rendelharris

Here's the ABs: Starting XI: J Barrett, I Dagg, A Lienert-Brown, J Laumape, J Savea, B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, C Taylor, O Franks, B Retallick, S Whitelock, J Kaino, S Cane, K Read (capt). Replacements: N Harris, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Peranara, A Cruden, M Fekitoa. No surprises. Laumape looks like an awesome force, only 5'9" but sixteen stone plus of muscle, defensive positioning needs work but like a lot of former league players his bulldozing qualities are frightening. Be interesting to see his impact with fifteen men on the field instead of fourteen.

All Blacks announcing their team at 6PM (BST), Lions 8PM.

Yvette Williams MBE is a policy adviser to the Crown Prosecution Service and spokesperson for Justice4Grenfell, a group which has widespread community backing including from many of the survivors. And sorry, no the survivors are not "just waiting patiently to be dealt with," much as you and your fellow Tories probably think they should and be grateful they're given anything at all: the merest glance at the news demonstrates that many of them are bloody furious and rightly so. I apologise for previously having said you've a one-eyed view of things - turns out you're completely blind. ETA Just listening to PM and hearing victims complaining vociferously about the way they are being treated. Not "stirrers," actual victims: they are enraged.

My dad lives in Oxford and always uses it when he comes to visit - according to him way more comfortable than the train, very significantly cheaper and they run every ten minutes at peak, no contest.

Don't think you need planning permission for any wall under two metres unless it's adjoining a highway or the footpath to a highway (in which case you need PP for over a metre), so if your footpath is just a cutthrough or alley you should be fine.

Well I agree but ED can be awfully conservative about these matters...

This thread has gone on far too long (or my participation in it has) for such a minor topic, but in parting no, actually, I don't have barbecues, partly out of consideration for the neighbours but also as I think I can make far nicer food in the kitchen then bring it out to my guests in the garden. Anyway, I don't think anyone would object strenuously to an occasional barbecue, the OP was about people having woodburning firepits and letting smoke into their home, presumably on a very regular basis. "Oh people are enjoying themselves" is not, per se, a valid excuse for doing things which annoy others. On occasion I'd enjoy having my speakers out in the garden playing Sonny Rollins at top volume at 1AM, but I don't because it would be inconsiderate to others. Would it be OK to do that and use your arguments if people objected: "get over it, I'm enjoying it, who are you to stop me?"

I notice - returning to my original point on this thread - that today May has intimated there will be no vote on foxhunting either. Good, say I and many others, I've no doubt, but again, how many votes in rural areas were swayed (or more likely how many who don't usually vote were persuaded to turn out) by a promise which has proved completely false?

To be fair to the OP, she is specifically willing to answer to someone and offering to provide further information. It's clearly something which has worried her and which she felt it worth both taking action on at the time and to share information about. You may think it's none of her business, or that she should have gone about things in a different way, but accusing her of just chucking accusations around for the hell of it is unfair, her heart is clearly in the right place and she's acting as she thinks best.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goal kicking defo - but tackling has been weak so > far this tour I thought. I know he has a > reputation as a decent tackler, but I'm seeing him > being brushed off / dumped on his ass, in > Saturdays game That's the problem I think, he's a good tackling 10 but not necessarily up to a centre's job in the modern game - he was giving away two stone and three inches to SBW, for example - and so gets targeted as the weak spot in the line, which makes him look worse than he is maybe. It's all a bit academic anyway as I'm sure Gatland will stick with the plan - after all they did win!

I agree they make for an exciting combination, but given that the ABs are doubtless going to come out all guns blazing (and possibly fists flying) I'd like to see some more beef in the centres - Joseph, probably, with one of the two at 10 - Farrell edging it for superior tackling and goal-kicking ability.

I think you rather prove the point of what I said above: if the parents have told the nanny to behave in this way, or the child has incorrigible behaviour problems, then no harm done, they know the nanny's behaving as they wish. If not then the OP has done them a signal service in alerting them to this behaviour. As for suggesting that the OP was neglecting her own child while looking out for someone else's, don't be silly.

fruityloops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for cooking on charcoal. Get over it. Some > people enjoy it, who are you to stop them. I enjoy smoking, but I take care not to impose it on others who don't like the smoke. Just good manners.

