OutByEaster?

4-5-1 with a 5 that actually has a chance of keeping the ball. I'm all excited.

I did get a bit of a buzz about Ayew - he's a better player than Rhodes though.

I'm not convinced on Rhodes. When you sign a centre forward I think there should be something of a buzz about it, I don't get that from this one, I think we could do better.

I'm not so sure his voice won't be heard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Farm_Bureau_Federation https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021832

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08bcc18/storyville-zero-days-nuclear-cyber-sabotage A really interesting documentary here on the development of cyber weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear reactors by the US and Israel (and to a lesser extent the UK) it's frightening how potent this stuff is.

I don't agree - this time around Donald is the terrorism; he's the great distraction that we're all looking at while a handful of people carve up a nation for profit.

Was that a smile?

i think there's a degree to which the specifics of protest are becoming difficult to define - people (I think) are feeling that things are getting further away from them, that the gap between what people want and what politics does for economy instead is growing - I think this leaves them upset. I think then you have a media and a savvy group of people that are able to put sufficient influence into Democracy that it leaves a huge chunk of the population feeling it's failing them. I think you also have some very influential, very rich people in the US and elsewhere who are able to push the line of "small government good, big government bad" and further erode people's belief in political democracy as a means of change. Take away the choices that are available, make those that still are appear to be something more than is actually on offer and you weaken peoples belief in politics as a means of influence - you take away the idea that the collective can change the world. Add in Donald and his omni-cluster-unpleasantness and you divide what there is into so many subsets that they lose their voice, that they end up as one big massive blob of people who don't seem to be able to focus on that one thing that they're unhappy about. I think we're at a point where our democratic institutions are now so in thrall to our economic institutions that they're almost an absurd parody of the democratic principle and without being able to quite put a handle on it, I think we know it. However, I believe there's an innate knowledge that a collective spirit can change things, it's completely undisciplined, largely uninformed, unfocused and without a concrete aim, but at some level I think people know they're being lied to and want to do something about it. Protest against bad things is worthwhile, even just as a reminder to the people that they don't necessarily agree with the things that they were encouraged to vote for and they know that something is wrong. I think the notion that we should discourage protest because it's unfocused is one of the main purposes of Trumps style - it becomes harder every day for people to remain focussed on what's important, because there's just so much to be angry about - but I don't think that should mean people shouldn't try.

It'll be debated in Parliament anyway - an online .gov petition reached 300,000 signatures in a matter of hours.

Because he's a little bit unpopular.

You'll end up with a million people on the streets, disrupt, huge police costs and all the trouble that comes with that - it'll be a horror show.

He has, this morning.

The one thing he has said this morning in terms of things that the UK can do about a US Presidents Executive Order is that he doesn't believe we should be inviting him on a formal state visit and he's asking Teresa May to rescind the offer. I've got to say, the idea of Trump visiting the UK and the attendant riots doesn't fill me with joy, but I suppose there's a responsibility on all us to get out there and show him our arses (metaphorically speaking) if it happens.

116-114 Santa Cruz for me. I thought he had his distances perfectly judged throughout the fight.

So what's the purpose of all this distracting madness?

Yakuza Apocalypse - bonkers and great fun.

Which is my slightly backward way of saying you're right @HanoiVillan

She's agreed to sell them £100m of fighter jet development to Turkey. Hoorah for our PM and he continuing battle to make life better for you and me. I for one can't wait for Erdogan's blood money to trickle down to those places where it can make our society better.

I understand, I guess I see it as trying to reinstate a social order, they're not looking to maintain the prevailing societal conditions based on free markets, deregulation, privatisation and reductions in public spending - for me that makes them radical and if not socialist by definition, socialist by direction. I guess whether or not they're conservative in trying to maintain something might be down to whether you believe that thing still exists. Anyway, I think we're arguing on definitions and semantics and, in the spirit of the new age, I reserve the right to define those things in any way that suits me.

That being true (and it is) I'd therefore have to disagree with the suggestion that the Green Party are conservative with either c.

I think I agree with them on this - I think it's also worth pointing out that whilst you can describe these as conservative rather than radical ideas, they're also very much ideas from the left and a reflection of left wing socialist ideology.

I thought that was a penalty on Costa Wolves have had a couple of chances to double the lead.

Oops Liverpool. Lambert will shut up shop for the last 89 minutes.

And I think this is the issue for both the Green Party and Labour - I'm essentially a socialist, I voted Green at the last election because Labour weren't a socialist party (and in spite of their ecological policies) - I was excited by Corbyn and the promise of bringing that Labour party back, but he hasn't succeeded in changing the party and the internal fight, coupled with a hostile media and the fact that he's a bit scruffy looking means he won't ever be effective as a vote winner. The Greens won't be effective either, because, well, because they're the Greens and they're just mad environmentalists innit. There's a massive gap in the political landscape for a party that can effectively deliver a message that I believe the majority of the British people support.

I don't see those things as necessarily in opposition - the EU is a mess, that gives it a little flexibility - it supports both the idiocy of trickle down economics and Friedman's monster but at the same time is open to progressive steps on things like protection of labour and nationalised industries - the EU is more left wing than the UK government, that's one of the reasons that there's a move to break it up.