepare for the other side to strike back, it is logical that when you strike you hit as hard as you can, to diminish the other sides ability to hit back.
The binary question is do you strike or not. Once you've accepted a strike is necessary and legitimate then hitting as hard as you can, rather than surgical, is entirely logical.
The basis of just war philosophy is well established. It’s the only legitimate basis for a war.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
This has been brewing for a while now, and while I can’t discount the fact that it is perhaps politically convenient for Netanyahu to continue his conflicts, I think there is more to it than that.
The debate has always been one of timing. We have known for ages that Israel were primed to strike the nuclear facilities should they wish to. The question was when the stakes would be high enough, and the window of opportunity open enough, for them to hit go.
With Iran’s proxies weakened but mounting concern over their nuclear programme, and the taboo on direct strikes between the countries having been broken, I think the Israelis decided it was now or never.
I don't hold a candle for Trump's deal-making capabilities, but there were negotiations due to take place, and it's possible the Iranians were willing to do a deal given their recent reverses.
The timing might have been because the Israelis judged that it would be harder for them to retain American support if they attacked Iran after a deal had been reached.
This is entirely conjecture, and I'm refraining from judgement overall.
A deal would have been awful for Bibi. Now he has the whole nation back on side, and international attention distracted from Gaza again.
If some of the loons in his government make the same mistakes as in Gaza, though, as Katz is sounding like this morning, it will all be for naught, with much suffering.
Historically, wasn't the posh/not posh division in cricket more north/south than batsmen/bowlers? Most of the w/c lads were from Yorks, Lancs and Notts. Of course Larwood and Voce were captained by Winchester boy Douglas Jardine, who was jolly posh.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
That's interesting, playing against those legends!
My father was a bit of a local legend across a number of sports. But at the time, few were professional e.g. tennis was still amateur and few paid big money, so unless you were going to be the best of the best of the best it wasn't really a good career move and the family were get yourself a career don't end up down pit with us. Also you often required a rich person to sponsor you for sports like tennis, so he played for money across different spots / various leagues as a bit of a hired gun. I think the ladies were also a distraction.
I am seen him play things like tennis into his 60s and he was still scarily good.
But cricket was the one he could really play. I faced him a few times in the nets as a teenager and it was up there with pros I have faced albeit now slowing down, but could imagine a 20 something year old with more pace being a serious handful. He did play our school dads vs lads, but was banned after he basically ran through the school 1st XI in a few overs.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
I don't agree with this logic.
If you're willing to strike, then you have to be prepared for the other side to strike back.
To prepare for the other side to strike back, it is logical that when you strike you hit as hard as you can, to diminish the other sides ability to hit back.
The binary question is do you strike or not. Once you've accepted a strike is necessary and legitimate then hitting as hard as you can, rather than surgical, is entirely logical.
The basis of just war philosophy is well established. It’s the only legitimate basis for a war.
Yes and this meets the criteria.
Preventing Iran from getting nukes is legitimate and proportionate.
Preventing Iran from retaliating because you're preventing them from getting nukes is also legitimate and proportionate.
Nothing unjust here.
Carpet bombing civilians would be unjust and not proportionate. That's not happening.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Historically, wasn't the posh/not posh division in cricket more north/south than batsmen/bowlers? Most of the w/c lads were from Yorks, Lancs and Notts. Of course Larwood and Voce were captained by Winchester boy Douglas Jardine, who was jolly posh.
From where I am from and my family, a lot of it grew out of working mens clubs / miners welfare etc. Your pit workers vs the next one. And there was bugger all to do when your weren't working so not short of players or spectators....and for dating, opportunity to find yourself a nice man / lady hanging around watching.
Even 20 years ago when I was playing, we got quite good crowds to watch the 1st XI teams. But back in the 50/60s lots of these local sports teams got serious crowds.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
This has been brewing for a while now, and while I can’t discount the fact that it is perhaps politically convenient for Netanyahu to continue his conflicts, I think there is more to it than that.
The debate has always been one of timing. We have known for ages that Israel were primed to strike the nuclear facilities should they wish to. The question was when the stakes would be high enough, and the window of opportunity open enough, for them to hit go.
With Iran’s proxies weakened but mounting concern over their nuclear programme, and the taboo on direct strikes between the countries having been broken, I think the Israelis decided it was now or never.
