welnik

Just starting my research and wondered if anyone has any good recommedations for food, must see "sights" and the best way to get around. Looks quite compact but hilly in places. Really looking forward to it but only have Friday evening and two full days to cram as much in as I can and then Monday morning.  Looks an amazing place to visit. Any recommendations?

Some absolute bellend decided it would be fun to play chicken with me and my van through the cones on the A452. Cock nearly ran me off the road, and then had the temerity to thank me for letting him in front! 

This is the section from the A45 island to the M6. 

22 minutes ago, Genie said:

Not sure if you have kids, there's a programme on CBBC called "classed dismissed" and one of the teachers on that is basically a spoof of Greg Wallace, its very funny.

Mine are late teens now so we haven't seen the show. I'll check it out on the iplayer. Thanks for that 

On 18/09/2019 at 21:51, Chindie said:

Third heat of 'celebrity' MasterChef.

Dillian Whyte, Greg Rutherford, Martha Reeves, a Radio 1 DJ and a French actress who I've never heard of. 

We're in danger of actually have a round of actually famous people. I mean niche famous, but famous.

Also Greg Rutherford. Is there a less likeable British sports personality? I didn't like him when he was actually competing, but now when he's angling for a media career, **** hell.

I can't watch that show, the voice over woman makes my teeth hurt, and don't get me started on Greg **** Wallace, an absolute bell end 

On 19/09/2019 at 10:28, Shropshire Lad said:

When Jessica Ennis and Mo Farah won their golds in 2012, Rutherford won another one at the same time (they all won within an hour of each other). So he picked up a fair bit of exposure, obviously through his own ability and achievement, but also in part from doing it at the same time as two more well known athletes.

This is the most I’ve seen his name in seven years.

Actually, that day, " super Saturday" we won six golds, which I think is a record! 

Woohoo! And we're off and running! 

Charlie sheen next, or Vera, or kirk Douglas, or even all three would be great. 

Unfortunately, Phill the Greek is immortal! 

6 minutes ago, Jimzk5 said:

Do you know how Hubert ended up in the barriers in the first pace, ive been watching f1 for over 20 years and I can't remember anyone losing control of the car so far out the exit of eau rouge

It all happened so fast I couldn't tell you. I haven't seen any replays of the incident, its just the absolute carnage I keep seeing. There were loads of people taking videos at the time so I might go look for it on YouTube just to make sense of it all.

Thanks jackbaur, that would make a lot of sense. 

I'm at Spa and watched it live. I hardly slept last night watching it in my mind over and over. My mate looked at me at the time and said that he thought it was bad, and the fact that it wasn't shown again was a clue. As the ambulances were driving up the Kemmel straight, one of them was going slowly, as if they were working on him. I was told that they drove slowly all the way round to malmedy where the exit was. 

Horrible 

19 hours ago, blandy said:

It's just my perception, but no, absolutely not. They're not.

It's like this (in my view, with some back up from known facts)

The tories want and alsways have wanted Brexit (since the Ref). May tried to get a deal through parliament, her deal failed 3 times because of her red lines and because, specifically the throbbers hate the backstop. The throbbers said "the backstop has to go" they don't much care about the rest of the deal, it's hard enough for them.

Boris Johnson voted for the May deal at the last vote.

The throbbers have always claimed that they want a deal, but that the EU has to believe we are prepared to walk away, that "no deal" has to be kept on the table as a negotiating strategy. That the EU has to believe we mean it.

Johnson's strategy since he came in has been to do exactly what the thobbers have been saying needed to be done - make the EU believe we mean we're OK with no deal. By definition, this means others also have to believe we are OK with no deal.

That's all all this is. It's an enactment of the throbber negotiating tactic. They hope the EU will crack a bit, offer them something, then they'll put it to parliament, and they hope that the "threat" of no deal, plus the tweak from the EU will get basically May's deal (with the tweak) through parliament by 31 October.

That's been (in my eyes) transparent since Johnson took over. He/they don't actually  mean or want no deal. It's their act, their game. They're spending moey and time and effort to try to scare enough EU people. That's all this is. Playing throbby games.

It actually aids them, to an extent when opposition or media raise how terrible it all is and how the tories are going to no deal Brexit - it helps with the perception it's "real".

But their desire, the real one, is for a revised deal. The "commitment" to no deal is entirely fake (apart from a tiny handful of full on nutters).

