HanoiVillan

Lee Preece has my sympathy.

Wow, Elisha Cooper brought her snarking A game there, huh. 'Kolo Touré, who had never scored for Liverpool, scored for Liverpool.' Like a dagger, Elisha, like a dagger.

Point taken.

Yes, that. But he's probably the nation's second-best centre back (after Smalling).

Do you sing with him in a quartet?

About where I am too.

The world's least-likely RB. Fantasy legend though.

. . . absolutely should go. Zero per cent chance he will, but he should.

There will also be occasions when we're on Five Live Sports Extra - obviously only radio, but can listen online with only basic proxy server foolery.

Gotcha! I would assume most people are probably not 'that' principled . . . . it's kind of hard to live your life like that. Avoiding things 'made in China' is pretty much consigning yourself to an agrarian existence in a mud hut. As I said, most of the boycotts I've seen proposed are targeted quite specifically at produce from settlements. Certainly this is the most effective, IMO, because it makes clear the issue is with 'the policy not the people'. EDIT: . . . . and therefore it's much easier to uphold consistently, which was the point of this paragraph!

Right, yes. The man who has been playing professional football for nearly a decade. 'Not really a pro footballer'. It's a good one that.

Apologies.

He wouldn't have been any worse at all. It would be deeply dumb to ditch a player who is contracted to the club and clearly playing well at that level.

I have to agree.

Yeah, those posts weren't very prescient were they? One thing I will say for all those pages and pages though, they were an awful lot more interesting to read than you pointing out how right you were YET AGAIN.

I confess I don't really understand. At issue is the criminalisation of local governments and other bodies, such as student unions, boycotting certain products, mostly agricultural produce grown in illegal settlements. Nobody, to my understanding, has actually proposed boycotting all Israeli products. However, even if they did, the types of organisation that are under discussion are not able to dictate which medicines are available on the NHS. As to whether any individual feels strongly enough about boycotting Israeli products to not use a drug that could save their lives, well, that's up to them and their consciences I guess. But that's not relevant to the legislation? I'm sure I'm just being dumb, and missing the point here somehow.

A bit of a straw man there. Nobody is talking about an NHS boycott of anything.

Of course 'they' are 'crapping themselves' at the idea of the UK leaving. We're not a normal country in the EU - we contain the continent's largest city, its' financial centre, one of its' largest armies (and closest link to America) and there is in no general no desire to see us leave. There is also a considerable fear that one country walking out may be a precursor to other countries walking out (not to mention issues like Catalan independence as well). The only lever that the rest of Europe will have is our need to get back into the Common Market. You're arguing they won't pull it - I'm arguing that they will, and my argument is backed up by EU leaders saying that they will.

Yes, I'm not saying I disagree with you, even. Just trying to guess - while being too lazy to read two trial transcripts! - why there might have been this surprising difference in sentencing. Sentencing comparisons aren't always 'logical', but the system does have a strong interest in 'seeming fair', so there may be an issue with the light sentence in this case for the reckless driver.

Because, as stated previously, there will be an enormous incentive for the EU to set tough restrictions on British access to the Common Market in order to discourage further leavers. Your belief that European leaders won't punish the UK certainly isn't borne out by statements from EU leaders.

Even if you grant that these boycotts are 'socially divisive' (and I don't, or I don't think it's particularly important anyway), lots of things that local governments and related bodies do are 'socially divisive', from licencing strip clubs to pedestrianising city centres to muslim-women-only times at the swimming pool. The correct response to these situations is through speech, and then the ballot box in local elections or student union elections or whatever. It's not through policemen, lawyers and the judiciary.

Firstly, as I say, the figures I've seen are closer to £120 million. Secondly, paying no money to Europe is not an option in this referendum. Even if people vote 'leave', we will still have to contribute to the EU budget, just like Norway and Switzerland do, in order to have access to the Common Market. Norway pays roughly 90% of what we do per capita, Switzerland (which has weaker access to the market) pays around 50% of what we do per capita. Anybody who tells you that we will simply stop paying money to the EU is just lying to you.

I'm not an expert on these particular cases, but isn't there a question of intent here? ie, the man who sold fake goods for years was clearly running a criminal conspiracy, from which he intended to profit, but the person who killed someone by dangerous driving made a tragic mistake, without any intent? I'm sure if you ran over someone in your car and it was clearly possible to prove that you had planned to do so, that you would be tried for murder and then the sentence would be much harsher.

As I posted on the previous page, some estimates put the cost, minus incomings, at around £120 million/per week. Even if we call if £190 million/per week, that's still only about £3 per person per week. It's not a particularly large part of the government's budget.