Jump to content

HanoiVillan

VT Supporter
  • Posts

    23,220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

Everything posted by HanoiVillan

  1. Once you realise how much better it is going on your own, you won't want to go with other people again
  2. So per Starmer's LBC phone in, they favour an approach where you won't be able to go to eg a football match unless you are both double-vaccinated *and* have got a negative test. How long do they envisage this lasting for? Genuinely quite concerned about this becoming a 'new normal'.
  3. Maybe, though my personal suspicion - I don't think he's stupid - is that it's less 'can't compute that' and more 'knows he won't ever need to present or put forward a realistic solution to this problem so is choosing to posture and pretend instead'.
  4. It's bad enough that the BBC have basically none of this Olympics and I have to shell out for some **** app I don't want, but what makes it even worse is they . . . appear to have done no advertising at all about this? How come we're all only working this out for ourselves after it's already been on for about 3 days? EDIT: Feel quite strongly that 'the entire Olympic package' should be on the reserved list of stuff that has to be free-to-air.
  5. A Twitter thread that is a little old, but I only came across it this morning. A really good read on 'what was happening in government in March 2020':
  6. It's a very silly argument TBH. Clubs market their merchandise with their popular players, because popular players help sell merchandise. Sometimes clubs sell their popular players. Sometimes things change between the time of the concept design and shooting of the advertising, and the start of the following season. The player will stay or he will go, but if he stays it won't be because he appeared in a couple of promotional videos. The impression this argument gives is of a drowning man clinging to any old piece of rotten driftwood.
  7. Trying to tread very carefully in posting here, but I'm not sure the simple explanation is the right one. Firstly, is his financial position that great? Presumably he spent a huge amount on legal fees, and his future earning prospects are very bad indeed; no decent level football team will take him on, no possible coaching or managerial career, no media roles, and presumably it's not like he's got great grades at school to make it easy to change careers. I remember from the trial that both she, and her family, 'stood by him' as they say. It may be that they truly believe he did little wrong, that it was a miscarriage of justice, or something else along those lines.
  8. We're still doing huge amounts of tests:
  9. 'Stars are Other Suns', a fruited sour ale with guava, peach and mango flavours by Elm Eleven, a Swedish brewery. This was quite delicate for a sour, and in fact the name 'fruited sour ale' may suggest something fruitier rather than more sour, which would be true. It's very tropical, with not too much of a kick. I found it perfectly tasty and reasonable to drink, but at roughly £5.50 a bottle I'm not at all convinced it's good value for money at that price point.
  10. I wouldn't put it so dramatically, but it's along these lines. The guy used to be a human rights lawyer, but has shown no interest in the topic while in the current role, and indeed eg whipped the party to abstain on the CHIS bill. He was parachuted into a safe seat, and did not rise through the party in any traditional pathway of either the left, soft left or right. He won the leadership contest on a platform of 10 pledges, absolutely none of which he appears to have any interest or intention of keeping, by pitching himself as basically loyal to Corbyn and hewing to something close to the 2017 manifesto, which again he clearly has no intention of doing. Yet at the same time, the right of the party are suspicious of him, and do not (yet?) regard him as one of their own. People can, if they want, debate the merits of winning a leadership contest on a lie. Maybe people can make some kind of cynical, instrumentalist argument that whatever lie you have to tell to win power to 'save the party from itself' is worth doing or something. I personally think that's bullshit, but it's an argument that could be made. But what is harder to do is suggest that he is clearly 'a believer in a thing' in @blandy's words. On the contrary, I don't think there has been a Labour leader for many decades whose own personal politics are so well-hidden or whose approach is so cynical.
  11. Not many transfers have grabbed my attention in the last couple of days, but two players leaving the English game are Mario Lemina (Southampton to Nice for I think £5.5m) and Patrick Van Aanholt going to Galatasaray on a free after his Palace contract ended.
  12. Have Unite actually reduced funding significantly, or have they just threatened it? It should be pointed out that Evans blamed declining membership numbers and legal fees for their financial situation the other day, not anything about the unions....
  13. I think what this list of trilogies is showing is that I don't much like trilogies really.
  14. I doubt Steve Bruce is setting the budget.
  15. Isn't he just going to be back up, maybe play in some cup games?
  16. On a more serious note, this is a very good and important thread: . . . as Goodall realises that all of these food distribution industry workers pinged by the app are - get this - expected to go to work as normal *but also* to isolate all the rest of the time as if they were off work. He asks not unreasonably about the legal and moral basis for this: There's just no chance people will follow these rules, and nor **** should they, but it's the purest distillation of the government's approach throughout the pandemic to demand that potentially infected and infectious people continue attending mostly low-paid employment but also not see friends or family or go to the shops or be able to live in any way outside work. The Tory id in its purest form.
  17. Not I. Pretty much any of their caramel flavours are the tits.
  18. 'FUN' FACT! The name Häagen-Dazs is not a name, and does not mean anything in any language. The name was chosen by the initial founders - a New York Jewish couple - as a tribute to Denmark's treatment of Jews during WWII, because they thought it sounded Danish.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â