I don't hold a candle for Trump's deal-making capabilities, but there were negotiations due to take place, and it's possible the Iranians were willing to do a deal given their recent reverses.
The timing might have been because the Israelis judged that it would be harder for them to retain American support if they attacked Iran after a deal had been reached.
This is entirely conjecture, and I'm refraining from judgement overall.
Yes, we simply don't know. But it will have been a combination of factors (the other element in all this is how much everyone trusts the US to uphold and enforce the deals it makes, as well, of course). The point I was making was that for all Netanyahu's approach to things (typically disagreeable), the foundations of this action were built some time ago.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
The village side I play for has three mens teams, a ladies team and an absolute host of junior teams of both sexes. The choke point is the transition from junior to adult. Far too many drift away (finding girls/boys, other hobbies, pressure of exams and studying). The ones that tend to carry on are the private school ones who are playing at school too. I'd argue that the mens teams are fairly diverse in their social make up (aside of the village being rather well to do) but you can see that the influx of younger players skews privately educated.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Hutton saved Blair's skin on that occasion. If that report had even been slightly critical of the government actions, he would have found it very hard to fight the 2005 election. As it was, it was essentially a complete exoneration.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
I don't agree with this logic.
If you're willing to strike, then you have to be prepared for the other side to strike back.
To prepare for the other side to strike back, it is logical that when you strike you hit as hard as you can, to diminish the other sides ability to hit back.
The binary question is do you strike or not. Once you've accepted a strike is necessary and legitimate then hitting as hard as you can, rather than surgical, is entirely logical.
The basis of just war philosophy is well established. It’s the only legitimate basis for a war.
Yes and this meets the criteria.
Preventing Iran from getting nukes is legitimate and proportionate.
Preventing Iran from retaliating because you're preventing them from getting nukes is also legitimate and proportionate.
Nothing unjust here.
Carpet bombing civilians would be unjust and not proportionate. That's not happening.
Historically, wasn't the posh/not posh division in cricket more north/south than batsmen/bowlers? Most of the w/c lads were from Yorks, Lancs and Notts. Of course Larwood and Voce were captained by Winchester boy Douglas Jardine, who was jolly posh.
No more than you would expect by the social makeup of those two regions. Hobbs was from Cambridge and played for Surrey but definitely not posh - his dad was a slater; and there have definitely been posh Yorkshire cricketers.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The issue is that Bibi has forfeited the benefit of the doubt
I dislike Bibi too and want him out, but that's an issue for Israelis at the next election.
It does not deprive Israel of the well-established right to self-defence against a state that has attacked it repeatedly, calls for its destruction and is seeking nuclear weapons.
Regardless of what you subjectively think of Bibi, Blair or Bush as individuals (what's with the B's?) I'd love to hear one objective reason why Israel's right to self-defence against Iran is weaker than our own right to self-defence against Iraq.
Especially given the way so many who still love Blair on this site and regard him as a great leader, are appalled by this conflict. It is pure hypocrisy.
It’s not clear to me that there was an imminent threat which is usually required to justify a pre-emotive strike. But Mossad doesn’t typically read me in to the latest intelligence.
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
I don't agree with this logic.
If you're willing to strike, then you have to be prepared for the other side to strike back.
To prepare for the other side to strike back, it is logical that when you strike you hit as hard as you can, to diminish the other sides ability to hit back.
The binary question is do you strike or not. Once you've accepted a strike is necessary and legitimate then hitting as hard as you can, rather than surgical, is entirely logical.
The basis of just war philosophy is well established. It’s the only legitimate basis for a war.
Yes and this meets the criteria.
Preventing Iran from getting nukes is legitimate and proportionate.
Preventing Iran from retaliating because you're preventing them from getting nukes is also legitimate and proportionate.
Nothing unjust here.
Carpet bombing civilians would be unjust and not proportionate. That's not happening.
That’s arguable.
Motive is also important
If the motive is to prevent Iran attaining nukes then it is entirely legitimate.
If the motive is to prevent Iran retaliating then it is entirely legitimate.
Once you've made the decision to strike, it is logical to strike hard and not surgically.
Again, just as Blair did. Once you cross that rubicon, there's little point holding back.
One aspect of sport that seems to be doing well is lower league football these days. Non-league seems to get pretty good crowds. I presume that is because even League One / Two football is now rather pricey if you want to take your family.
