HanoiVillan

Well, okay, fine. Let's stop talking about it then, and start talking instead about how he had utterly failed to familiarise himself with standard police crowd control procedures, the layout of the ground or even that crowd control was part of his job.

Just look at Dean Saunders, how that man finds work in football is harder to understand than string theory.

I think people are puzzled why you're insisting on highlighting the moment he had a difficult decision to make rather than addressing the dozens of earlier moments when just doing his **** job properly would have meant the difficult decision would never have occurred.

Don't be ashamed, be happy. You get to watch a brilliant, brilliant TV show for the first time. I'm jealous, not smug.

Yeah, love this show. Thought I wouldn't originally, but totally love it at this point, and don't care about accents.

Love the music, me:

Yes, I think we're in agreement. On your final point, I'm more optimistic. For Sanders personally, it's too late. He's too old to run again, so he doesn't get to sit in the big chair. But the future for left-wing politics in America is maybe a little rosier than you assume. I'm not at all a fan of splitting people into 'generations', as I don't actually really believe they exist. However, it is true that the composition of the Democratic electorate is shifting to the left, and that the cause of this shift is increasing left-wing ('liberal' or 'socialist', rather than 'moderate') viewpoints among younger voters. This goes together with a shift to the left in the congressional Democratic caucus, which has gone largely unremarked because it pales in comparison to the leap to the right on the other side, but nevertheless is clearly happening. Finally, I think the macroeconomic situation favours broadly left-wing politics over the long run, from secular stagnation to the global investment dearth and the increasing competition for hours.

The USA is a big country, so it's kind of inevitable that mistakes will be made somewhere. There clearly has been a significant number (too many, much too many, of course) of mistakes, especially in New York where the Board of Elections is considered a chaotic mess. Some of these mistakes will be clerical errors, some unknown percentage will be fraud. But Clinton is currently more than 3 million votes ahead in the popular vote, to believe Bernie would be winning otherwise (and I appreciate you're not saying that) somewhere between 5 and 10% of all ballots cast would be fraudulent. I think there's a mistaken impulse on the part of Sanders supporters to blame 'the system' when that's missing the real story. Clinton is a very strong candidate. She enjoys approval ratings of around about 75-80% among registered Democrats, which is high historically. She also has massively more money, elite support and name recognition. Sanders was considered a no-hoper, but he's run her moderately close (without ever being that close, it has to be said). It's a triumph in other words, not a scandal. It gives me hope for the future of Democrat party politics, more than I think I've had in my lifetime.

I deeply dislike Hilary, and I'd much rather Bernie had won. That being said, the idea that Hilary has won through foul play has absolutely no basis in fact.

I quite like it.

I've got to admit you've lost me. I wasn't trying to make a point about the ethics or otherwise of Eddie the Eagle's wealth.

Probably the same way, I was just teasing. Or maybe 'Why'd you say that?'

The point I'm trying to make, obviously not very well, is that we love underdogs.

But the 'media fawning' is entirely correct. A 5,000-1 outsider came home. Now, to an extent that reflects stupid pricing on the part of bookies (they wouldn't even give a horse with three legs those kind of odds, and I can't really see any justification for odds in a sporting event of more than a few hundred to one, but this is by the by) but it genuinely is astonishing. And the media scrum over the story isn't 'because it's Leicester', it's 'because it's amazing'. If a political party won election with those odds, if a sprinter with those odds won in the Olympics, if a mother was about to give birth to octuplets, there would be a media scrum. 'Jamie Vardy: The Movie' sounds pretty painful, but also pretty well pitched in this country. 'Eddie The Eagle' is currently towards the top of the box office.

?

Probably it's because you write things like 'may I ask why you thought that?'

Such a deeply average movie.

Isn't it possible to think Leicester winning the league is great, and also agree with all the other stuff at the same time? They don't look mutually exclusive to me.

Yeah, it was a pretty good movie, but it wasn't scary in the slightest. I didn't even watch it 'as a horror movie', I found it more interesting as a drama.

Can you imagine the public health risks from cider brewed in wooden vats on straw-strewn floors? Make a H&S inspector's eyes bleed, that would.

Well, for what it's worth, Blair and Brown aren't around any more. Nor is the Labour leadership today particularly similar to the Labour leadership of 2010 (for better or for worse).

Isn't the knock on him that he isn't very good at organising a defence? IE, exactly the same criticism as Martinez?

Looking at the Chelsea squad in his first season reveals some other long-forgotten names: Jesper Gronkjaer Tore Andre Flo Ed De Goey

I think I just liked his name. Though he did play for SHA, so that's a mark against him obvs. However, he also mostly sucked for them as I recall, so maybe not such a mark against him after all.