norwaysaint

I didn't really get into cricket until 87/88, so I missed his era. I've always felt he was a bit hard done by though. I know Botham led the comeback in the famous test, but where his score was very good, Willis' figures of 8/43 (I think) to bowl out a strong side for 111 is absolutely astonishing. Yet the match is always known as the Botham test. Botham set up the opportunity, but Willis won it against the odds.

I've seen little of the football, but dropping Romeu has coincided with us turning a corner and getting results. It could be coincidence, but I'm happy to continue with this midfield.

I only managed to watch the last ten minutes, so I only saw the match while they were the more threatening team. My first comment was "Why aren't we playing anyone at right back?" after the third attack in a row when uncontested down that area of the pitch. They were literally strolling into our right back area and putting balls in for the strikers and nobody was doing a thing about it.

I don't know if important parts of the NHS will be sold off either. I don't believe it will just because politicians and journalists say it will, but I certainly don't believe it won't happen just because Conservative politicians had reassured us it won't. I'm glad so many on here have all the answers though. It makes it so much easier to know everything in definite terms.

For the record though, I've always thought the source material in War of the Worlds was pretty weak in the first place. Do people really expect that much from it?

Our last two matches, which have shown signs of a small upturn in performance, have coincided with the dropping of Romeu. I haven't seen either match, should I read anything into that? Or is it mostly other factors?

I just read that post and it doesn't make any reference to ability at all. Did you mean a different one?

Watched the first two. I'm still undecided.

I've had that for years, but find there's very little on the US one to tempt me now. US wasn't always the best either. HBO seems to have quite a lot of good stuff, I've been using them more. I also got Amazon Prime just to finish watching The Boys, but generally it's pretty much like another Netflix.

Joking, I guess,did someone else here use them as a source? I checked them anyway. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/guido-fawkes/

I think the point of that one has gone over your head a little there. Just out of interest though, which news sources do you think are impartial and should be listened to? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/ The factual content of The Independent is rated as "High", the same as The Times and The Guardian. The Telegraph, however, is rated notably lower and the Daily Mail is rated as low and is flagged as a questionable news source. The FT has the same high factual rating, but is least biased. Of TV news sources They are all rated as high, with C4 furthest to the left, BBC and ITN about even as centre left and right and Sky News the least biased. So, where is everyone here going for "the facts"? It would be interesting to know. My first stop is the BBC, but I do notice the centre left bias, which is most strong when they discuss US politics. I can understand why right wing voters resent paying for it.

Just saw this linked to on Facebook. Doesn't sound too convincing. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-raab-brexit-nhs-privatisation-trump-us-drugs-price-increase-a9230661.html

I don't think I've seen any posts on here criticising Ings or that he'snot worth the fee as a player. There have been lots saying it's a huge gamble because he has a history of getting injured so much. Those are very different things. I think everyone has always recognised that he's a good enough striker to score goals for us at this level. He does have a history of getting injured and that could still happen this season, so there's no point saying people were wrong, just because he scores goals while he's fit. We all knew that already.

The BBC is still a better broadcaster than anything publicly offered in most countries, but I think its days of existing in this form are numbered. There's so much content being produced at a decent standard (as well as a huge amount of dross) by streaming channels like Netflix, Amazon, HBO etc. I wonder whether the BBC will eventually follow suit and become an optional subscription channel. I think it will be missed when it's gone.

I think most labour voters agree that there are problems with Corbyn, at least the ones I know or have seen on here. Conservative voters are much less critical of Johnson though, despite him being as dodgy as Corbyn. It's a much more united stance, which is good for them, but I also wish they had less insecurity and were able to be more genuinely critical. I honestly have no idea which way I would vote, but probably not for either of those two. Voting libdem on the basis that Johnson and Corbyn appear to be more **** than Swinson is pretty weak grounds. It's mainly just because I haven't seem enough of her to dislike her yet. The worse the bigger parties become, the more I wish there could be PR, so that no vote were wasted.

Trump has been given the chance to back up his denials under oath and has swiftly retreated. Probably nothing we can read into that...

Did you find a link to anything where this actually happens? You're last one showed something quite different.She may indeed be an awful woman. I've never heard of her before, but it's a big accusation if you can't back it up.

I just listened to that. It's not quite as it's being presented though is it? She doesn't dismiss the issue of men's suicide there and she doesn't lugh at the idea of discussing men's issues. She laughs quite specifically when he says that men have limited chances to talk about what's important to them. There's a discussion to be had about that, but it's disingenuous to say that she's laughing at the actual issues. It's a bit like there being a discussion about an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, then saying that Donald Trump never gets a chance to make himself heard. I would laugh at the second part, but still consider the first a serious issue. This is just the Telegraph trying to twist things a little unless there's more to it that's not shown in that clip.

Feel free to make your own effort at drawing forth more genuine critical comments of both sides. This one has been productive so far for what I was interested in

Thanks for the responses so far. As a non resident, I experience the effects and immersion of British politics in a bit of a distant and detached way. I find I learn little from people just arguing their parties case, but quite a lot from genuine reflections on where you want them to improve. It also helps clarify that people do genuinely consider the pros and cons of choosing each party, rather than just pursuing a blinkered good/bad party line of thought. Looking forward to the other responses if they all manage to be as genuinely critical.

I thought his comments were more valuable and constructive towards even-handed discussion than this one.

15 posts and nobody has mentioned his "tackle" yet? Disappointing.

Here's a challenge to all sides. It'll be interesting to see who's confident enough to rise to it and who is too insecure to answer it in a genuinely critical way. What do you think are the three biggest negatives about the party you currently plan to vote for? (Credibility points off for trying to highlight a positive in disguise)

Brexit means Brexit.

Brexit means Brexit.