egg

My folks encouraged me to cook also, and that certainly helped. Bread is tough and I don't eat much of it, but when I succumb, and need convenience it's crosta and mollica wraps which have only basic ingredients and taste great. Jason bread products are similar. Any other bread tips are appreciated.

It's a pile of shite whatever it's called!

I'm similar. That's about half a tub. I often take the other half to the office, and fill the rest of the pot with colourful stuff, nuts, etc. Takes literally seconds and is infinitely better, and cheaper, than a sandwich from the co-op. On that, when and why did a crap sandwich, crisps, sugary snack, and a tin of pop become the standard lunch. Just awful.

Cheers. 5. Wow. Fair to say Eckert's audition is going ok.

Just catching up as not been able to watch. Blimey. How's the lad Bragg playing?

Yep. Diet and nutrition has changed massively since I was a kid, and so has the physical and mental health of the masses. That anecdotal evidence is enough for me. People eat shit, and the sad thing is they wait longer for some rubbish to be delivered, or be heated in their air fryer, than it would take to dish up or cook something decent, yet cite a lack of time as the reason for doing what they do. It's not hard to cook up a chicken thigh and a bit of rice and veg, peel a carrot, take the lid off some Greek yoghurt, open a bag of frozen berries, knock up an omelette, etc. My breakfast today took me 2 mins - greek yoghurt, berries, squirt of honey. Lovely, like a healthy pudding first thing in the morning. Lunch took 5 mins - a few scrambled eggs, cherry tomatoes, more berries. 7 mins for 2 nutritious meals. Who knows what life will throw up health wise, but we can and should help ourselves and our families by making a wee bit of effort. And yep, the "food" and medicine chain is horribly linked.

Easter

Good man. The deal is a shocker, and it's hard to decide what part is worse. The financial aspects are disgraceful though. - $100bn of frozen Russian assets invested "in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine", with the US receiving 50% of the profits and Europe adding $100bn in investment for reconstruction, so an American price for involvement, and the EU expected to sink cash in - there's €200bn in Russia frozen assets. Why not give all to Ukraine....the deal instead says that the rest of those frozen assets would go to a "US-Russian investment vehicle", so Russia would see some of its money come back, but with a financial benefit for the US. There needs to be a resolution to this, but not that deal.

Depends what you mean by pressure. If you mean against Ukraine, probably because they're not cunts as per Trump. Obama's rebuke and sanctions were a crap response though, ditto the rest of the west, not least us as a party to the Budapest Memorandum. This should have been nipped in the bid after Crimea, but, none of that excuses Trumps appalling conduct.

Sure, but that's not the reality. He should have, and still should, but all he's had is clandestine chats with the Russians where Christ knows what has been said.

So in a long winded way, the partial answer to my question, is that they'll continue to lose land. On that we agree. That still doesn't address how it actually ends though. I think we agree it's defeat it's defeat or capitulation. You could have just said that.

Suit

A long war is not the end. That's the big bit before the end. Do you think Ukraine will, realistically be more likely to regain land or lose more? How does things look when/if the US withdraw their direct support, and/or the "back office" support for surveillance or other Western kit? They're the realities you seem reluctant to address.

That's not the reality though. Trump won't allow his deadline to pass, then throw more money and hardware Ukraine's way. The horrible reality doesn't go away by saying what Trump should do. The west were collectively a disgrace post Crimea, and Trump has taken it to new levels.

It's a bloody awful deal, and a disgraceful carry on. I'm not sure anyone disputes that.