Lighthouse

Who would that be, specifically? Pretty much everyone I can think of is basically doing as well as they have at any point in their career. Cornet perhaps but he seemed to have lost his way long before he got to St Mary’s, hence he was available for loan in the first place.

Ings got one as well I think.

I think he’s quite capable of figuring out that he’d like to play for bigger clubs one day, without the aid of any other player in the England squad.

Lambert-esq debut. Cracking header!

I'm going to discount players who never actually made an appearance (Aledine Yahia anyone?) and temporary managers (Dodd/Gorman, Kelvin etc.) Best - Manager Poch : Niemi Clyne Toby Virgil Bridge Wanyama Morgan Mane Davis Tiss* Beattie *If I'm being completely honest he was past his best in the time I've been into football but you can't not include Tiss. Worst - Manager Mad Nate: Blayney James Lancashire Powell O'Halloran Euell Liptak* Wright R. Smith White Bignall *I have no idea what position he was supposed to be playing and I'm not sure he did

I read it, there's just no reason at all to think he'd offer anything beyond the very limited contribution of the other players you mentioned. "Has the potential to get better," is just estate agent speak for being crap. He's looked like nothing other than a reasonable enough option in the Championship, without being anything special, last season. If he was here and Sully was out on loan, people would be saying what you're saying about the latter.

A classic case of fans believing the guy who's not playing must be better than the guys who are, simply because he's not playing. Edozie has done nothing in the PL and there's no reason to think he'd do anything more than Fraser, Sully or Cornet have achieved. He'll be an alright option in next season's Championship squad but if we did sell him, I wouldn't cry for too long.

JT and Howell in there too, along with Jimmy Anderson randomly deciding he wants to play T20 again after about ten years.

I’m not sure Swansea fans would agree on Wood but he’ll be reasonable back up and hopefully Edwards is something of a gem.

I don't think there can be any arguments on that point. We've got about seven players too many.

To be completely honest, we don't really need to sign anyone for another 18 months. Assuming we go down, even after selling THB, Dibling, KWP, Fernandes and Ramsdale, we'll still have a big squad of decent Championship players. We can also try to offload Paul, ABK, Sully, assume Lallana retires from playing and still have a squad that should be in the promotion fight, having lost 9 players (11 if you count Les and Cornet). GK: Bazunu, McC, Lumley DF: Suga, Manning, Taylor, Bree, JB, JS, Wood, Edwards MF: Aribo, Downes, Smallbone, Fraser, Edozie, SAA, Charles ST: Archer, Armstrong, BBD, Stewart (occasionally) We'd only need to bring in a couple of half decent loans really and we'd have a decent 24/25 man squad.

You joke but when people kept calling us a 'selling club' all that ever really meant was that we were recruiting good players that Champions League teams wanted.

The implication being, and I'll admit I haven't seen any mention time limit imposed in this proposal, that she would have made that decision at some point following her initial diagnosis. In cases of dementia a slightly more challenging set of circumstances would be presented in that there would have to be an agreement from doctors that the point of zero QoL has been reached, with the patient having previously consented to AD whilst of sound mind.

Obviously missing both our opening batsmen and Turner from a team which underperformed in the Blast, so not great on paper. The TBC players will be interesting, I wonder if they’re being looked at as potential permanent additions next year.

Nothing entitles you to be smug and arrogant, no matter how good you were at something in life. It certainly doesn't give you license to be condescending on issue which have nothing to do with your personal expertise. I would apply that broadly across the board, whether it's people like Tiss talking about vaccines or people like Lineker talking about environmental issues. By all means have an opinion but when you start telling other people that their lives are a sacrifice you're willing to make for the greater good, you start to sound like Lord Farquad in Shrek.

Could paliative care be better? Perhaps, the care given to my grangmother was as adequate and comfortable as you can reasonably ask for, but I wouldn't doubt other people who found their own provision substandard. TBH though, that's just a distraction argument and doesn't do anything to tackle the main issue at heart. I'd be interested to hear what you think specifically is inadequate, which would potentially drive people towards unnecessary suicide. This bill is aimed at people whose condition has deteriorated beyond what medical science is able to treat, to the point that even palliative measures don't provide a meaningful quality of life.

That was not my thrust at all, I've no idea what you inferred that from. When I was 15 and went to a GP for acne medication he sat and spoke to me about different treatments available. I'd have thought it went without saying that process would also follow for the slightly more serious issue of medically assisted death but never mind. Glad we agreed in the end.

No idea what your point is, I've never not said that.

Right, so he clearly wouldn't have chosen euthanasia then, at least not until the point that his condition because unbearable and his quality of life was so low as to drop below the threshold of wanting to live every moment we can. The fact that he has no outlived his original diagnosis isn't really relevant to the discussion. Once you reach the point that you are choosing to die, you are clearly well beyond the point of a wrong or inaccurate diagnosis. The most relevant personal example I can give would be my grandmother who died from dementia. She lived about 7-8 years beyond her original diagnosis and for the most part she still enjoyed life to an extent. In the last two years her attachment to reality became progressively weaker and the final year was spent in a care home. She and my grandfather were fairly pragmatic and when intitally diagnosed would probably have agreed to AD but it wouldn't have been until the final couple of months when she was bedridden, drifting in and out of consciousness and unable to comprehend the world around her. By that point there would be no chance, literally zero, that the doctors had made some mistake and she could have sprung back into life, had she not been euthanised. That's how this law will be implemented. You give examples as if someone will be diagnosed with 6 months to live and immediately ask to book a euthanasia appointment next week, no questions asked. That wont happen.

I don't get your point. Of course there's going to be discussion and enquiry into what the patient wants and a very detailed explanation of the exact details surrounding their condition and the options available to them. That's literally a doctor's job when dealing with a patient, there's absolutely no reason to think this would somehow be different for a condition serious enough to warrant euthanasia being an option.

Given choice, do you think he'd want to have been euthanised immediately or carry on for as long as possible until existence became unbearable?

What? That's nothing like what I said. You said the freedom of choice was the safeguard, it isn't. A choice is a choice, a safeguard is something which then stops that choice being abused and manipulated. In this case, you need the agreement of two independent doctors that a terminal illness has been objectively diagnosed. That way you cannot be euthanised simply by virtue of the fact that someone has told you that you probably ought to.

The fact that this is a free choice isn’t in itself a safeguard, although I think it goes without saying that this proposal is not compulsory for the terminally ill. The safeguard is the thing that prevents this choice from being corrupted or manipulated in some way, I.E. there has to be a verified, independent medical diagnosis backing it up.

No, he’s another practicing Christian whose god commands him to preserve life and is wilfully misunderstanding the bill to make it appear immoral. Two independent doctors have to confirm that a patient is terminally ill, that is the main safeguard. You might be able to coerce a person into believing they need to die but you will not be able to convince two doctors to go along with it. If they did, for no valid medical reason, they end up struck off and in prison.

QoS was always on borrowed time, rather like TotP, due to the availability of online content. All the videos, stats and personalities etc. are now freely available all over social media and on podcasts, so it no longer had any kind of unique appeal. I can’t remember the last time I watched it TBH.