blandy

This is most pleasing.

Followed by "Ground Control to Monty Don, the testimonial silver's gone..." https://youtu.be/WvRLMATPYHk

2008 Post rock goodness

He wasted an absolute fortune on Heskey, Harewood, Warnock, Shorey, Reo Coker, Habib Bye, Zat Knight, Curtis Davis and loads of others. Loads of playerswith little or no resale value on high wages. But that's neither here nor there really, as far as Wigan goes. It was utter tripe, the only positive being I got home quickly afterwards. The same as at Preston, the formation and starting line up hands the opposition an advantage. Playing both El Ghazi and Bolassie, neither of whom do much helping in defensive situations means the weakness of our midfield defensively is very exposed. And given that they're in front of a pretty ropey defence that's compounding the error. ANd then on top of that Tammy is too isolated up front. It makes it easy for the oppo to outplay us in every area. Their defence isn't troubled dealing with one isolated striker, who has to keep coming deep to even get a touch, there's two lazy wingers and paperweight midfield, bar McGinn, and an error prone defence. Saturday cried out for subs at half time, going 4-4-2, getting a grip in midfield and giving Tammy some help, or 3-5-2 even. Then again, inept performances from half the team with so many mistakes and lack of application can't be sorted by swapping a couple of them round. That was just a whole bunch of garbage all round. And the ref was at the same low standard as the players. **** dreadful.

No, that’s not true, is it, the easy to disprove bit, I mean. A lady in Russia says her son, who was the victim of a poisoning, hasn’t called her. Even if the son were to appear and say the opposite, what proof is that? He says she says. And why would anyone even bother? It’s not legal to publish tapes of private convos without the consent of both parties, and anyway, to what end? To counter something reported by RT? as you said earlier, I think, he might be dead, he might be severely hampered, he might be relatively healthy. We don’t know, nor do we need to know the detail of any contact with his family. It’s private. “Victim of attempted murder yet to call mother says Russian state media” is low level tattle.

When you factor in the level of obvious deception from the UK, Russia and also the lack of knowledge of various, er, bloggers who basically know little or no more or less than even you or I, I don't take any notice of this kind of "apparently". It might or might not be right. Further, whoever we might think "dun it", he's a primary target for being finished off if still alive, perhaps - that seems a "credible" reason to me.

I agree (though not just the Guardian, but many organisations. There are big gaps in the "narrative/explanation and timeline" which we aren't going to get resolved. I can imagine there are D notices to the media on the whole thing. The two Russians and the whole Russian "angle" on it - guilty looking as hell. The UK and the whole Gov't angle on it, full of holes and inconsistencies. As @tonyh29 said earlier, the two Russian cathedral visitors thing - very guilty of something. their explanation, their sudden appearance on RT when prompted by Putin and all the rest - if it was meant to show innocence, it did the opposite, even within Russian public opinion. There are very likely large parts of what actually happened which the UK knows but does not wish to reveal, either for security reasons - we don't want to show Russia/whoever what we actually know and how and why we know it, for example, or for typical OTT "management" reasons, or for not scaring the public reasons. We basically know the people (an ex-Russian spy and his daughter and 3 others) were poisoned by a Chemical weapon of a type developed by Russia, and that 2 Russians from their forces came over here, to Salisbury via London for the window of the "attack" and were seen on CCTV very close to the Skripal's house, and that their sudden appearance on RT and their explanation as to what they were up to was wholly ludicrous. We know that the treatment of the house, and other locations has been inconsistent and that no explanation or investigation of those inconsistencies has been forthcoming. Oh, and the victims have been largely chosen to or been kept out of the media. All very curious, and no doubt great sport for conspiracy theorists and bloggers etc. Most people, both in Russia and the UK will as with most news events just move on. It's a shame more isn't going to come out, giving us a credible supportable narrative.

What has Leeds done wrong, to deserve punishment? Haven't they just scouted their opponents (from outside their training ground). Where's the problem?

Bill Juniper played good music, but talked far too much. I could just about bear listening. Keaveney, dreadful. Hawkins/Laverne, so far ok. Will prolly go back to the iPod though.

No. I don't agree. Some (leave) people might, but there was a much wider range of opinion. "I want to leave because there are too many immigrants" "I want to leave because I hate Cameron and Osborne" "I want to leave to save billions of pounds and spend it on the NHS" "I want to leave, because we'll get all the benefits and none of the costs" and yes "I want to leave because I want us to make our own rules" For the Sun (or anyone e.g. politicians) to claim they know what people thought and detail that as a single line "people voted for not being subject to any EU rules" is deliberate simplification to make a self interested point. I don't think echoing or repeating that kind of simplification is wise, myself.

Before the first one, various Leavers, Farage, Mogg, Johnson were proposing a first ref to Leave or Not then a second to vote on whether the "deal" /decision was right once we knew the detail. Kind of like "Holiday or stay at home" OK, you voted Holiday, and we're going to a 1 star hotel in Baghdad for 2 weeks at 4 grand a head. Do you still want the holiday? Yes or no? So I don't think it automatically goes to a "best of 3 type thing". I do get that it won't make the issue go way, and this is another area where almost all parties have failed. Because they've concentrated on leaving to the exclusion of all else, pretty much, the "reasons" for leave have not been explored. It's just been reduced to whoever claiming "immigration" or "sovereignty" or "money" or whatever being claimed as "that's what people voted for" - but no one knows, and there were surely multiple different reasons. Address them, and the situation changes again.

