Parafox

That game under Southgate would have been a dull, uninspiring 0-0 with England passing sideways and flat going forward. I'm quite looking forward to the WC

I do like Roy Keane in post match analysis. Says it as it is.

For a number of reasons, I struggle with Christmas so, sadly, I dislike everything associated with the festive season but I don't begrudge anyone having their enjoyment. Enjoy

Give the players the freedom to express their skills and that's what you get. Southgate forced them to play negatively within his dogmatic thinking

I wonder if Southgate is thinking, why couldn't I be TT. The gulf in playing style is remarkable. Positive, pacey, attacking, front footed

Once again, child protection within the social services has failed another known (to the relevant services) vulnerable child. How many more?

Was it cardboard box?

I'm already sick and tired of Christmas adverts.

Agreed.

It was pointless tinkering in the first place. I didn't vote at any point as I didn't know anything about the candidates and I still don't. As far as I can ascertain they made no discernible positive changes, certainly not to the police service in our area that seemed effective.

Why? To suck up to a virtual dictator? Just because say's it's so, it doesn't mean it is. The Trump lawyers on this have got a lot to prove and it's unlikely they can conclusively do so. Are you Vance in disguise?

I know. Mix up with names. Is Wes Balls a thing?

Rumours emerging on the news/Newsnight last night that there's a rebellion brewing led it seems, by Ed Streeting. Politics is so Machiavellian at all levels and in all parties. Worse in many countries where assassination is a real possibility.

New Epstein emails that mention Trump released by House Democrats - live updates - BBC News The tighter and closer the net closes on those involved, the more I expect a key individual (or 2) to "disappear". Smoke and fire etc.

Non news.

It's not as open and closed as the Orange Man expects: In a potential defamation lawsuit against the BBC in the United States (specifically Florida, where he has residency), Donald Trump would need to prove three main components: 1) The content was false and defamatory: Trump must show that the BBC's edited presentation of his January 6, 2021 speech was factually false and harmful to his reputation. The core of his claim is that the documentary "intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers" by splicing together two parts of his speech, making it appear as if he explicitly encouraged the US Capitol riot. 2) He suffered harm: He would need to demonstrate that he experienced "overwhelming financial and reputational harm" as a direct result of the specific BBC program. Proving a monetary value for such harm, especially the $1 billion being sought, would be a significant challenge, as he would have to demonstrate major losses. 3) "Actual Malice": As a public figure, Trump faces a high legal bar under US law and must prove the BBC acted with "actual malice." This means he must provide evidence that the BBC either knew the statement was false or acted with "reckless disregard of whether it was true or false". Proving the internal thought processes or intentional deception of the BBC's editors could be difficult. Additionally, a key initial hurdle for Trump's legal team is to establish the court's jurisdiction by proving that the specific Panorama documentary episode was actually available to be viewed in the state of Florida. The documentary was aired in the UK on iPlayer, which is generally not available in the US. Again, all bluster from a narcissistic psycho/sociopath.

I've only driven in Florida when on holiday. What surprised me was the lack of a central reservation on many highways. If there was one, it seemed to be hawser cables stretched between anchor posts. Not "on the road annoyance" related but what I did like in Florida was the Cracker Barrel restaurants. It was several years ago but the one local to us was great.

Really?

By which side?

For clarity: From TVlicence.gov.uk: In the UK, it is a legal requirement to have a TV Licence if you watch or record live TV on any channel, or download or watch BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer, on any device. Ignoring this law can lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000. You do not need a TV Licence to watch: streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus on-demand TV through services like All 4 and Amazon Prime Video videos on websites like YouTube videos or DVDs How much it costs A TV Licence costs £174.50 (£58.50 for black and white TV sets) for both homes and businesses.

Where I live, I turn left from my road and within 300mts there's side roads leading to and from Mcdonald's and then Morrison's. I can promise you that at any time of day, someone will drive straight out in front to me causing me to brake. McDonald's... young drivers.. Morrison's... not so.

Anti-BBC dogma.

Is it? Rubbish statement I'm not even sure what is meant by that statement. Does he think the BBC are going to fold and fail and stop broadcasting. Or is more likely that he resents the licence fee and will use any angle to diss the organisation?