egg

Some are, for sure. Others are authentic.

The merits of a quota system are entirely different to feeling it's ok to doubt someone's credentials, based on skin colour, when they've actually met a standard which was the standard prior to the quota. Fwiw, I disagree with quota's - hire on merit.

If the standard is 80%, and all pass that, it's not lowering the standard. The standard is met. I'd take your point if the standard was say 90% but they had to engineer that downwards to meet a quota. He suggested that happened re Harvard.

Yep. This. Everyone chosen under that policy will be sufficiently qualified to fly a plane. Having concerns to the contrary is based on prejudice.

Why does it matter if someone is less qualified than someone else if they are sufficiently qualified?

I have to say, the video as a whole gives a different presentation than the isolated quotes. However, the fundamental point for me is that he seems to assume that in meeting a quota, it's right to question whether some of the black people who've made it through may be unqualified. It's not correct to think that way, and it's racial prejudice all day long. It's entirely possible to meet a quota and have sufficiently qualified people fly the planes. Moreover, no airline company on the planet is going to throw an incompetent Muppet into a plane cabin because they're black.

Or Lordshill Way, then the avenue.

Simon Bodkin's US gun problem explanation/analogy made me chuckle. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOdZQNyiPZn/?igsh=ZndncG9pMXl3ZzR6 Has the travel show finished? Was enjoying that.

You're missing the point. There's a world of difference between a politically motivated killing by a civilian of another, and the racially motivated killing of a civilian by a police officer. The chances of the former, sadly can and are often increased because that's human nature. That's a world away from the police who's job it is to police and uphold the law, not breach it. The differences are so vast they don't belong in the same discussion.

I'm really not. The general public and the police are entirely different. You can, and will, increase your chances of crossing a wrong un in the real world if you spout extreme stuff. That's a harsh reality. You shouldn't expect that from the police.

People can always increase their risk of harm from deranged people, but that's altogether different to the police. The two situations are completely different.

My reply was tongue in cheek, but you said selling the naming rights 'would potentially cover the full cost at £30-40m'. I have no idea what the cost would be, but it's irrelevant, as it's not happening.

The odds of being unnecessarily killed by police officers should never come down. The deaths of Floyd and Kirk are so different, it's ridiculous that they're even being mentioned in the same discussion.

£30-40m? You can barely get a patio for that these days.

In isolation, no. Crap timing as much as anything. No growth in July doesn't help either. If they were a footballer they'd have got a yellow ages ago for an accumulation of fouls.

It feels like the start of phase out.

Planning

Inevitable I suspect.

The point is that they don't have to. It's a choice. A luxury if you will. I remain of the view though that it and health should be exempt, but the view that someone has paid once for something that they elect not to use, so shouldn't pay a value added tax on something they elect to subscribe to, doesn't hold water.

Devils advocate - is not charging VAT, in itself, not a tax break? Is the charging of VAT merely a removal of that break? My position remains though that VAT shouldn't be charged on private health costs or school fees.

For me, the VAT issue is the same as for health in that it's provided by the state by default. I elect to fund my healthcare. I do it because I benefit, not because the strain on the state is reduced, but it is. If I ever elected private education, the same would apply. There's no VAT on private health costs. I'm not with Ralph in thinking there should be a tax break per se (I take your point though that not charging VAT it is a break - adding it is not punitive), but I don't see it as a luxury that should be vatable. I also think the suggestion that VAT is being charged, and I paraphrase, to price the peasants out of nice schools, is nonsense.

I reckon St Mary's, with us as a PL club, could sell more tickets. I don't doubt that. What I doubt is that the cost makes it justifiable.

It does seem odd that he'd agree to the termination of a contract which has almost 3 years to run.

I don't think you have a lot of time for the plight of the muslims in Gaza, or the behaviour of the Israeli regime against other Muslim states. Yes, I find that unpleasant in any human, and surprising in someone with close Muslim family members. I do find it odd though that you cannot see how someone could (wrongly) assume that your wife is Muslim given what you've said about her and her close family. My misunderstanding is not the gotcha you claim it as.

This has been done to death. Building costs, and materials, have gone through the roof. If there was a vague business case for it previously, I can't imagine there'd be any merit in it even if we were promoted and had fans banging on the doors for tickets.