revolution saint

You can't stand if you're not a British citizen or of the commonwealth or the ROI. You can't stand if you're under 18. The electoral commission prevents people doing the job as a job share. There's already limits on who can and can't stand as an MP. You're right that people are elected to the job but they're employed by the state - they should have a contract that stipulates what their responsibilities are and if they breach them then they're sacked.

There are terms and conditions applied to all jobs - it's in yours and my contracts of employment. I'd make it the same for MPs so it's part of the job description to attend unless of other business I've previously mentioned. Since you're on the subject of democracy though I would also apply the same rule for votes in parliament as to unions when balloting for strike action - it doesn't pass unless they have have a certain % actually turn up and vote.

Jeez, we'll agree to agree. I really can't see what you're finding to disagree with - we've agreed that parliamentary attendance can sometimes be put aside if other work as an MP takes precedence. If they're skipping sessions because they can't be arsed or because they've got other jobs then sure we can agree to disagree if that's what you're advocating. Anyway, I'm leaving it here because just like some MPs - I can't be arsed.

Never claimed they should be judged on purely parliamentary attendance. I said they should attend unless there were other constituency or parliamentary business. You appear to be arguing that they can't always attend because they have other business as stated above so we're not really in disagreement there. What I do feel is that it's a full time job. If they have time for a second job then they're not devoting enough time to their MP job. If they miss parliamentary sessions without having constituency work etc reasons then they're again not doing their job (basically just skipping those sessions without anything more important with regard to their job as an MP replacing them). As I said, fundamentally I think it's a full time job and not something they can pick and choose on.

Exactly. If you're claiming that parliamentary attendance is compromised by other more important parliamentary and constituency work then it doesn't really leave much time for anything else.

Granted there are other considerations which is why I mentioned other parliamentary business but if they've got time for second jobs then I suspect that certainly isn't representing their constituents interests.

I'd treat them like paid employees (which they are). They're obliged to attend each session just like everyone is obliged to attend work. Obviously there's exceptions - sickness, and other parliamentary work but they wouldn't be allowed to not attend without a decent reason. Failure to attend a certain % without sufficient reason triggers a by election. Same goes for constituency hours. It makes a mockery of democracy when half of these buggers (from whichever side they're on) can't be arsed to attend. It's their job and shouldn't be optional.

Lyanco the difference for me. Different class. Reminds me of every single ballon d’or winner ever. He’s probably the future of football.

I don't think we need more than that so I'd give the other two Lyancos the night off. I'm also playing a false Lyanco formation.

I would play: Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Just to wind up TWAR 😆 I'd probably have a bench consisting of Lyanco as well. With McGinn suspended I think this is a risk we can afford to take.

All about opinions. Diallo always looks to move the ball forwards quicker than JWP does (is there a stat for that)?

I think if you’re going to do that then you need to sacrifice one of the 10s or one of the two strikers. Also point out that Diallo comes off worse in your stats but he was playing the more defensive role and it coincided with the whole team underperforming (at least in part due to injuries) Diallo replacing JWP will make those stats look better for him. Anyway, as for the OP question, I’m not sure we’re better without JWP so I would probably play him most of the time but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t sell him if we got a decent offer.

Appreciate that you’re answering a question over whether Romeu is better than JWP but they play different roles so the data isn’t really relevant (because the question isn’t relevant). It’s a bit like comparing Adams and Lyanco (just used him cos I know you’re a big fan). Obviously that’s an extreme example to illustrate a point. Romeu is better defensively because there’s more of an emphasis on that in his role and JWP better offensively for the same reason.

Didn’t he have COVID last season? Not that he can’t catch it twice but would have thought it unlikely

Great, thanks for confirming. Feeling quite confident now

Are you sure? I’ve heard McGinn is suspended

OK, didn’t know that. At least McGinn is suspended though. I think that’ll make real difference.

Absolutely. McGinn being out is a real game changer

I wouldn't pay too much attention to pundits - most of the time they simply don't watch Saints enough to form any kind of decent judgement. They'll regurgitate the same old clichés whether they're accurate or not. With the caveat that this is almost certainly bollocks, I have to say I'm not that bothered if he goes and we get something like 50M which is all reinvested in the team. I'm not saying JWP is a bad player but I don't think he's that great either. In terms of open play I'd put him on the same kind of level as Matty Oakley although probably a bit more mobile. I'd be more worried if Salisu left than JWP right now. When you think of all the players we've sold in relatively recent times I think JWP is less of a loss than say, Mane, VVD, Pelle, Lallana or Ings and that's just off the top of my head. In fact if you offered me Schneiderlin (at his peak) I would take him over JWP. The only thing we can't replace is his free kicks - no getting away from it, they're good. Anyway, just an opinion - got no stats to back it up.

To be honest when I first saw him I thought he was a bit lightweight but before his injury he started putting himself about a bit and looked a lot better. He always seems to have good vision and was good with little flicks etc. Kind of player that’s worth giving a bit more of a chance to impress IMO

Pretty sure I remember reading that prior to the Victorians most workplace toilets were unisex (or gender neutral in todays language). Apparently they started to introduce single sex toilets in a bid to encourage women into the workhouses or something similar. Course back then there were far less women in the workforce so less of a problem. One of the sites I work at has three toilets - male, female and gender neutral. Doesn't cause any problems although no one uses the gender neutral one........

TBH I'm not particularly disagreeing with you but perfectly happy to start doing so.

Those would come down as the cases where we need to refer to their biological sex (depending on your point of view). I think it's inevitable that whatever decisions are made in those grey areas it'll be offensive to one group and something phobic to another - that's just a fact of life now. As long as decisions are made and justified then people will just have to deal with it.

Personally I just wish that people would be clear about the difference between sex and gender but it seems most people wilfully confuse the two when it suits them. There's quite a few cases (smear tests etc) where we need to refer to (biological) sex and in those cases it shouldn't be deemed to be transphobic to talk about biological male and female. Yes, it may be separate from what you identify as but it's done for a purpose and not just to antagonise. In all other cases we can use gender and it really doesn't make any difference what people identify as.

It's really difficult to find the data but could it be that France simply isn't testing as many people and we're picking up more mild and asymptomatic cases than France? I tried looking for hospitalisations data which would probably be a more reliable indicator than cases to see where we compare with France but couldn't find anything. I'd also like to see our hospitalisations and deaths broken down by age, co-morbidities and vaccination status.