egg

I disagree. Using your Murder analogy, you'd have to decide if charging would likely lead to a conviction and that it was in the interests of justice to do so. If the trial would likely lead to an acquittal, it wouldn't be sensible to have it. Indeed, having a trial just to make a point/do the right thing is akin to political point scoring which is not what should be happening. The issue, for me, is the impact of the impeachment failing - the loon would feel empowered by it, as will his legions of loyal followers. Successful impeachment would be wonderful, unsuccessful would be damaging thus only do it if the points are in the bag.

Grapes

Failing will only fuel his supporters belief that he's right. Definitely only try if they have the support to get the job done.

You are aware that Spurs v Fulham was today put in the diary for this Weds (2021) and both play at the weekend? It's not ideal, but tell me that playing Leeds this Weds is worse than the prospect of next Weds Leeds game being cancelled, and the Shrewsbury fixture being cancelled too.

I get that but we're likely to face a cancellation next week and fixture congestion, when there's a window for both us and Leeds this week. The PL today switched Spurs and Fulham to this Weds which was perfectly sensible and the uber meticulous Jose is probably grateful to avoid the congestion of not playing. Sure its short notice, but it's short notice for both teams but it hasn't happened anyway so it's an academic point. Over the course of the season, with more and more covid cancellations, clubs will have to take matches at short notice.

It's not a quite a Cummings moment, but he's certainly given people permission to go beyond "their village, town and part of the city where they live", and probably gifted a lot of people an appeal against their penalties. Enjoy your bike riding!

We're prepared for a match, it's hardly like a boxer having to make the weight. Spurs V Fulham was brought forward to this Weds. It's all about opinions, but I'd rather we played Leeds this week and Shrews next week than have fixture congestion..

Bringing our game against Leeds forward to this Weds makes sense, giving us next Weds for the Shrewsbury game. Cancelling the Leeds game is just daft.

Fine

Yep. Stuff flying about in a virtual world, and especially when people are bored etc, is completely different to the real world. I'd also hazard a guess that a few of us probably know, or at least know of, quite a few others without realising it.

Lack of sleep - Nile Ranger!

Good post. I don't necessarily agree though that some players don't make it because a lack of ability as such. Cream usually rises to the top, and if a lad doesn't make it here but is good enough to be at the top level, he'll work his way through the leagues. Those with the ability that don't work their way back up normally fail for other reasons, lifestyle, attitude, life choices, etc. Indeed, I was reading today about Ravel Morrison (not a Saints lad but the point applies) being released from yet another club at 27 years of age. He's had opportunity galore to meet his potential - Alex Ferguson described him as the most talented kid he'd ever seen - but he got on the way of his career, not opportunity. Take on of our own, Nile Ranger. Didn't make it here because of his attitude, had another chance at Newcastle and repeat. I saw McCarthy, Tafazoli, Gape all play whilst here. Good players, but their progress was stalled not by their paths being blocked, but by not being quite good enough for our level. Sims is an interesting one. He's always had something and I don't think we've helped him by holding on for so long. How he'd have developed by getting more first team footy elsewhere I don't know, and gut feel he'd have done a Targett / Reed if he'd had a chance to play games. Ultimately though, I don't believe his development here was blocked by others, but rather that management saw someone good but not quite good enough. Compare Sims with Klarer. He's getting games now at a good level, but he was never going to be getting first team footy here so, unlike Sims, we've done the right thing by him and let him go.

I walk and run around the village where I live. Boring af but if we all jumped in our cars for a change of scene it'd defeat the object of all of this. Traffic = accidents plus restricting ambulances. What any of us has done in earlier lockdowns is irrelevant. We are where we are, and that is past crisis point both health wise and economically. We've gotta get it right this time otherwise the NHS will fall over and the economy will become fucked beyond repair.

Bless. So to read the British Cycling interpretation and didn't like it, so went heavy on Google to find an interpretation you preferred. And the best you do was an article on a local Nottingham newspaper. Jesus wept. You keep telling yourself you're not a selfish rule breaker mate. You're wrong, but it's clear that you you'll do what you want.

Indeed. The point is that neither of you like the regs, and the frankly obvious correct interpretation. None of us like this situation. Ignoring them / bending them / finding ways around them is not on. I've made my point, British Cycling agree with me, it's what the regs say. I'll leave it there.

That guidance was published 5th January 2021, last Tuesday. Here's the link for you. https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20200512-about-bc-news-British-Cycling-Updated-Coronavirus-Guidance-0

Eh? You're getting confused. In other parts of the country the police are interpreting local as intended. You and Badger are keen cyclists so I though you'd be aware of what British Cycling says. I'll help you out as you were probably too busy doing what you wanted to keep up: “We know many of you will want to know what is meant by 'staying local'. The government’s definition of this is stated as ‘your village, town or the part of a city where you live’,” the organisation said. “We understand that this definition is particularly restrictive for cycling, and we are working to seek further clarification on this. We will provide a further update as soon as we are able. “In the meantime, we recommend that you follow the advice to stay local, ride well within your ability and ensure that you are self-sufficient.” Hope that helps.

Local is local. ie close proximity to home. Badger, I appreciate you're trying hard to justify doing what you want but stand back and look where we'd be if everyone did that. You're selfish mate, but if you're happy that you are, that's for you.

Not the case elsewhere. Weston, you carry on being the regs pushing clever boy you think you are. Don't whine though about kids of non essential workers being in school, people cramming in shops for non essentials, or anything else that's non compliant. Those people are as self entitled as you.

Can (on a selfish stretch of the regs) does not equal should. On your question. No they wouldn't. People move, not viruses.

"Local". The term you interpret to mean 10 miles, but any responsible person wouldn't a) seek to interpret so liberally / selfishly and b) would know that 10 miles is not local.

Carrier

You're struggling to keep up here aren't you. None of those are subject to lockdown regs.

Ah, whateboutery. Now that's a shit argument, let's stick to the the non local cycling discussion in respect of which, you know as well as I do that a) you're flexing the regs to justify it and b) you'll have the audacity to moan (you're there already with your shopping point) that others are flexing regs to do what they want.

Percentages mate. Less idiots on the road, less risk of accidents.