Historically, wasn't the posh/not posh division in cricket more north/south than batsmen/bowlers? Most of the w/c lads were from Yorks, Lancs and Notts. Of course Larwood and Voce were captained by Winchester boy Douglas Jardine, who was jolly posh.
Jardine must have left a good impression on the Nawab of Pataudi as he ended up sending his own son and future Nawab Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi to Winchester too.
He ended up being a bit useful at cricket becoming captain of India.
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
The village side I play for has three mens teams, a ladies team and an absolute host of junior teams of both sexes. The choke point is the transition from junior to adult. Far too many drift away (finding girls/boys, other hobbies, pressure of exams and studying). The ones that tend to carry on are the private school ones who are playing at school too. I'd argue that the mens teams are fairly diverse in their social make up (aside of the village being rather well to do) but you can see that the influx of younger players skews privately educated.
Aiui, historically WIndies' skippers were White, although also iirc they were not a Test side until quite recently.
Walking past the park on the way to the fish and chip shop, one notes a racial divide. Cricketers are of Asian descent; footballers less so. I've no information on their schools.
One aspect of sport that seems to be doing well is lower league football these days. Non-league seems to get pretty good crowds. I presume that is because even League One / Two football is now rather pricey if you want to take your family.
Anecdata, but my impression is that a lot of the growth in non-league attendance is from people who have become disillusioned with the prem. Going to Stockport County is not that different to what it was 30 years ago, aside from the lack of standing, but going to Man City is very different: it is sold as a tourist experience. Also further down the tier you can drink! And the more people go to, say, West Didsbury and Chorlton FC, the better a day out it becomes. So it's a bit self-fulfilling.
Historically, wasn't the posh/not posh division in cricket more north/south than batsmen/bowlers? Most of the w/c lads were from Yorks, Lancs and Notts. Of course Larwood and Voce were captained by Winchester boy Douglas Jardine, who was jolly posh.
No more than you would expect by the social makeup of those two regions. Hobbs was from Cambridge and played for Surrey but definitely not posh - his dad was a slater; and there have definitely been posh Yorkshire cricketers.
Including Paul Gibb, who went the opposite journey on social mobility to Herbert Sutcliffe.
Gibb went to a private school then Cambridge uni, played as an amateur for Yorkshire and England, turned professional which led to him being kicked out of the MCC and ended up as a bus driver.
One aspect of sport that seems to be doing well is lower league football these days. Non-league seems to get pretty good crowds. I presume that is because even League One / Two football is now rather pricey if you want to take your family.
Anecdata, but my impression is that a lot of the growth in non-league attendance is from people who have become disillusioned with the prem. Going to Stockport County is not that different to what it was 30 years ago, aside from the lack of standing, but going to Man City is very different: it is sold as a tourist experience. Also further down the tier you can drink! And the more people go to, say, West Didsbury and Chorlton FC, the better a day out it becomes. So it's a bit self-fulfilling.
It's a really interesting phenomenon because the fears expressed since the advent of the Premier League has been that it would cause immense damage to the lower tiers.
So let me get this right. Reform, whose adherents usually bang on about the supremacy of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition', are now being chaired by an occultist.
On-brand, though;
👻 Good news for Reform's new chairman Dr David Bull and former presenter of 'Most Haunted': our new polling finds that he's in tune with a good chunk of his party with Reform UK supporters more likely to believe in ghosts than the public as a whole
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
Genuine belief he was doing the right thing, I think.
In all interviews I have seen with him since, he is at his most sincere when defending his decisions at that time. I, like most, are not convinced by the way the conflict was sold to us at the time, and I think the passage of time has borne that out, but I have no doubt he thought that the decision was correct.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
He'd got to a point where liberal interventionism using the military was working for him, a bit like putting a fire out. He did it Kosovo and Sierra Leone - very low casualties in each and neither took long - and then he had crowds shouting "Tony!", "Tony!"
I went to watch some cricket the other week from the semi-pro league I used to play in the Stoke area. This is the league that produced people like Dominic Cork and used to high standard (not Yorkshire or Birmingham League but still very good). Most of the clubs are in really working class areas of the city. The standard is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
One of my bugbears about the largely excellent Freddie's Field of Dreams series was its presentation of cricket as an elitist sport to which Freddie's team were an exception. Because while this is increasingly true, until relatively recently it was a pretty universal sport: indeed the 2005 team to which Freddie belonged was majority state educated. And England has a long history of working class players like Trueman and Larwood.