Fair point.

BScarr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have debated about posting this, but if my own > children were ever in this position I would > dismiss the nanny immediately. It wasn't that > there was outward signs of abuse but it was the > emotional wellbeing of the child I was concerned > for. Think you've done absolutely the right thing, I'd want to know if it was my child. EDF being what it is you may well get some people saying "well what if the child is like that all the time and it's not the nanny's fault" - if that's the case the parents will know that as well, won't they? Good for you for intervening and for taking the time to post, in my opinion.

Not much to change really (if he's going to stick with the Sexton/Farrell combination, which I still don't find convincing - the SBW red possibly saved them from too much exposure) - McGrath in for Vunipola and Lawes for Wyn Jones, perhaps?

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not necessarily that fast. If it's caused by space > junk re-entering atmosphere it would move a lot > slower than a shooting star. Possibly - not a meteor then though! I was thinking more prosaically it might have been a drone catching the sunlight, or a Chinese fire balloon?

I'm no Patrick Moore, but surely one can't see a falling meteor for over a minute, given that they travel up to 160,000 mph?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Fair point, yes. Just not for an ordinary open > > field runner who happens to jump when receiving > a > > pass! As Kieran Reid said to the ref > yesterday, > > does that mean next time I've got the ball, if > I > > jump in the air they can't tackle me? > > He had to jump to take the pass as it was head > height - if he is then tackled low whilst still in > the air he's potentially going to topple over head > first. > > As the referee explained, that's why it was only a > penalty, no card. > > I thought it was the right decision. Intentionally > jumping before being tackled is another matter - > although you do see it sometimes under high kicks > where it looked like to catcher jumped just to > take advantage of the rules. I don't think that > was the case with Sinckler. No I don't think he did it deliberately (though as you say, it was head height, he could have caught it without jumping), and the interpretation of the rules is correct, just think they need to tweaking to say if the player is so close to the ground that tackling them there isn't dangerous it's not a penalty, maybe reduce to to a scrum at best.

Really? I regularly ride the bus down that route and have never been on one which has jumped the light, whereas just last week, cycling through the bus lane on a green light (which had been green for at least five seconds as I approached) I was clipped by the wing mirror of a car which drove straight through the red and was lucky not to crash into the support of the bridge.

There was a spate of this last winter, we found eggshells - and in one instance a whole unbroken egg, which caused some headscratching! - in the garden (on Copleston Road). Presumably someone feeding foxes, which I don't object to per se but has implications in terms of rat infestation etc; if you want to feed them best to do it direct when you know they're about rather than leaving food around at random.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > O'Brien cleared. Good news for Lions. Cut down on > pens conceded and they're in with a good chance. Got to drop Vunipola, man's an idiot - not only was he lucky not to be binned before he was but now there's video of him doing the one thing that's really taboo: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/06/30/lionsmako-vunipola-explains-off-the-ball-incident-first-test/ Time for McGrath to start.

Fair point, yes. Just not for an ordinary open field runner who happens to jump when receiving a pass! As Kieran Reid said to the ref yesterday, does that mean next time I've got the ball, if I jump in the air they can't tackle me?

Definitely - I mean technically if one's in mid-stride one's in the air, does that mean the tackler has to time each hit to connect precisely as one's foot touches the ground? I think I'd probably change it to only for receiving kicks - anyone taking a pass, even a poor one like yesterday, is not going to be high enough off the ground to be upended and come down head first, which is what the law is there to stop.

Yes the unquantifiables are by nature, well, unquantifiable. But if you give an unemployed person a job paying, say, ?20,000 a year then you save around ?10,000 maybe in benefits, they'll pay around ?3,000 in tax and NI, 20% of whatever the spend their wage on comes back as VAT etc etc. So that's all tangible return, before starting to count the savings in healthcare, reduced crime rates etc.