I think slightly differently, but no massively, from your whole post. I agree about the tories, but see the Labour thing differently. Because what Labour has actually done, via Corbyn is facilitate some of the worst actions of the tories. Specific examples include his whipping his party to support triggering A50 2 years ago. It was palpably idiotic, both at the time and with hindsight. By enthusiastically doing that kind of thing (ditto with Lords votes) it should more than annoy Remainers, but also leavers (of whatever bent). It threw away the only card the UK really had. Secondly, while it was primarily the tories, as you say as the Gov't, that ran things, there really really should have been a situation (which either the tories or Labour could have initiated) whereby collectively Parliament worked out what they wanted (before triggering A50). IF (say) Labour had a pro leave, (but safeguarding this that and the other) position, which they claimed they did have, they should have gone to the Gov't and said "this is what we want out of Leave, if you talk to us, we can potentially agree a national/Parliamentary position and then go the the EU with "give us this". But they didn't, they did the opposite. They said one thing and did another. They refused to join even with SNP, Plaid, Greens in creating a combined opposition position. Corbyn has frequently hidden in his potting shed and ducked and weaved and avoided Brexit stuff altogether. Even if you were a leave voter, he has failed to pressure the Gov't to reach a credible leave position. Labour's position is as unrealistic as the tories. They're utterly useless, and it's only a combo of the rebel tories, more capable Labour and a few others that have ever provided any opposition at all to the massive clusterpork May has made of this. Forensic dissection of the hypocrisy, stupidity, contradictions, lies and all the rest has been wholly absent. They are basically just as bad as the tories. It's no good saying you want apple pie and kindness if you actually facilitate and support a poo sandwich and evil.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.

This is an odd one, maybe I'm missing something. But if I'm thinking of buying a new landy, then if I'm put off diesel, I'd buy a petrol one or a lecky one.

It is curious. Though I'm not sure that the context you describe is quite correct. I don't think there was a "press release" - I thought it was a internal letter, or letter to residents directly affected? But that's an aside really. Perhaps another thing to consider is that neighbours of the house will (rightly or wrongly) be worried that toxic material was found at their neighbour's house and that they don't want to be affected by anything toxic. So the letter wording, you would expect, would be re-assuring in tone to those neighbours. This might explain the part about the house (roof) being sealed and covered and material being wrapped and removed by trained personnel from the army. and returning things to normal asap. Then there's 'elf un safety' - the house internals have been being painstakingly cleaned, but it's not really feasible to "clean" loft insulation, wooden beams etc. especially in-situ. If they are going to be cleaned, then they'd realistically need removing/replacing. Is it an over-reaction, or is it following advice from DSTL? along the lines of "just clean, remove, replace anything where even a remote possibility of contamination exists" Yet even so, there's still, the curiosity as to why other locations where the toxin was detected (though maybe at much lower levels) don't seem to have been treated quite so diligently. Or maybe they have been or are being, but it's just not been in the media? Then there's thinking along the lines of "well if it's not actually related to toxic chemical, what else could it be related to?, what other reason would there be to replace the roof on the house?" It would seem reasonable to suppose that the house was provided for Skripal by the UK authorites when he came here. I strongly doubt he was left to find and buy a hosue with his own money, given the circs of his arrival here. The house may therefore ultimately be one ultimately "managed" by intelligence services on crown inventory , regardless of who is said to be the owner in the land registry. Perhaps now it will be repurposed, or refitted, or particular equipment or items fitted or removed - though if that was the case, it's doubtful removing the roof, and getting blokes in full noddy suits and breathing apparatus to do so would be the best way of doing so, or would be remotely necessary. Also given the now well known location of the house, there seems little point in even contemplating doing anything sureptitious like that. It might be more likely that if Sergei Skripal is going to return there at some point, if /when well enough he may need things like a stairlift, and other facilities that allow a debilitated person to live there. Is it easier to fit all that stuff, given the resources of the state, by effectively rebuilding the house and dropping stuff in through a removed roof, rather than through the front door? I dunno? Another alternative is that if Skripal is not going to return there, the house will probably be sold and no-one will buy it unless there is convincing reason to do so, given the nature of what happened there. A basically totally cleaned and gutted and largely rebuilt house might sell. Any taint of "it might still be contaminated" would be unlikely to see it sell? It's all mildly curious, but most of the conceivable "theories" are improbable - moving out secret kit - you'd do that unannounced, at night (and it would have already happened). You wouldn't do it in noddy suits, in daylight, while telling all the neighbours and removing the roof, for example. While it's a loose end, for sure, the least unlikely explanation for me is that it's typical official over the top reaction where there's the possibility of future media attention - a future resident falling ill there or whatever and the media would be all over it..... More interesting is the way other locations where the stuff was found have been ttreated. We know the park bench area has been treated with similar attention, but know little about the restaurant and the other house where the discarded (we're told) perfume bottle turned up. That would be the area I'd expect or hope the media to follow.