My Dad played very high level of cricket in the era (and against) the likes of Boycott, Truman, Close in those Yorkshire leagues. It was very working class where you were deemed a posho if you went to the Grammar school.
The village side I play for has three mens teams, a ladies team and an absolute host of junior teams of both sexes. The choke point is the transition from junior to adult. Far too many drift away (finding girls/boys, other hobbies, pressure of exams and studying). The ones that tend to carry on are the private school ones who are playing at school too. I'd argue that the mens teams are fairly diverse in their social make up (aside of the village being rather well to do) but you can see that the influx of younger players skews privately educated.
Aiui, historically WIndies' skippers were White, although also iirc they were not a Test side until quite recently.
Walking past the park on the way to the fish and chip shop, one notes a racial divide. Cricketers are of Asian descent; footballers less so. I've no information on their schools.
I can only comment on girls' sports, but in South Manchester Asians are well represented in cricket. Possibly less so in football, although unusually in the league my daughters' side is unusually diverse has an Indian, a Pakistani, two half-Sri Lankans and three Hong Kongese. Also an English girl of Carribbean heritage.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
The 280,000 figure appears to be sourced from this entirely anonymous Google Spreadsheet labelled “Enterprise Statistics” which is high in the search results if you search for “OnlyFans statistics”: https://simplebeen.com/onlyfans-statistics/
If you dig into that spreadsheet you’ll discover that the 280,000 figure for the UK is marked in Grey which means (see the Documentazione tab on the spreadsheet) that the source for that figure is ... wait for it ... ChatGPT.
So the Spectator splashed a story on the front page where the source turns out ultimately to be ChatGPT. Shocking failure all round: Do they not fact check anything?
One aspect of sport that seems to be doing well is lower league football these days. Non-league seems to get pretty good crowds. I presume that is because even League One / Two football is now rather pricey if you want to take your family.
Anecdata, but my impression is that a lot of the growth in non-league attendance is from people who have become disillusioned with the prem. Going to Stockport County is not that different to what it was 30 years ago, aside from the lack of standing, but going to Man City is very different: it is sold as a tourist experience. Also further down the tier you can drink! And the more people go to, say, West Didsbury and Chorlton FC, the better a day out it becomes. So it's a bit self-fulfilling.
It's a really interesting phenomenon because the fears expressed since the advent of the Premier League has been that it would cause immense damage to the lower tiers.
Yes. In sport there's a couple of things going on in its general direction. (My own reaction to it has been largely to stop watching or following anything).
1) There is simply far too much, too many events, too many channels, so much almost nothing stands out as being unmissable.
2) Following everything on telly etc, and attending elite level, and even second level, stuff is disproportionately expensive.
3) Monetization of nearly all top level sport both encourages distrust in its reality, and also means there are hidden primary motives in almost everything. In particular cricket and rugby union are culturally completely remote from their history.
4) The cult of personality is dominant, and is not everyone's idea of fun.
For lots of people the actually being there is important, as is a sense of identity. This is both cheaper and more meaningful at Steeple Sinderby FC (read the book if you haven't) than at MUFC.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
Genuine belief he was doing the right thing, I think.
In all interviews I have seen with him since, he is at his most sincere when defending his decisions at that time. I, like most, are not convinced by the way the conflict was sold to us at the time, and I think the passage of time has borne that out, but I have no doubt he thought that the decision was correct.
He was a centrist, as opposed to right-wing, neo-con, although he'd never have used that phrase to describe himself.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I hired a Lime bike with my co-workers app in London last Thursday and, for the first time ever, rode an electric bike back to Waterloo.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
I have often thought that the NHS appliea a value of zero to its patients' time. But then, most of its patients are pensioners.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
You cannot ignore ideology in this. Lack of parking is often because of decisions to 'encourage' people to use buses etc. I am sympathetic to the overall goal but not when people are ill or caring for ill people. If you are having 6 weeks of daily chemo and every time it's hard to park, that is going to impact on your care. Our local hospital has done similar. Rather than build a multistory they chose having fewer spaces and encouraged other means if attending.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
At my GP the patients are almost all either mothers with kids, sick poor or oldies. Not likely to be many cyclists among them.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
I have often thought that the NHS appliea a value of zero to its patients' time. But then, most of its patients are pensioners.
