 | Forum
Reply | Music that makes you cry.
at 20:47 1 Jun 2024
Oh God, used to sing the first verse of that to my son as a lullaby when he was tiny (as he loved dragons.)
Never knew how it ended or what it was really about until we saw a picture book of the thing, which we bought for him. Great excitement as he was allowed to have it as his bed-time read, followed by collapse when he got to the bit where Jackie whatsis grows up and never plays with the dragon again
Hard to imagine now he's a gert bearded lump but there you go, that's parenthood for you. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 22:16 30 May 2024
The meaning of the word "benefit" is not a matter of debate or philosophical discussion, it is a legal term defined in Acts of Parliament, for example (from the Social Security Act 1998, including subsequent amendments:)
In this Chapter “relevant benefit” F42... means any of the following, namely—
(a)benefit under Parts II to V of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
[F43(aa)universal credit;]
[F44(ab)state pension or a lump sum under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2014;]
[F45(ac)bereavement support payment under section 30 of the Pensions Act 2014;]
(b)a jobseeker’s allowance;
[F46(ba)an employment and support allowance;]
[F47(baa)personal independence payment;]
[F48(bb)state pension credit;]
[F49(bc)a loan under section 18 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;]
(c)income support;
F50(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F50(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(f)a social fund payment mentioned in section 138(1)(a) or (2) of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(g)child benefit;
(h)such other benefit as may be prescribed." |
| Forum
Reply | Rumour Plymouth manager gone
at 22:36 25 May 2024
I can't work out which is more astonishing:
1. the appointment
2. that 67% of fans on PASOTI think it's a good call.
"Those that the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad" but I don't know what the gods have got against Plymouth, I've always quite liked them. Has someone down there picked the wrong goddess in a beauty contest or something? |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 08:05 25 May 2024
No he wasn't.
The contracts were set up in 1996; prosecutions started in 1999 and carried on until 2015, a total of 16 years. The cover-up went on for another 4 years or so - Alan Bates got his court case started in 2017 but it took two years of the PO lying to the court before the judgement was given in 2019.
Davey was PO Minister for just over 20 months of that time in 2010-2012, going into the role over ten years after it started.
Politics and journalism aren't that murky, the thing was covered extensively by Private Eye for most of the time and the BBC started broadcasting The Great Post Office Trial in 2020, more than three years before the ITV "Mr Bates" drama. All the facts have been out there for ages if anyone wants to bother looking them up. |
| Forum
Reply | General Election Thread
at 00:17 24 May 2024
Thing I learnt today
It's less than 100 years since all adults (originally over-21s) got the vote in 1928
In all that time there have been only two elections (arguably one) where a government with a working majority (i.e. enough to stop a couple of MPs rebelling stop a bill) has been replaced by a different party also with a working majority.
Only 8 times has a new party got into No 10 - the Tories were already there in 1929 and stayed there until 1945 (Lab), then it goes 1951 (Con) 1964 (Lab) 1970 (Con) 1974 (Lab) 1979 (Con) 1997 (Lab) 2010 (Con).
Out of the changes, in 1979 and 1997 Callaghan and Major respectively had already lost their majority through by-elections before the General. On the other hand in 1964 Labour only won a majority of four, in Feb 1974 and 2010 Lab and Con respectively didn't even get a majority at all.
In 1951 Labour went in with a majority of only 5 and the Tories came out with a majority of only 17 (and actually got less votes than Labour.)
Then you've got 1945 when a big Tory majority got replaced by a big Labour one, but arguably that doesn't count because Labour was in the war govt.
The only unarguable change was 1970 when Wilson's majority of 98 was replaced by Heath's majority of 30 (including the Ulster Unionists who counted as Tory for the last time.) |
| Forum
Reply | First voted in 1985 as a naive 18 year old
at 21:12 22 May 2024
For those who can't vote for any of the existing parties, I'd like to point out that last time out Count Binface stood in Uxbridge on a manifesto of moving the hand dryer in the Crown & Treaty House bogs to a more sensible location, which I thought had merit. |
| Forum
Reply | First voted in 1985 as a naive 18 year old
at 21:05 22 May 2024
This is correct - for anyone worried (or hopeful come to that) boundary changes relate to MP's constituencies and are supposed to make sure that each MP represents roughly the same number of people - local councils don't need to be equal, they just have to roughly make sense as a unit.In our case it's still London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which continues to include us, Chelsea and Fulham
So any arguments with, or help from, the local council that we can expect will be with the same bunch of people irrespective of what happens in this election.