Agree with all but this bit of your post. There will be a judder and a non May alternative will come to the fore, then there will be another delay.

If I was being charitable and going with the trend of the modern people, then I guess if you eat only veggie for n days per week/month and occasionally eat the meats for whatever reason, then that's a conscious effort to reduce meat consumption to almost nil and that's very different from eating meat every day, so people who want to label themselves according to diet, or are transitioning (as they say) to full on vegetablist can do so. Kind of like omnivore one day a month and vegetablist 29 days a month = flexitarian.

Kristen Hersh & Stipey

There's the proof of our own eyes at games. He's very good at shot stopping and very good at distribution. He's effing dreadful at catching the ball under pressure, commanding his area, and he makes a lot of unforced errors . There is no stat for a palpable air of being more skittish than a cat at a fireworks display, but there's that, too. I think he could overcome all of those, I like him and wish him well, but he's had a hard time adjusting and now a nasty injury.

Yes, the winner of the tie drawn out first in the previous round draw is number 1, the winner of the second tie is 2 and so on.

There's a lot in that. I think an additional factor is losing Axel. Bruce left us with a totally unbalanced set of defenders and goalkeepers. Whoever was manager would struggle with that situation. Initially Smith was able to at least put square pegs in square holes, but then injuries...So we ended up again with round pegs and square holes. Add in exhaustion from the number of games AND change in tempo, plus then a knock to confidence from the Leeds and Albion game endings. I (on perhaps having not seen as many games as you) am not entirely convinced by the full backs being narrow point. Maybe I just haven't noticed it to the degree you have. We had a weakness (all season) with balls over the top and I suspect one effort to counter that flaw was to ask the FBs to slightly tuck in at times to bolster cover down the middle a tad, and give the FBs more of a chance to cover if the CBs get a man in behind. But I don't see them as kind of permanently being too narrow. I'd see the wide midfield players as being inept at tracking back and covering (Albert does it very well, but not Bolasie and definitely not El Ghazi). But mainly I just think losing Jack and then Axel has cost us dynamism and confidence which was the thing that allowed us to flourish in an attacking sense. Smith picked an odd side at the the weekend and messed about unnecessarily, I think. Hutton isn't a CB, yet Bree has done decently there. No one gets it right all the time, and it was probably the game to get it it wrong in, if there had to be one.

I think I know what you mean, but on a wider point, no it shouldn't. With such an abysmal government, making such a complete clusterpork of, well, everything, an opposition should be way ahead and climbing in these polls. The opposition though is as incompetent and divided as the government.

Exactly how I see it too, OBE. To be open minded about it, they bought into a financial mess when they took over the club. Not just FFP, but in general terms too. They've rectified the general mess to a degree, paying off all debts etc, but the FFP aspects remain serious. You can only sell the training ground (even to yourself) once (although I wonder if at some future point they buy it "back" whether FFP might exclude the expenditure as being on infrastructure, and I also wonder if the club will use it rent free while we don't own it, or if there will be a cost associated with using it , which we might be able to exclude from FFP....so many questions. Are they gaming the system smartly, or acting out of desperation?). Either way, it's critical that the underlying causes of the mess are rectified, and largely that's the wage bill and amortisation when set against income. Without promotion, income is not going to change much, but in a way, from the financial aspects it's almost better to rectify all tht stuff in this division, to create a kind of clean slate starting point, rather than go up (as we nearly did last season) and have the issues masked by a huge jump in income. There's yet more to address next season, as TV income will fall again, with zero parachute payments coming in. The board are going to need to find another rabbit from a hat somewhere down the line. So this training ground sale that's rumoured is I suppose unavoidable as a consequence of mismanagement before they came in.

That's fair, and supported by the stats. Mine is that (maybe more in hope than knowledge) there will be a coalescence towards an alternative, in the face of an imminent No deal outcome. My perception is that there is an overwhelming opposition to no deal, and therefore an alternative will come to the fore. It isn't May's deal, Therefore it will be something else. Like I say, Norway, or Referendum, or whatever. There's no time for leadership elections, general elections, so there will either be an alternative "quickie" off the shelf deal or the EU and the UK will consent to an extension of the 2 years, via a fudge, to get a mutually acceptable deal through. But it's just my reckoning. I might be wildly wrong. Something has to snap first. May and Corbyn are not minded to compromise on their one-eyed, flawed, party first, visions (yet).

Ok, let’s assume at the vote, mid Jan, on May’s deal and 6 yet to be written amendments, May’s deal is voted down. Firstly the amendment votes are key. They could theoretically be anything, but are more likely to be different versions of what groups of MPs prefer. If in this mid Jan vote parliament asserts that it wants Norway, or it wants whatever, then this is effectively an instruction to May to go and get it. If the “it” is a kind of either off the shelf deal, or is something that would also be of benefit to the EU then the path will be clear. It’s the cataclysm that has to happen first that I think is the bigger block. It needs May and Corbyn out the way of doing their harm, sidelined or run over.