This is true. I had a chemo session booked for 9 am once. Great. Turn and get told the chemo won't be ready as it needs making up and will be 90 minutes. Not great. It can't be made up the night before so don't book me in at 9. Simple changes.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
Genuine belief he was doing the right thing, I think.
In all interviews I have seen with him since, he is at his most sincere when defending his decisions at that time. I, like most, are not convinced by the way the conflict was sold to us at the time, and I think the passage of time has borne that out, but I have no doubt he thought that the decision was correct.
Unless it's complete self delusion - which is quite possible - then I don't believe a word of his self justification.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I hired a Lime bike with my co-workers app in London last Thursday and, for the first time ever, rode an electric bike back to Waterloo.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
I was one for about 9 minutes.
Why do cyclists in London think the red lights don't apply to them?
The 280,000 figure appears to be sourced from this entirely anonymous Google Spreadsheet labelled “Enterprise Statistics” which is high in the search results if you search for “OnlyFans statistics”: https://simplebeen.com/onlyfans-statistics/
If you dig into that spreadsheet you’ll discover that the 280,000 figure for the UK is marked in Grey which means (see the Documentazione tab on the spreadsheet) that the source for that figure is ... wait for it ... ChatGPT.
So the Spectator splashed a story on the front page where the source turns out ultimately to be ChatGPT. Shocking failure all round: Do they not fact check anything?
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I hired a Lime bike with my co-workers app in London last Thursday and, for the first time ever, rode an electric bike back to Waterloo.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
I was one for about 9 minutes.
There is a lot of hostility to Lime bikes in particular because they are often left blocking pavements, and some cycling purists hate ebikes.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
Genuine belief he was doing the right thing, I think.
In all interviews I have seen with him since, he is at his most sincere when defending his decisions at that time. I, like most, are not convinced by the way the conflict was sold to us at the time, and I think the passage of time has borne that out, but I have no doubt he thought that the decision was correct.
People convinced of the rightness of their cause become impervious to inconvenient factual details. That's what makes them so dangerous.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I hired a Lime bike with my co-workers app in London last Thursday and, for the first time ever, rode an electric bike back to Waterloo.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
I was one for about 9 minutes.
Why do cyclists in London think the red lights don't apply to them?
As someone who cycles a fair bit nowadays, that annoys me as well. I can imagine it's much worse in a city as opposed to small villages / the countryside, where I do most of my cycling.
I did a 52km ride yesterday afternoon (it was hot!), and I stopped at some red lights on the misguided busway, but another cyclist just went straight across without looking - and you could not really see if it was clear on the approach to the crossing. It's the sort of thing you get away with 99 times, but the hundredth time gets you.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
You cannot ignore ideology in this. Lack of parking is often because of decisions to 'encourage' people to use buses etc. I am sympathetic to the overall goal but not when people are ill or caring for ill people. If you are having 6 weeks of daily chemo and every time it's hard to park, that is going to impact on your care. Our local hospital has done similar. Rather than build a multistory they chose having fewer spaces and encouraged other means if attending.
One of the problems with this 'reasoning' is that there's never going to be a realistic alternative means to using a car for many journeys.
Going by your own car means going from home / work to the destination.
Going by bus involves walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus, going by bus to the town centre, walking to another bus stop, waiting for the second bus, going by the second bus to the destination, walking to the destination.
Which is going to cost more, take far longer, be less comfortable and far less flexible.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
You cannot ignore ideology in this. Lack of parking is often because of decisions to 'encourage' people to use buses etc. I am sympathetic to the overall goal but not when people are ill or caring for ill people. If you are having 6 weeks of daily chemo and every time it's hard to park, that is going to impact on your care. Our local hospital has done similar. Rather than build a multistory they chose having fewer spaces and encouraged other means if attending.
One new hospital I saw the other week (last 5 years) had a staff car park bigger than the visitors one.
One can only conclude they want to make it easy for the staff and discourage visitors.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
You cannot ignore ideology in this. Lack of parking is often because of decisions to 'encourage' people to use buses etc. I am sympathetic to the overall goal but not when people are ill or caring for ill people. If you are having 6 weeks of daily chemo and every time it's hard to park, that is going to impact on your care. Our local hospital has done similar. Rather than build a multistory they chose having fewer spaces and encouraged other means if attending.