FWIW the next council elections will be 2026 though I can't see it changing the council much, it's currently 36 Labour v 11 Conservative; "our" local councillor (White City ward) is Labour, as is "theirs" (Walham Green) but Fulham's (Palace and Hurlingham ward) is Conservative (insert your own Tarquin reference here) |
| Forum
Reply | First voted in 1985 as a naive 18 year old
at 20:48 22 May 2024
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
If, on July 4th, Marti Cifuentes rips off his mask and reveals that he has in fact been Mick Beale all along, then political threads are going to be the least of Clive's worries |
| Forum
Reply | Players we should have got rid - way before we did
at 17:19 12 May 2024
I suppose the real "hanging onto" players are ones that were actually decent, but where we kept them to a point where we had to sell them for peanuts because the contract had run down, when we could have got a decent price and reinvested a year or two before.
Those are tough to call.
Maybe Trevor Sinclair, who we could have flogged for big money (then) when we were relegated? We kept him as part of the bid for immediate promotion, and failed badly.
But then we'd have never have had that goal against Barnsley. |
| Forum
Reply | Players we should have got rid - way before we did
at 17:12 12 May 2024
Tony Roberts
This isn't just a "Roberts was crap" judgement - for a few years the jury was out, he would have occasional decent games, pull off a classy save etc.
But by 1995 at the absolute latest (when we'd had a whole season without Stejskal), when we still had a good squad in which he was clearly a weakness, and when we were about to get the Ferdinand money, we could have replaced him for a fraction of the money spaffed on Hateley etc.
PS Barton was one we never should have signed in the first place, all the warning signs were in plain view. |
| Forum
Reply | Players we should have kept
at 14:41 12 May 2024
That was the one that made me think "hello, I don't like the look of this."
I'm not saying that Gorkss would have kept us up, but it seemed a gratuitous kick in the teeth to a good guy. It felt like the judgement was that the promotion team were to be thrown away for something shiny and new. |
| Forum
Reply | Andre the friendly ghost departs
at 14:25 12 May 2024
If so, can't help feeling his dad has not done him any favours.
Simply allowed him to be exposed above his natural level.
As with the offspring of a lot of sporting legends, real career options appear to be to accept that you're nowhere near as good a player as your dad/mum/uncle/whatever and
- chip out some sort of living playing the sport you love at a lower level, or
- do something else and play for fun in your spare time
(Obviously there are exceptions, like the Charlton brothers being nephews of Jackie Milburn, but Bobby Charlton was a football genius and Jack some sort of workaholic, and Andre Dozzell has never looked like either of those things even at his best.) |
| Forum
Reply | Away Kit - WISHLIST 2024/25 Season
at 17:26 29 Apr 2024
Fair enough.
If anyone could find a sponsor whose initials spelled out F U C K O F F C H E L S E A just for that one match in that shirt that would be nice too. |
| Forum
Reply | Away Kit - WISHLIST 2024/25 Season
at 17:17 29 Apr 2024
Incidentally, the problem with green and white hoops is that, however well it works as a kit (which it does) it doesn't do the prime job of an away kit which is to avoid colour clashes that come with the home kit.
We should be wearing blue and white hoops except when we're playing anyone in predominantly blue or predominantly white (or both). Against teams in white, green-and-white just won't do. |
| Forum
Reply | Team for Cov
at 00:53 27 Apr 2024
Sympathise with the OP but there is such a thing as integrity and respect for the competition, the other teams, and the fans.
One or two younger players getting a run-out is one thing, wholesale changes is going too far. |
| | CiderwithRsie
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 3619 | | Comment Votes: | 14 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 3633 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.