rendelharris

I agree, I thought Lawes had done more than enough to come in alongside Itoje, and I really don't think a Sexton/Farrell 10 and 12 has enough beef or authority to deter rampaging Blacks. The snippet I caught on the radio this morning had Gatland extolling the virtue of having a right and left footed kicking partnership - handy, for sure, but if that's the best reason you've got...I'm afraid I can see this selection being twenty down at the half. Hope I'm wrong but really doesn't feel right to me. This from Gerry Guscott on the BBC website: "If I was opposite Farrell and Sexton I'd think all my Christmases had come at once and the All Blacks will think exactly the same thing."

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PLEASE don't anyone bang on about buses, train, > walking - I don't do the turning-up at work in > sweat thing, nor should I have to if we have a > direct link to LB. > There are two things at play here IMO, (1) The bad > way that Govt have set-up privatisation of our > line, the contrcats they've agreed to, and the > lack of accountability to the public, (2) Lazy > ungrateful railway staff or unions, propa 1st > world @#$%&. > > ETA: the last word rhymes with 'Tankers', BTW. So the unions wanting better pay and conditions makes them first world problem J.Arthurs...your refusal even to listen to the suggestion of any other form of transport beyond a direct fast train, that's not a first world problem at all, I take it?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since neither of them gained an outright majority > (although Theresa May got a larger share of the > votes this time than David Cameron when he won > last time) Desperate straw clutching again! Labour also got a far higher share of the vote than Cameron achieved in 2015 (40% to 36.8%) and nearly a million more votes. I know you're licking your wounds over there on the right but better to face what's happened manfully than desperately trying to seek some chimeric mandate which simply doesn't exist.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there are also other areas which have been less > affected, e.g. Balham, from where Southern trains > to Victoria have never run once every hour during > rush hour, AFAIK and based on what local residents > tell me. That's a bit apples and oranges: Balham has sixteen services per hour to Victoria, whereas ED has four per hour to London Bridge. So if industrial action forced a loss of 75% of services, ED would be down to one train an hour while Balham would still have four. Southern are a disgrace but you have to take into consideration the volume of trains expected in ideal circumstances before simply assuming other areas are better off.

I agree I guess, maybe I was a bit dazzled by his exceeding my expectations for him, which were very low. Bit left-field but is it worth considering Jack Nowell at 15? For me he simply hasn't the pace for a top-class wing, but he can catch, tackle and is an excellent counter-attacking runner in broken field play. He's played fullback for the Chiefs on occasion.

Agree, totally idiotic - he makes a big thing of not being bothered by pressure but clearly some old farts in blazers have had a word about "respecting the shirt, old boy..." If someone who wouldn't otherwise have done gets to play a half for the Lions, does it really matter, and if it saves players for the tests...ridiculous fuss, it made sense to call up players who had short journeys (especially when we saw how jetlagged the Lions looked at the start of the tour) and it's not as if they were called out of the local pub team - all established internationals. Cole and Marler, to name but two, looked absolutely shagged by the end of yesterday's thriller; now if a prop or two gets crocked in training before Saturday Gatland'll have to think about putting poorly recovered players in the 23, all because of some myth about "respecting the shirt."

It would have been highly amusing to see a 'Spoons in the Village - I wonder if it would have had a "reverse Waitrose" effect on property prices?

This works (for now). 'Tis genius.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, are you sure that waist's only 36"? You been stalking me? Yes thanks, my Levis say 34 but the tape measure says different, unfortunately...

Think the Barnett formula is for calculating extras based on what England, or sometimes England and Wales, spend - so if there's X amount extra spent on public services in England then Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland are all entitled to a rise in proportion. I don't think it applies between the devolved governments - in any case it's only advisory, not statutory.

So the government is going to give Northern Ireland an extra ?1BN in exchange for the votes of ten DUP MPs. Given that the DUP garnered 292,316 votes in total, why didn't the Tories just give those voters ?3,812 each to vote for them? Is there a quantative difference? And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane. It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: -- "We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!" (from Rudyard Kipling, "Dane-geld")

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the money given to the Royal Family is a > proportion of the money made by the Crown Estate, > with the treasury keeping most of it. So while the > Queen gets ?40 million, the treasury gets ?285 > million. It's a myth that the money paid to the > Monarchy is tax payers money. It is not. Yes it is - under the agreement made by George III (mainly so he wouldn't be responsible for his debts) all revenues from the Crown Estate go to the state, which then makes provision for the monarchy from those funds. This used to be the civil list, but in a typical act of brown-nosing Blair gave into the demands of the royals that it was too embarrassing to have the civil list debated every ten years, so he agreed that HMQ would get a 15% cut - something which, incidentally, will in the fullness of time make her massively rich, as part of the Crown Estate is the licensing rights to the seabed, which means all offshore wind developments have to pay the estate. Nonetheless all revenue from the Crown Estate belongs to the government and by extension the taxpayer, out of which payment is made to the monarchy. So it's not a myth, it is our money and has been since 1760.