A multistory car park is spectacularly expensive & those £ have to come out of NHS budgets that could go to other buildings. That’s before you even consider the land value which, given that hospitals are usually built in cities, is itself high.
See also “The high cost of free parking” by Donald Shoup (not that hospital parking is usually free, but many of the same arguments apply).
The 280,000 figure appears to be sourced from this entirely anonymous Google Spreadsheet labelled “Enterprise Statistics” which is high in the search results if you search for “OnlyFans statistics”: https://simplebeen.com/onlyfans-statistics/
If you dig into that spreadsheet you’ll discover that the 280,000 figure for the UK is marked in Grey which means (see the Documentazione tab on the spreadsheet) that the source for that figure is ... wait for it ... ChatGPT.
So the Spectator splashed a story on the front page where the source turns out ultimately to be ChatGPT. Shocking failure all round: Do they not fact check anything?
Fact-checking is both expensive and not particularly relevant. The Spectator has always had "raise its readers' blood pressure" fairly high on its list of goals. Increasingly, that's all it does. Somehow it's good for circulation.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I hired a Lime bike with my co-workers app in London last Thursday and, for the first time ever, rode an electric bike back to Waterloo.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
I was one for about 9 minutes.
Why do cyclists in London think the red lights don't apply to them?
It's a good question. I have to always look everywhere and be highly defensive, even when just walking, because neither green nor red lights mean anything and absolutely everyone seems to plugged in so have no awareness of what's going on around them.
It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.
Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.
We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear) Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).
Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly. Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.
Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK. Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.
We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong). There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.
Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.
The UK’s claim to attack Iraq was more specifically that Iraq had broken a UN Security Council resolution.
Quite a lot of very poor information (at best) and lying (at worst) in the build up though. Like 'sexing up' a report to make the case stronger. Such as giving the impression that Saddam could attack the UK with 45 minutes notice, which was rather definitely not true.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Even though I greatly enjoyed Iraq at the time, I find the whole thing staggering in retrospect.
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
Genuine belief he was doing the right thing, I think.
In all interviews I have seen with him since, he is at his most sincere when defending his decisions at that time. I, like most, are not convinced by the way the conflict was sold to us at the time, and I think the passage of time has borne that out, but I have no doubt he thought that the decision was correct.
You have to look at what we knew at the time, not what we know now, and put it in the context of the time.
There's a very good book on being a UN chemical weapons inspector in the 1990s, and (to me at least) it showed how people in power in the west could easily have come to believe that Saddam had such weapons.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
My GP doesn't have any bike racks. When I mentioned this to the doctor he was incredulous - couldn't even imagine someone cycling to a medical appointment and told me isn't wasn't worth the investment.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I hired a Lime bike with my co-workers app in London last Thursday and, for the first time ever, rode an electric bike back to Waterloo.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
I was one for about 9 minutes.
Why do cyclists in London think the red lights don't apply to them?
Obeying, without question, the strictures of a metal box with a light it in is the mentality of a fucking slave.
BTW - 2 positive NHS experiences in two weeks with various ill daughters: one with a GP appointment the same day and a referral straight to paediatrics at Wythenshawe; second one today with an out of hours walk in at Trafford General who saw her quickly and sympathetically and are now sending her fir a chest xray. If I was absolutely searching for a complaint, it's very difficult to find a parking space at Wythenshawe. But that's absolutely the worst I can say about the NHS from personal experience this year.
Most hospitals are terribly sited. You have to drive to get there (the buses? Lol, forget it) and when you do you cannot park.
I've used taxis so many times.
To be fair, there are pretty good trams and buses to Wythenshawe if you're not in a hurry. Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
I am in a hurry, of course, because I work and have a busy schedule.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
You cannot ignore ideology in this. Lack of parking is often because of decisions to 'encourage' people to use buses etc. I am sympathetic to the overall goal but not when people are ill or caring for ill people. If you are having 6 weeks of daily chemo and every time it's hard to park, that is going to impact on your care. Our local hospital has done similar. Rather than build a multistory they chose having fewer spaces and encouraged other means if attending.
