blandy

I'm not saying this is my thinking, but it's easy to follow the logic about Corbyn not getting in (I agree, he won't) and take that on to..."well, we're gonna get battered next election, but my Leave voting place, that voted me in will see me supporting Leave and spare me and have at least one more Labour MP next time". And of course they can square that off with "why should I support that arse, Corbyn and his incompetent approach to all this, when I can legitimately claim to be representing my constituents who want to leave" In part it makes sense, doesn't it, if if we might think that they should actually put what's best for the UK first.

Stewart Lee put it better

Have you read all of what she wrote? Johnson still facing an almighty gamble Because to me that's kind of what you'd expect someone to do writing to a deadline - the Government says [this], the flip side is [that]. The tweet is misleading in that it selectively picks only one part of what she wrote. I share the view that she's not always analytical enough, that she is probably unconsciously "establishment" biased by nature, but beyond that I don't get the rage around what she reports.

It seems like it's essentially morphed into being in the actual deal, rather than being a contingency, only to be invoked in the event of various technical solutions not materialising. No wonder (from their perspective) the DUP are against .

Yes, it is. To be fair though, so is quite a lot of Remain.

Whatever the merits of the case generally, this is a terrible point. Firstly, he may be a remainer, because as a Doctor he can see remain as less damaging to the NHS, for example. Like a Hedge fund manager might be a Leaver because he could see how his industry could benefit. Or he may be because some other reason unrelated to medicine. He's still someone with better info in the area upon which he was commenting thatn the Fraud he was speaking to on the radio. Secondly, if we are to ignore the views of Remainers, because, well, they're remainers. We should also apply the same to Leavers. So then who do we listen to?

Clear to you, as in that's your interpretation, fine. But there were lots of contradictory, conflicting and untrue claims made about what we would be voting for. Farage, Hannan, Johnson, Gove, and various other throbbers were saying all sorts of versions of what they thought Brexit meant, almost from day to day, as did the various official manifestoey documenty things - for example Nothing about Tarrifs, customs checks, and all the rest, and it's certainly not clearly sending the message and saying " we will be out of the Single Market" - at my most charitable I could say it is disingenuous and confusing, but basically it's shown to be bollex.

She's not in a poor metal state or mentally unhealthy. As to the hatered that's directed towards her - there she is saying that we should act to save humans and the planet and the abuse is all coming from people who don't want to protect humans and the planet, they want to protect their money at the expense of humans and the planet, and from the deluded followers of that selfish set of whoppers.

It is clear as day

I did exactly that yesterday

Lived there, but wasn't (isn't) he an Aussie. Sort of more understandable.

Well, obviously. You're right, though.

The only number acceptable to the DUP is "ONE"" because if you're backwards looking, it's got a NO in it. edit - though if you look hard enough so does £10 billion

You're going down in my estimation High Maintenance man.

They clearly had photoshop.

That comparison with a Block of flats is floored on so many levels.

Yeah, absolutely. It's basically only Catweazle who wants it that way round. The rest of the LP, even his closest mates like Abbott, MacDonell, Long-Bailey and Co. think a referendum, then an election makes sense. And it does. Because either way, as you say, it removes Brexit from its all consuming role in a subsequennt election, (and where it still angers Leavers, they'll blame the tories and vote for the NF party), so Labour's message on the other things can stand or fall on its merits.

Not really, IMO. Regardless of the amount, "we pay them money" is the bit that's stuck and the throbbers use to claim their funny, throbby claims - they need us more than we need them...etc.

Not disagreeing with the condemnation for what the tories are proposing, but this assertion here is not sustainable, is it? Firstly, you're right, the level of detected voter fraud is in overall terms very small. It's the undetected part that is obiously not known. The current process for voting in person is to walk in, tell them "your" name and address, then vote. That's it. It's about as unsecure as can be. ID would make it more secure, a bit. If they were serious about making voting more secure and easy for the elderly and easier to register and all that, then you'd think that computers and the like might be involved, and even that internet thing. This ID cards ruse is just about self interest, them thinking more poor pensioners, poor folk generally and students will less likely have passports or Driving licenses and so blocking them helps the tories. It's nob all to do with sorting out conceivable problems with fraud or the voting system overall.