Crystal Matt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EMERGENCY RESPONSE ?????? > Get a grip > Do you really want to delay police or ambulance to > a real emergency ? Police UK website: "You should call 999 if a crime is happening right now or there is a risk of serious damage to property." i.e. if you see some people in the act of doing hundreds of pounds' worth of damage to cars, call 999 and the police will put an emergency response in place. Thanks for the unnecessary rudeness and stupid implication though.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just googled it and the Royal Family cost about > ?35m/year including all staff and property > management. Where on earth did you get that figure from? Her Majesty alone received ?45M from the government last year (I know the figures are from that rabid republican leftwing rag the Telegraph, but still: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/queens-income-rises-again-as-cost-of-royal-family-is-62p-per-per/ ) Furthermore the monarchy pays no costs for the massive security surrounding them, that comes out of police/army funds, nor do they contribute anything bar their presence to events celebrating them, for example Trooping the Colour - again, defence budget. Costs of royal visits around the country fall on local authorities and police forces, again no contribution from the royals themselves. When royals travel overseas on state business* that's funded by the Foreign Office, despite absurd extravagance (e.g. when Charles flew to Nelson Mandela's funeral he refused to fly first class at a cost of around ?10,000, instead insisting on a private jet costing ?246,000). Her Maj doesn't pay for all royal buildings either, she recently received a large boost in funding, to be continued until 2026, for the rewiring, replumbing etc of Buckingham Palace. If you want to keep them and the majority of the country agree, fine, but at least be honest about what they cost. *ETA and not such official business, e.g. airmiles Andy getting a private helicopter to play golf at St.Andrews and having the taxpayer fund the ?23K cost by making a short and pointless speech to local businessmen when he's there.

I think we have to keep a monarchy for as long as the majority of the populace wants one - they overwhelmingly do so my personal view that their existence perpetuates the concept of a forelock-tugging society where everyone should know their place is irrelevant. However, the idea that the Royal family per se are a tourist attraction is false, I think. Royal heritage, for sure, royal family, no. The most popular royal-related attraction in Britain last year was the Tower of London: no royals live there, you've no chance of a glimpse of a royal if you go there, yet the tourists still flock to it. In 2015 the Tower of London was the only royalty-related location to make it into the top twenty of paid for British tourist attractions, and not one made it into the top twenty free attractions: https://www.visitbritain.org/annual-survey-visits-visitor-attractions-latest-results Keep them, by all means, if you want, but the argument that they significantly boost our tourist economy simply doesn't stack up. I haven't noticed that Paris, Venice, Rome, Berlin, Moscow, New York etc etc do too badly on the tourist front, despite being situated in republics.

sabrina79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no 999 for this but 101 this is not a case of > death/emergency .....hope you called the police > when it happened ?!?! That's not so, police advice is to call 999 if a crime is in progress and an emergency response is required, as in this case it clearly would have been.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "... The bikeahangar is designed to be unobtrusive > ..." > > As per an former post of mine - they look like pig > pens blighting our roads Whereas sodding enormous Porsche Cayennes and Range Rover Vogues really beautify the street environment, don't they?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, nobody in the area of the prospective hanger > owns a bike. Sorry, can you define "area"? As far as I'm aware they're only put in if a quorum of residents have requested one and signed up to pay the fees, has it really just been dumped down in a place where not one resident wants it? If so that definitely needs looking into.

I stand corrected Joe, though I wish I didn't. As for the rest of what you say, spot on, every word.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Talking of political Neanderthals- I see your > brown-nosing pal Corbyn is at Glastonbury whilst > Theresa May is in Liverpool for Armed Forces > Day..... > says it all really That'll be Theresa May who has been part of a government which has cut our military from over 100,000 in 2010 to under 80,000 today? And still has the cheek to pitch up at an event supposedly supporting the armed forces? Certainly does say it all.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ditto. What a bunch of sad moaners. Yeah, down with clean air! Saddoes.

Well, I was dead wrong about Williams, he played a blinder. I'd want Best to start, and maybe Cole - he's not that creative but he's solid as a rock. Itoje on the pitch from the start...Joseph in the centres? Warburton from the start as well maybe, I think he's better as a solid starter than an "impact" sub. Other than that, you know, they did a pretty good job really, just outclassed by the best team on the planet by a good couple of furlongs.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They want to put a bike hanger outside my > neighbour's house in an area where nobody owns a > bike. It is near a junction and in a part of the > street where parents dropping children off at the > new primary school park. If you add in the > possible extra double yellow lines we have been > threatened with, we residents will have nowhere to > park! Nobody owns a bike? Literally? How big is this area?

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > Have you been drinking this early in the day > again? I know your job causes you no end of > anguish as you watch society decline from the > moral high ground you feel it once occupied (but > never did), but maybe leave it until after midday > eh? > I can think of no other explanation for that > fatuous claim than that you are drunk. Uncle's obviously fallen for a lying meme that's been doing the rounds, a photo of the "Day of Rage Bring Down the Government" flyer with a statement that it's a direct call from McDonnell, ignoring the fact that McDonnell has called for a demo on July 1st, not last Wednesday which was when the Day of Slightly Apathetic Annoyance took place. Amazing how many rightists I've had to point this lie out to this week, almost as amazing as their "well it's what he would say if he wasn't a liar" evasions.

A gentleman should never wear shorts (well not if he's got legs like mine anyway, 'orrible sight). Though I must say seeing those lads in Exeter I thought why not...though I doubt my 36" waist would fit into Mrs.H's 24" waist skirts...I envy our Muslim brothers in this weather, those loose robes look just the ticket. Shorts ought to be fine but not the current posher trend of tailored white shirts with pinkish red shorts and sockless deck shoes, that really is indefensible.