It's not idealogy. Transport planning is complex and all forms of transport work up until you get to some form of bottleneck.
If that hospital had plenty of parking, you'd find the surrounding roads congested. That might cause issues for the local community, get in the way of those buses, prevent commercial vehicles from getting around - and delay ambulances trying to get to A&E.
So the overall cost of providing parking is not in the parking spot but rather the road network around the hospital. That's why the council got so upset at Clarkson and his shop - the significant negative externality that he passed on to the rest of the community.
Comments
It’s also the nature of the attack. The Stuyvesant virus was smart and proportionate. A surgical strike on a couple facilities would have worked. This is much more broad based.
This feels to me more like Bibi stoking up conflict to protect his own interests
Fast bowling was very much more a working class pursuit although not exclusively, it was seen more as grunt work.
We had some great working class batsmen too though - Hobbs and Sutcliffe were both from poor backgrounds for example
Botham IT
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/what-happened-ballymena-ireland-v2mptrrkw
If you're interested in Northern club cricket, I can recommend "Slipless in Settle" by Harry Pearson.
Pre-emptive self defence is another word for attack.
I don't want to look at Tony Blair thank you.
Jardine apparently remarked 'i see his highness is a conscientious objector'
Atherton, Brearley, Lewis, Cowdrey, Smith, Dexter, May.
But no posh bowlers as England captain in that period although there were some before WW2.
The debate has always been one of timing. We have known for ages that Israel were primed to strike the nuclear facilities should they wish to. The question was when the stakes would be high enough, and the window of opportunity open enough, for them to hit go.
With Iran’s proxies weakened but mounting concern over their nuclear programme, and the taboo on direct strikes between the countries having been broken, I think the Israelis decided it was now or never.
Preventive rather than pre-emptive though, which is why it's legally questionable,
Trying for regime change is plainly illegal, of course, whether or not you support it.
It also, mystifyingly, informs us that
". In 1911, his prowess at cricket earned him an offer of clerical employment in a local textile mill", which seems something of a non-sequitur but presumably made some sort of sense in those days.
Though quite where the line is drawn isn't clear at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c9qw28j4qd0t#Scorecard
As he was not a Gentleman he was ruled out from captaining Yorkshire but his son was a Gentleman and so did captain Yorkshire.
The timing might have been because the Israelis judged that it would be harder for them to retain American support if they attacked Iran after a deal had been reached.
This is entirely conjecture, and I'm refraining from judgement overall.
If you're willing to strike, then you have to be prepared for the other side to strike back.
To prepare for the other side to strike back, it is logical that when you strike you hit as hard as you can, to diminish the other sides ability to hit back.
The binary question is do you strike or not. Once you've accepted a strike is necessary and legitimate then hitting as hard as you can, rather than surgical, is entirely logical.
If some of the loons in his government make the same mistakes as in Gaza, though, as Katz is sounding like this morning, it will all be for naught, with much suffering.
Of course Larwood and Voce were captained by Winchester boy Douglas Jardine, who was jolly posh.
I am seen him play things like tennis into his 60s and he was still scarily good.
But cricket was the one he could really play. I faced him a few times in the nets as a teenager and it was up there with pros I have faced albeit now slowing down, but could imagine a 20 something year old with more pace being a serious handful. He did play our school dads vs lads, but was banned after he basically ran through the school 1st XI in a few overs.
Frankly I was astonished that Blair wasn't brought down by the David Kelly affair. A better man might have resigned.
Preventing Iran from getting nukes is legitimate and proportionate.
Preventing Iran from retaliating because you're preventing them from getting nukes is also legitimate and proportionate.
Nothing unjust here.
Carpet bombing civilians would be unjust and not proportionate. That's not happening.
Even 20 years ago when I was playing, we got quite good crowds to watch the 1st XI teams. But back in the 50/60s lots of these local sports teams got serious crowds.
I'd argue that the mens teams are fairly diverse in their social make up (aside of the village being rather well to do) but you can see that the influx of younger players skews privately educated.
Motive is also important
Why the fuck did Blair do it? He can't have believed all of the WMD flannel. Did he want the approval of GWB and the US establishment that much? Was he just bored having ceded so much of the domestic policy turf to Brown. All of the above. No explanation seems wholly credible.
If the motive is to prevent Iran retaliating then it is entirely legitimate.
