egg

Were they protesting peacefully?

For a start, the videos you laughed at, show elderly folk being arrested during peaceful process. Yes, their peaceful protest involved the name of the newly proscribed organisation, but I see the protest in part as being against that proclamation.

Cosmetic

Lights, ground staff, pitch wear and tear, incidental behind the scenes costs, catering, etc. There's more to hosting a game than stewards and police. I'd be staggered if we don't lose money for every home women's game.

That's bollox. This forum is testament to left ISH leaning folk being critical of the current government. Feel free to link to the posts praising them. Thanks.

I don't sneer at them, although I question why anyone would vote for a party to govern us for 5 years based on pretty much one policy, and without looking at everything else that comes from voting for that party. I get that people are feeling disaffected, but when you ask them what they actually expect from Reform, all I get is "rid of that cunt Starmer", and "no more boats". Brilliant basis for your vote.

They could have under promised and still got elected. Instead they over promised and have under delivered.

I think the crowd they're aiming for will want a fruit shoot before the game.

That's understandable. It's shiny and new. A novelty. It's not them regularly playing to an almost empty stadium. Unless tickets are literally given away, the crowds won't increase. That's different to the mens under 21's who are getting used to playing in a bigger stadium as the hope is that they'll be playing in them week in and week out. It's a kind of attempt at 'levelling up'. That all said, I don't follow the women's game and don't have an issue with where they play. It just feels gimmicky and unnecessary to me.

Including evil terrorists like this 83 year old lady reverend. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DORcMZNjCR0/?igsh=enJhYzR2aG56ZHNs And this elderly, disabled, veteran. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DORfkabEnYf/?igsh=OTE4YzJmeWkwNjls Who take issue at this sort of stuff. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DORMYgoDMtE/?igsh=YWQzaW1iY2xxMHVh Too many people are on the wrong side of humanity in this.

I'm confident that a Fat Sam or McLaren team would have put on a better performance than every side that Tuchel has put out. 2-0 at home to Andorra is a disgrace.

I get that it's better for the fans, but from a player's pov, it must be better playing to a full ISH ground than an empty one. Financially, opening St Mary's must cost a few shekels and be a loss leader.

It can't be great playing in front of an almost empty stadium. They'd all but sell out Eastleigh's ground. Personally, I think a ground share would make much more sense.

A cute red one, or the rat with better publicity?

Twenty three.

Do you think? US VP is a massive role, but isn't out version pretty much an honorary role unless in an emergency? I'd imagine Lammy's cabinet role wouldn't increase.

It isn't. Foreign Secretary is massively important. Deputy PM does nothing save in the unlikely event that Starmer becomes incapacitated. It's a demotion dressed up as a promotion.

Blimey. Trying to find a positive, he's probably less dangerous there than he is as Foreign Secretary.

Interesting that she's been replaced by a couple of chairs. One way to minimise the risk of further scandal I suppose.

Unsurprisingly, we disagree. Doing the right thing after you've done wrong is all you can do, and she did that. Doesn't alter that she didn't bother taking actual advice when she should have though.

We seemingly didn't bother checking whether any of the businesses could supply what they were to supply. Simple enquiries shouldn't have been hard or time consuming. There was a combination of panic and incompetence, when people want to believe that there was dishonesty as well, I find it hard to argue against it.

Worship

It's complicated when it comes to Trust arrangements. On the face of it, she didn't own another property, but the circumstances around the Trust meant that she had a technical interest. Being the housing minister wouldn't give her that sort of tax knowledge. Re the rest, there's a difference between what Shoosmiths said yesterday and the ethics letter. Shoosmiths were clear that they did not give any advice regarding the SDLT due, just an online figure (information, not advice - an important distinction), with their advice being that she takes Tax advice. The ethics letter refers to Shoosmiths having given "advice", with a "recommendation" and a "suggestion" that she takes advice. Is surprised if that's accurate. She's "guilty by omission" on the ethics letter version, but it looks murkier based on Shoosmiths account. Regardless, she messed up properly and had to go. Credit to her though for the self referral, the (belated) proper advice, and resigning.

She'd be lucky to get enough to buy 2 pints. Although, chances are she'd try to get away with only paying for 1.

Fundamentally disagree. Forget numbers per year, PPE was a rape and pillage exercise that we're all paying for. I ain't paying Rayner's bit of tax. She will.