The two big risks they have, are that either they scare enough moderate Tory MPs into siding with the opposition parties and they hoof out Johnson as a consequence, or that the EU calls their bluff, and caught between a lie and a hard place, they have to follow their own lie (though I believe that actaully would be stopped, one way or another) . Either way they're utterly goosed, ultimately.

 

 

I believe there is also the matter of the £39B divorce bill if we leave with a deal. Without that ,the whole thing comes crashing down. France is about to go into recession, the German government now own Deutsche Bank cos it's bankrupt, the whole EU project is teetering on the brink. They need the money! No-one wants no deal. This is just another negotiating tactic.

7 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The Graun is satire these days, the opinion section is absolute pathetic.

And yet some people here use it as if it's the absolute truth! 

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

Scholes used to do it a lot 

I seem to remember that vidic did it in a cup final, should have been sent off but the muppet who was referee was "mindful of the occasion" 

Cock 

45 minutes ago, villan-scott said:

If they lose possession in the opposition half, they just stop the player from then counter attacking by bringing them down, obstructing them or pulling them down. 

They do it far up the pitch and often various players so they rarely get booked for it too!

This has been a bugbear of mine for years. reading this took me back to Yanited doing this all the time to us. I think the big teams have been doing this for as long as I can remember.

Looks like I forgot the golden rule ..... It's only click bait when it's the Mail. 

Information leaked, sources say......... All that jazz. Newspaper trying to get clicks, what a shock!

57 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

Hmm, some more random made up shit, but it fits the narrative so it's OK 

Hang on a minute. According to the data you posted, public spending has increased year on year. Your data is wrong, we've been subjected to massive tory cuts this last nine years! 

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Those two things are the same thing. The Government "redistributing" revenue they take from various taxes IS "Government spending" (not all of the Gov't's spending, but it absolutely is some of it).

And funnily enough, it is used for public spending! Who would have thought that! 

Not at all! 

Next

1 hour ago, peterms said:

"you can't recruit ten thousand doctors if there aren't that many people willing to do it" 

Exactly! How is that a political choice. If they are not there to recruit, how is that anything to do with the Government and I suppose the BOE should just keep printing money willy nilly as it would appear that we don't need monetary restraint according to some. 

Can you tell me what the Government did with the £792.9 billion that was brought in from taxation and how much money did they have to borrow to pay off the £1.5 trillion debt? But then I suppose we should just cancel it like all good banana republics.   

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

The purpose of tax is redistribution, and also to limit inflation by reducing the money available to the private sector to spend.  It's not to fund government spending.  Issuing bonds is a choice for government, and it could equally spend without doing so.  The point of the line we are given, and which you appear to accept, is to claim that there is simply no capacity for the government to do more.  That's untrue, but it serves a political purpose.  We could if we chose for example employ more doctors and teachers (or police), and the constraint on doing so is the supply of suitably skilled people who want to do the work, as well as things like time required to increase training capacity, accommodation and so on.  The accounting arrangements of government are not the constraint, and "there's no money" is a fiction designed to deny the political choice being made.

Ok,so why are we paying tax? And what did the government spend the tax money on, if not the public sector?

 So what you are saying is that it's not political choices, but a lack of suitable candidates! 

31 minutes ago, peterms said:

From the government issuing it.  It can then decide also to issue bonds to match that ("borrowing"), or not, if it wishes to allow the money supply to increase.  Either way, government spending doesn't depend on gathering it in from the private sector.

Or, to put it plainly! from tax and/or borrowing.The only problem is, there isn't enough money from tax to go around, and any money you "borrow" has to be paid back. And how much is enough?

1 hour ago, peterms said:

The constraints facing the NHS are things like availability of suitable staff to be recruited, materials to be used for buildings or services, and choices made by government, not whether there is "no money left".

So where does the money come from ?

14 hours ago, peterms said:

Thread.

Same old stuff.  Lying announcements about extra money.  Announcing the same money many times over. 

Always held in thrall to the beancounters and their concept of what is "responsible", always based on their idea of "money" as something finite, gathered in like apples from trees.

 

What ? Wait............. You mean money is INfinite?

11 hours ago, Mic09 said:

I would love if there were no hard rules as there are now - engine size, number of engines a season, tyre regulation, all that crap.

Just a bunch of teams making cars to see who can make the fastest vehicle possible and win the race. That would be amazing.

That would just leave Ferrari and Mercedes then. No-one else has the budget to match these two. I know it'll never happen, but I'd like to see every driver in the same car. Then we'd see how good they all are!

Even Hulkenburg might get a podium!!!

Cheers Nick

Couldn't believe he was there! What was that all about?