egg

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers.

Bless. Bad day poppet?

It goes deeper, but yes, there aren't enough magistrates. If there were, they'd need court rooms and a legal advisor. There's not enough of them. The alternative is Judges, but there aren't enough of them either and the JAC recruitment process takes forever. That's before you get to the lack of prosecution and defence lawyers, and the budget to fund them. Then prison, probation, etc etc. The backlog needs addressing to give justice to all concerned, but throwing a new layer into the court system isn't the answer. The system needs root and branch reform, including a serious look at a partial shift to rehabilitative justice to address re offending.

Very sad news. Splendid batsman and a thoroughly nice bloke. He and a few other players once randomly tagged onto a stag group I was out with. Great fun. I hadn't appreciated the issues he had, and may he RIP.

Risk

Different issues. We're talking political labelling. I won't stop calling a shovel a shovel.

Brilliant! 👏

Yep. I'm mostly left of centre, but sway right ish on some things. I have no idea why people feel the need to label people though.

Scheduled

There's not been a ceasefire to speak of. Add in the behaviour in the West Bank, and forays into Lebanon, and doubtless Syria, Iraq as well. They'll never stop.

Stanley

Yeah. Matsuki would have been a better option.

Yep. We need proper defenders on both sides. I wouldn't be surprised to see Edwards come on as a RB, and push Fellows forward to give us an outlet and a player to stretch them.

Yep. Away at a good side, having to replace our two best players. Pass this test and that's audition over for me.

Yep. They're a good side. Decent test today. If we come away with something we'll have done well.

I'd take a draw here. Perfectly acceptable away to a team chasing promotion, and with our best 2 players out.

Stephens is a far better shout than Quarshie imo. Agreed re Matsuki. Offers something different off the bench.

Was thinking the same. Injury hasn't been mentioned. It may just be that the manager prefers the young lad.

Tawny

Indeed. We get nothing of note from them.

If you have resources to get by, the money by definition isn't needed. A means test in terms of benefits is usually just a simple threshold. You are asking for a means assessment, which is a different thing. Ultimately, your suggested way would involve all sorts of staff, delay, assesment, evidence, reviews, appeals, and all sorts. What we have is a simple if you have less than X you qualify, with the point being that if you have more than X then there is presumed to be no actual need. Where we fundamentally disagree is your belief that benefits should supplement a need that we can meet from our own resources. If we can paddle our own canoe, we should. You mentioned holidays, and I offered no opinion on the rights or wrongs of your wife's decision. The benefits system did though, and you got by without that. And please cut the patronising noise re living on benefits. I've lived it. You haven't as you didn't need it.

Thanks for that. I disagree re a means test - an income and/or capacity threshold is a means test. Sure, it's crude and not as subtle as a case specific income needs and outgoings assessment, but what SoG wanted and still is the latter, not the means test that we have and they failed. Re the rest, yes, the system needs chronic overhaul. We see worthy applicants denied support, and others well overpaid. I've cited a family member who's part of the latter category. Public sector pensions is another issue which has been touched on above. Thy're massively unaffordable, but, are wholly unrelated to this particular discussion.

Your income meant that you didn't qualify. That's a means test. What you were/are expecting was an assessment and payment based on your particular circumstances. That's something altogether different, and absolutely shouldn't happen and would be completely unmanageable. A fair and sensible uniform amount should be paid, but only to these who don't have the resources or the ability to look after themselves. Your wife chose to leave her job. I don't know whether she could and should have stayed - it'd be unfair for me to make that assessment, but in my experience, people often take the easier and softer way expecting state support. Benefits, however, should allow people to meet needs. Not go on nice holidays at the states expense. I'm not sniffy about benefits. I keep quiet about who and what I am, but I was raised on a council estate by parents with acute health issues. We were mostly benefit dependant, and life was basic and difficult. We needed the benefits and I'm grateful that they were available. My parents worked when their health allowed, and life was much better when they could do that. That gave me a work ethic - I worked 2 jobs whilst at school and gave up education (first time round) to bring some cash in. If I come across as having little sympathy for you and your wife having to live off your own resources, it's because I don't. People need to take responsibility for themselves as much as they can. Peoples attitudes and expectations need as much of an overhaul as the benefits system.

Yield

Yep. My main area of agreement with SoG was the oddity of benefits paying rent not a mortgage. I've never understood the principle of that. I get the point of a cap, and paying interest only and not capital, but only getting support for the roof over your head if it's owned by a 3rd party is a weird one.