I found Mojave unusable with external disks - where I keep my TV recordings for travel. Something called iconservicesagent kept eating all the memory up and slowing it down to a complete stop. Went back to High Sierra - no issues. Tried Catalina the other day and that had fixed it, but as OBE says, they've binned off a load of stuff - the EyeTV recorder doesn't work on it any more, and all the little scripts I had for making iTunes so much better don't work with the Music app that replaced iTunes, so back to High Sierra again. I can't be arsed trying to work out how to fettle the scripts to work and until the EyeTV thing gets updated to 64 bit, I'll stick with what I've got, I think. I've got another, really old Mac from 2009 that still runs Yosemite and if it wasn't for the battery being goosed, that would have done me, but a combo of it's weight and the dead battery (it forget all the settings for wi-fi etc. if it is unplugged for more than a day or so it's a proper pain to turn it back on at all - it takes about 5 attempts and SMC and PRAM resets before it'll let me back in). So I bought a second hand 15" one a while back with HS on, and it's great as it came. I guess in 6 months all the apps for Catalina will have been updated, and then that'll be fine, but for now, they've leapt ahead of the stuff people use at the moment. Typical apple, really.

I dunno about this bit (agree with the rest). Oil = money and influence. Putin likes money and Putin likes influence.

Well, we've only got (had) one stadium to sell, so we can't sell another one! But it is a one off, in reality anyway. The Club sold it to another NSWE company in order to meet the EFL's FFP regs. AFAIK the valuation is still being looked into by the PL on behalf of the EFL. It may be possible that at a later stage the club could buy it back from the NSWE Co. it was sold to, but I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon, for a number of reasons. I mean why would it? firstly it would be a football club expense that is unnecessary, secondly it would make the initial move to sell it look even more blatant, then there's the potential for Ground developments - if these are managed by the current NWSE company that now owns the ground, there may be some tax or other beneifits which might arise.

Exactly. And you're right, not even complex 3D models are totally accurate or correct. There are various Geodetic models that are used in navigation - e.g. GNSS/GPS etc. Some are more accurate for Europe (the Western military tends to use WGS84 though, others are more accurate for other parts of the Globe - ED50, for example). I mean they're all astonishingly good, all things considered, but none are perfect and they get updated from time to time - the WGS84 geodetic model was updated about 15 years ago, because the earth and its topography changes - islands form, mountains sink, coasts are eroded...etc. Plus satellite technology gives ever better definition and accuracy of heights and so on.

No, I disagree. Largely for the reasons outlined above, but it's also worth remembering that Sheff Utd were having an ownership dispute between a loaded Saudi Sheik and an old school family who joint owned the club. Until that was resolved last month (the Sheik won) they couldn't really splurge to the same extent, because the then joint owners had a massive falling out.

Sure, kind of. Our owners have said for a while they're serious about challenging and getting the club right back up to the top, they're not mucking about, they're not going to be content to just sit and collect the telly money and have a lower mid-table side, that might go down again. They're quite happy and willing to "go for it" (none of that is an actual quote, it's just my recollection of their approach as voiced by Purslow and Deano etc. Further, we needed a lot of new players, due to loans leaving, the age of others and so on. We had to spend money and we did, as much as we were permitted, basically. Norwich and Sheffield United have their own approaches and situations. They're both also well run clubs, but they've taken approaches for their situations. Managers who had teams that didn't need as much spent as ours did. Plus managers who'd been there longer and had teams more to their liking, or further down the road that ours was. On top of that there's a strong reason not to "blow the lot" right from the off. It gives them room in January, once they've seen how they're doing. It means if they don't spend all they could, they will be sustainable and financially secure. Norwich have an ownership who worked long and hard to unravel a financial mess fro ma decade ago, whilst not being personally loaded - they won't want to, nor should they, ever put their club in that mess again. Sheffield United too were pooling about in Div 1 not long ago - they are in different circumstances, though they have spent money in the summer. Another aspect is that Villa as a Club is a bigger name internationally, and has more scope to raise revenue as a consequence - plus bigger ground, more fans etc. So Nodge and Utd have been better run for longer than Villa has been in recent years, and their squads were in a better condition at the end of last season. Good luck to all 3 of us, as I think all of the 3 have a lot going for them.