RayC

Fair play to the marketing departments of Netflix and Buck Palace. Both are playing a blinder here.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

You either didn't read my response properly, or didn't understand it, 

It's the latter.

I thought that you were complaining about the author of the article not referencing his sources, rather than the original poster not stating explicitly than the article comes from 'The Observer'. 

You're right; he doesn't but it also doesn't change the fact that Brexit has had negative effects for the UK economy.

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

How many people have you convinced to change their mind about Brexit ?

None that I am aware of.

However, according to the latest opinion polls many people have changed their minds. I have no idea whether they have been convinced by others or worked out things for themselves.

Have you managed to personally to get any Remainers to change sides?

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Stop sending money abroad,

Ignoring the moral argument, probably counter-productive anyway. Alienates partners, weakens our influence on the world stage and probably has negative economic consequences to boot.

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

get out of NATO,

That would weaken our security and, almost certainly, cost us more than it saves.

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

sell arms to other countries,

Don't think that we have too many qualms about doing so as it is 

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

buy oil from Russia,

I'm sure that we will first chance that we get 

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

do deals with China, 

Again ignoring the moral aspect, they aren't that keen on engaging with us.

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

get immigrants to work straight away to save loss in farm produced products in UK.

I imagine that many immigrants would agree with you. The UK needs to speed up the process.

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Make beer completely tax free to save pubs,

Excellent idea but only (proper) ale/ stout???? Heavily tax lager and 'craft' beers to compensate for the loss of revenue.

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

turn the channel tunnel into a supergun,

Would need French agreement but why not.

15 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

let motorbikes only go as fast as they want UK.

I'd prefer to pay for motorcyclists to move to the Isle of Man.

22 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Nowt ya can do about buddy except accept and get on with it. 

Disagree. Very few things are irreversible.

At the very least, don't make a bad situation worse: Johnson and Truss seemed determined to do just that. Small mercies: On first impressions, Sunak seems to be more pragmatic than his immediate predecessors as PM (although he hasn't had a major run in with 'Flat Earth Brigade' - aka the ERG - yet).

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

The UK being the UK make themselves there own enemy ,now is the time to get tough citing charity begins at home.

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

1 hour ago, BostonRob2 said:

Interesting debate.

 

This is worth a read:

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1195909-10-alternatives-to-a-penalty-shootout#:~:text=ADG sees an attacker go,we go to sudden death.

 

Rooster

 

 

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!).

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Of course there is pressur and tension involved, but that isn't the point. It is a team game, reducing it to a one on one is ludicrous. Would be like having a home run hitting contest to decide a baseball game. 

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(?).

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

 

The "golden goal" probably didn't work because the players knew that a penalty shootout was coming afterwards. It made them ultra conservative. But if they knew they had to play until they scored, it would be different. 

Possibly but there are practical problems in playing on ad infinitum.

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

 

I can see in league play wanting to speed things along, but in the sudden death playoffs? Sorry, no.   Hell, even World Cup Finals have been decided by penalty kicks.  Unsatisfying for the winners and losers alike. 

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. 

30 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Only missing is an official DNA test

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

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Harry resigned his position from the Royal Family and that should exclude his Family from getting Royal titles and he rejected the offer of being the Prince of Dumbarton 

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!

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yet another reason soccer is unwatchable- ending a playoff game with a penalty shoot.   Really takes the "team" out of the sport, doesn't it?  How about playing until someone scores?  

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.

39 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If Marlene had told Lady Hussey her place  from the beginning , none of this would have happened 

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.

33 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

Mmmm..."Much ado about nothing"..... 

Aka "The Good Old Days"

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I would rather say, "oh for the good old days when we gave a little slack to people clearly in their dotage who inadvertently blurt out silly things".

 

The culture clearlly changed and left Lady H behind.  Strange example, but think about movies. Could "Blazing Saddles" or "Airplane" or "Slap Shot" possibly be made today?  I sometimes watch "reaction" videos on youtube and seeing younger people react to them is quite fascinating. The reviewers just can't get past the supposed racism or harsh language, just don't get the concept of absurd slapstick comedy at all. 

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.

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Older people tend to speak more directly and abruptly, especially to people from a lower social standing and young enough to be their daughter 

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

1 hour ago, Pla Simon said:

Poor Lady Susan Hussey.

 

Unfortunate.

 

If only her advisers had kept her abreast of the evolving maleable precepts of social constructivism, and the resultant cognitive artefacts thereof.

 

If only she had worried about her pronouns, taken the deferential knee and apologised - offering restitution for her white privilege, before heartfelt discourse on whether or not women can have a penis, this whole subjective parlance faux pas and resultant travesty could have been avoided entirely...

Perhaps this advice was given?

In her defence, maybe she didn't understand it.