Once you've made the decision to strike, it is logical to strike hard and not surgically.
Again, just as Blair did. Once you cross that rubicon, there's little point holding back.
He ended up being a bit useful at cricket becoming captain of India.
Walking past the park on the way to the fish and chip shop, one notes a racial divide. Cricketers are of Asian descent; footballers less so. I've no information on their schools.
Also further down the tier you can drink!
And the more people go to, say, West Didsbury and Chorlton FC, the better a day out it becomes. So it's a bit self-fulfilling.
England are odds-on to win the darts, with both players, Lukes Littler and Humphries, newly-MBE'd.
And Emma Raducanu has hurt her back again, just in time for Wimbledon.
Gibb went to a private school then Cambridge uni, played as an amateur for Yorkshire and England, turned professional which led to him being kicked out of the MCC and ended up as a bus driver.
On the plus side they stop drawing their pensions.
In all interviews I have seen with him since, he is at his most sincere when defending his decisions at that time. I, like most, are not convinced by the way the conflict was sold to us at the time, and I think the passage of time has borne that out, but I have no doubt he thought that the decision was correct.
He thought Iraq would be the same.
I've used taxis so many times.
Trafford actually has free parking. It's only not been rationalised out of existence because it was the first NHS hospital.
https://x.com/ScottGoetz_/status/1933099350592491987
The 280,000 figure appears to be sourced from this entirely anonymous Google Spreadsheet labelled “Enterprise Statistics” which is high in the search results if you search for “OnlyFans statistics”: https://simplebeen.com/onlyfans-statistics/
If you dig into that spreadsheet you’ll discover that the 280,000 figure for the UK is marked in Grey which means (see the Documentazione tab on the spreadsheet) that the source for that figure is ... wait for it ... ChatGPT.
So the Spectator splashed a story on the front page where the source turns out ultimately to be ChatGPT. Shocking failure all round: Do they not fact check anything?
1) There is simply far too much, too many events, too many channels, so much almost nothing stands out as being unmissable.
2) Following everything on telly etc, and attending elite level, and even second level, stuff is disproportionately expensive.
3) Monetization of nearly all top level sport both encourages distrust in its reality, and also means there are hidden primary motives in almost everything. In particular cricket and rugby union are culturally completely remote from their history.
4) The cult of personality is dominant, and is not everyone's idea of fun.
For lots of people the actually being there is important, as is a sense of identity. This is both cheaper and more meaningful at Steeple Sinderby FC (read the book if you haven't) than at MUFC.
The NHS are still opening new hospitals with phenomenally inadequate parking. It can only be deliberate, to "encourage" use of public transport, but it never works and means you get blocked in, or double parking on verges nearby and frayed tempers.
It explains why he go on with Bush so well.
Sums up everything that's wrong with the NHS.
I got abuse or passive-aggressive sarcasm at least twice: assuming it wasn't just me or my cycling (both very possible) then my conclusion is that people really don't like cyclists very much.
I was one for about 9 minutes.
https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/samson-and-cassandra
I did a 52km ride yesterday afternoon (it was hot!), and I stopped at some red lights on the misguided busway, but another cyclist just went straight across without looking - and you could not really see if it was clear on the approach to the crossing. It's the sort of thing you get away with 99 times, but the hundredth time gets you.
Going by your own car means going from home / work to the destination.
Going by bus involves walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus, going by bus to the town centre, walking to another bus stop, waiting for the second bus, going by the second bus to the destination, walking to the destination.
Which is going to cost more, take far longer, be less comfortable and far less flexible.
One can only conclude they want to make it easy for the staff and discourage visitors.
See also “The high cost of free parking” by Donald Shoup (not that hospital parking is usually free, but many of the same arguments apply).
There's a very good book on being a UN chemical weapons inspector in the 1990s, and (to me at least) it showed how people in power in the west could easily have come to believe that Saddam had such weapons.
This BBC article highlights some of the issues they faced:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24174343
If that hospital had plenty of parking, you'd find the surrounding roads congested. That might cause issues for the local community, get in the way of those buses, prevent commercial vehicles from getting around - and delay ambulances trying to get to A&E.
So the overall cost of providing parking is not in the parking spot but rather the road network around the hospital. That's why the council got so upset at Clarkson and his shop - the significant negative externality that he passed on to the rest of the community.