RayC

How's that going to help? What do you have in mind?

No one is denying that Covid and the war have had negative economic effects. In the case of the war, these effects are probably being felt more in mainland Europe than in the UK. And again the reply is that the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that Brexit has made a bad situation, worse. If the suggestion is that Brexit has made things worse for EU member states as well then, 'We are all poorer to one degree or another' doesn't sound like much of a justification to me.

You should re-read the article. Amongst other things, it mentions research which found that Brexit has added £6bn to the UK food bill, and that - according to a survey - a majority of the UK public now think that Brexit was a mistake. This is not opinion, it is reportage. If the research and polling was flawed, then that's fair criticism. Objecting to the message simply because it doesn't fit your own biased narrative isn't. Is the recession in the EU compounded by the effects of Brexit? Perhaps. But if so, surely it adds to the argument that Brexit is economically damaging? I will agree that the author is probably anti-Brexit; the overwhelming majority of economists are.

Come now, Nauseus. How is the article "badly referenced"? The author uses quotation marks where appropriate and states his sources very clearly elsewhere. Perhaps it's the facts within the article that you find unpalatable?

I can see pros and cons to all the potential solutions. Personally, I still think that penalties are as good as system as any (although I suspect that some Spanish fans might disagree!).

It's between the bits where the article states " ... there are clear signs leaving the EU was adding to soaring prices ..." and " .. it was important to highlight the damage Brexit has also done ...". The negative effects of two events - which the government had little control over - compounded by the negative effects of a completely unnecessary, avoidable event.

If that's your objection then, presumably, you would do away with penalties/ free throws from all sports? A free throw in basketball/ netball, etc relies purely on the ability of the thrower. It is a solitary exercise (as is penalty kicking in rugby). No else is involved or can interfere. In a similar vein, in baseball or cricket if the pitcher or bowler strikes/bowls out the batsmen the rest of the fielding team haven't been involved. I believe that there are only two players actively involved in an ice hockey penalty(?). Possibly but there are practical problems in playing on ad infinitum. In most football leagues - amateur or professional - the match finishes after 90 minutes. If the scores are level, both teams share the spoils; (typically) 1 point each. There is (usually) no requirement in league matches that there has to be a winner. As I said previously, I think that most football fans would prefer to see knock-out matches resolved after 90/ 120 minutes; however, imo penalties are as good a method as any for resolving matters if the match ends in a draw.

You can't say that! Off to 'The Tower' with you.

Tbf you can see why he was a bit cheesed off. His brother got a country (Wales) plus a cultured city (Cambridge). His Aunt had Edinburgh; his simpleton Uncle got an ancient kingdom (Wessex). Even his deviant Uncle got a decent city - albeit a Northern one - York. Poor old Harry gets offered part of one of the worst local authorities in Scotland. No wonder he upped sticks and left!

A game can end with a penalty shoot-out therefore, one more reason football is unwatchable? You ignore the pressure and tension involved in a penalty shoot-out, which is felt by both players and fans: It is a real test of both skill and nerve for the players. A minimum of 5 - usually 6 - players per side are involved in a penalty shoot-out, and it sometimes happens that all 22 players have to take a penalty, so the team element is very much present. That said, I think that the vast majority of fans would prefer that a winner was found in 90/ 120 minutes of play. A 'golden goal' ending has been tried. However, instead of encouraging teams to attack, it usually resulted in negative play, which in the end still required penalties to settle things, therefore it was dropped.

The transcript suggests that Lady H was trying to put Marlene in what she perceived as her place! What Lady H should have said/done. Lady H: Where are you from? Marlene: Hackney Lady H: That's a very nice dress. Alternatively, Lady H could have asked Marlene, any number of different questions e.g. How did you get here? What line of work are you in? Or even: Lady H, sensing Marlene wasn't in a talkative mood, utilises her 60 years of diplomatic experience and moves on: Lady H: Lovely to meet you. I hope that you enjoy the rest of the evening. (Probably) none of this outcry would of then occurred. Piece of p*"' this diplomacy lark.

Aka "The Good Old Days"

I agree that if they remain on one knee throughout the game against France, then England will find it difficult. However, if past matches are anything to go by, it's probably safe to assume that the starting eleven will be fully upright before the referee blows his whistle, and that the team will run around a bit during the match.

I can empathise with some of what you say, but my interpretation of this particular incident differs from yours. Lady H is elderly but there is no indication that she has lost her faculties. Racist? Possibly. Aristocratic snob? Definitely, based on the published dialogue. If this incident is anything to go by, she should have been removed from diplomatic circles long ago.

I mean to say, the temerity of these people! Oh for the good old days when the plebs knew their place.

Perhaps this advice was given? In her defence, maybe she didn't understand it.

Ms. Marin has 'weak' (my word) " ... strength of character and lack of moral compass"? and " ... liberal ... European leaders that are clearly out of their depth and a real danger to the world". How can you tell all this from a home video of her partying?

Apologies. You're right. I got you mixed up with Mac.

Deleted. Apologies. I replied to you in error.

Where you from? The UK What part? London What part of London? Brixton Where do your family com from? London But originally? London I mean your ancestors? I can only trace my family back as far as my great-grandparents. Everyone was borne in London, with the exception of one great-grandmother who was born in Devon. So your family's from Devon? <deleted>, mate. Give it a rest.

Oh, here we go. Anyone who doesn't agree with my vision of the UK can't really be British.

No it wouldn't. But it would be odd to be interrogated about it

Someone should tell the individuals featured in the first minute of this video that. https://youtu.be/u_BDG9JtGw8

Brilliant! Thanks for posting.

Hopefully, you are correct.