LondonLax

4 hours ago, regular_john said:

Why would IS attack Russia?

Because of Russia’s help given to Assad in Syria killed a lot of them and went a long way to destroying their caliphate.They have also been attacking Iran recently, a close Russian ally.

The same branch of IS bombed St Petersburg a few years ago and Russia said they foiled an attack from them on a Moscow mosque a couple of weeks ago. 

Some grim footage online from the concert hall. 

3 hours ago, villa89 said:

The reason they don't put boots on the ground is that the reality is that NATO doesn't really care about Ukraine, or how many people die there. It suits them to have an ongoing war that weakens Russia hugely and has little impact on Western economies. NATO couldn't be scared of Russia, they know how weak the Russian army is. 

The other reason is that NATO troops on the ground means NATO deaths on the ground. 

It’s not a popular political move to send your own people off to fight in a foreign war and watch as a proportion of them come back in body bags. 

42 minutes ago, paul514 said:

we are 15m under the 3 year limit and will now have a substantially higher income next season due to CL and sponsors. We can also cut wages with our fringe players going by a hell of a lot and we can sell 1 star for big money to spend a lot.

Yes we could potentially sell a star player to fund the purchase but I can’t see us adding him to the current squad.

I don’t think we would be looking as making such an expensive signing though even if we sell to buy. We’d sell a star to reinvest in a couple of positions and ease FFP. 

We’re not signing a player like that with our FFP troubles.

I imagine the referee has difficulty hearing the VAR feed over the noise of the crowd so the VAR guys have to yell. 

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Sad to see Starmer jumping onto the England football kit flag motif debate and asking Nike to replace it with a proper English flag for proper English people.

 

He was asked a question about it and he answered that he didn’t think there was a need to change the flag. It seems the obvious answer really. He also said the price of the shirts was too high. 

Boeing’s issues go much further than a door falling off. This whole article is a pretty incredible summary of their problems over the last decade. 
 

Quote

Boeing whistleblower John Barnett was found dead in his car with a gunshot wound to his head on the same day he was due to testify against the aircraft manufacturer.

The mysterious incident happened as the company’s stock has nosedived, fuelled by a series of incidents including a door plug which flew off a 737 MAX 9 operated by Alaska Airlines at 16,000 feet on Jan. 5 and a wheel falling off a 777 jet a few weeks later.

https://www.skynews.com.au/business/boeings-shocking-personnel-scandals-drug-dealing-love-triangle-and-murdersuicide/news-story/93d41c9090cb5919ce7c5f8309d6bb8d?amp&nk=5f12f38ab1f8355b495f64ccb2afbb2d-1710934838

27 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I've often thought about this, as someone who was a little 'un at the time and wasn't really directly affected by it.

From a modern perspective, the concept of men going into mines to dig up coal is so archaic and, in fact, seems pretty distasteful in many ways.

So, was the real problem with the shutting down of the coal mining not the end aim of removing that industry, but the manner in which is it was done? The timescales, the pension issues, the police behaviour etc.? Because I cannot imagine any world in which manual coal mining would still be a thing now.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Thatcher in any way at all, I'm just curious what people think the "best" solution should have been to this assuming that we should have arrived ultimately at a point where coal mining was a thing of the past anyway.

We didn’t lose our coal mining industry in Australia but it has actually become a bit of a rod for our backs in the move to decarbonise the economy for the sake of climate change.

The coal mining industry and its workers are a powerful voting block and lobby heavily to resist any moves towards the phasing out of coal power stations in favour of renewable energy sources. The Labour Party often try and ‘ride two horses’ by telling their inner city voters all about their great ideas for renewable energy, only to head off to the coal mining regions promising their industries will not be touched.

19 hours ago, Genie said:

Exactly, making personal remarks about someone’s appearance who was only doing their job is not ok at all.

He’s not talking about the guy’s appearance. He’s saying he has not done his research before asking that line of questioning. 

4 hours ago, Zatman said:

Proper moments of magic stuff

He just needs you to look him in the eye though-out. 

Our fans expectations would probably seem similar to fans of a club further down the food chain. 

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Are there any real world examples of Boeing actually hiring inferior pilots?

They seem to be hiring some terrible engineers lately

2 minutes ago, Mantis said:

He tried something which given our injuries and suspensions was understandable which didn't work out, which he sorted and we got a point.

Again, that's not "making a mess".

Also who said criticism of Emery wasn't allowed?

So essentially we are all in agreement, it’s just our choice of wording on how much we criticise our manager

11 minutes ago, Mantis said:

I'd hardly call getting a point from a difficult away fixture, one we haven't won in 13 years, with so many of our key players missing and while juggling European football, "making a mess".

He did though. We started with too little experience and fortunately he realised his mistake and corrected it for the second half. 

In essence we gave Spurs too much respect starting 5 at the back at home, then gave West Ham too little respect starting Rogers and Duran away. 

Fortunately Emery realised his mistake in time today and we ended the weekend in a solid position. 

We’re just too short of experience and too many out of position. 

1 hour ago, sne said:

Interesting choice of words.

 

He knows what he’s doing. 

Just now, nick76 said:

Issue being the opposition party wouldn’t agree to pass the amendment despite the popularity of the nation, so the people wouldn’t get to decide.

I have a scenario for you as well. The ‘Umbrella Movement’ kicked off in Hong Kong because the Chinese government decreed that whilst the Hong Kong people were allowed to vote for their leader they were only allowed to vote once the candidates were vetted and any that didn’t meet the criteria of the communist party were struck off the list. 

Potentially you also think the people of Hong Kong were wrong to protest against their preferred candidate being struck off for not meeting the requirements to stand? 

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

Just a question I’m intrigued about given your view on the above.

At the height of Schwarzenegger popularity and also his interest in politics, if he had created a similar base like Trump would’ve had the same argument as above where the rule would be against a foreign national?  

Or a modern day American who has a massive fan base who would follow her to the ends of the earth in Taylor Swift who would be 34 years old at the time of the election but if her fans (assume enough voting Americans) wanted her to be President but she falls foul of the age requirement would say ignore the constitution and let the people vote?

I think if they were popular enough and serious about it then it would be possible to make it happen so that the people get who they want to represent them, either by an amendment or some other interpretation. 

It’s back in our hands again 

4-0

No, offside

Spurs getting thrashed 

2 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

TalkShite unaware of a match outside London why I never

Ironic that our match tomorrow is in London then

Playing 5 at the back at home to Spurs was a mistake. They can be gotten at if we were a bit braver. 

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Which was why they have the option of making a decision without setting precedent.

If everything should be decided by the people, why have separation of powers?

It was fully within their power as the legislative branch of government essentially bar the Republican candidate but they unanimously decided it was not the way they wanted to go with it.

In a robotic ‘letter of the law’ interpretation he would be barred but on a ‘is that really what we want?’ interpretation all 9 voted to let it go.

This is also how I would have judged it myself and argued as much before the decision was handed down. I take it you would have ruled differently if you were in their position. I guess we will never know which would have led to the better outcome for US society in the long term.