dsr-burnley

Not any more. Going back quite a few years the councils used to sell the rubbish to recycling companies; now (and even in 2023 when this was posted) they have to pay to have the companies accept it.

Dyche's best performance with Burnley was finishing 7th in 2017-18 and qualifying for Europe. True, he only had one other top ten finish, 2019-20. Unfortunately by then the chairman had stopped investing on players, and by the time Dyche got sacked Burnley FC had £80m in the bank. (Now we have negative £60m because the outgoing chairman took it all with him and replaced it with an IOU from the incoming, skint chairman). He only had two full seasons at Championship level with Burnley. 2013-14, P46 W26 D15 L5, F72 A37, 93 points, second. 2015-16 P46 W26 D15 L5, F72 A35, 93 points, first. The first of those seasons, we had finished 11th the year before under Eddie Howe and were forced to sell our only saleable asset, Charlie Austin. All Dyche could sign were free transfers from Bristol City, Huddersfield, and Wiigan. (Admittedly they were Tom Heaton, Scott Arfield, and David Jones, and a better free-transfer window there has never been.) And as Leicester supporters know perfectly well, if you have a side less inclined to fanny about at the back and more inclined to get the ball to your goalscorer in prime position, and it wins you the league, it is entertaining. Incidentally, for those who think he isn't the man to build, in his first PL season he demanded that his transfer budget be reduced and the money spent on a new training ground (cost £11m, incidentally). He was not happy that the first PL promotion had done nothing for the club infrastructure.

Must cost a bob or two to keep the glass polished.

Alex Ferguson had 9 assistant managers while at Man United. A great manager can cope with not having his own players, so surely he could cope with not having his own backroom staff. The problem with RVN is not that he hadn't got a great backroom staff; it's that he isn't a great manager.

I checked mine over the weekend and it's up several thousand pounds over the last year. Either I have a genius pension company or else I have failed to take the short term view!

It's complicated, but after two or three goes at it, the laws committee have made it make sense. It's part of section 2. https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside Broadly speaking, if Smith the defender has time to see the ball coming and no particular pressure, and chooses (say) to head it back to the goalkeeper having not seen Jones the forward in the way, then it's not offside. When Bloggs the goalkeeper lumped it forward, Jones was in an offside position but not interfering; when Smith deliberately played the ball in a controlled manner, it became a new phase of play so Jones was not offside. If the ball had been wellied at Smith from five yards so that he didn't have time to adjust and it flicked off his head in an uncontrolled way, then Jones would still be offside because Smith hadn't played the ball in a controlled manner. The law is specific that attempts to block a shot don't count as deliberately playing the ball.

It did, but the old rule about being played onside if it touched a defender was abolished in about 1972, and the new rule is specific that it doesn't apply to a blocked shot. It only applies if the defender has time and space to control the ball.

It would be even better if they hadn't got the colon and semi-colon the wrong way round.

You can (at least sometimes) get home without a passport. I came back from a trip once with a man who left his passport in his camera bag on the station platform on the journey home, but (with the help of lots of phone calls to various places) they still allowed him through eurostar to get home.

Rumour has it that when it gets closer, they could ram it with a spaceship (unmanned, unlike Hollywood) that would give enough momentum to change its course.

Might be worth remembering that if the majority of professional investors felt the same way, the price would be higher than it is now.

1.2 is fine. I've got a 13 year old Corsa that does about 45 mpg over that sort of distance and it's easy peasy driving up to 75 mph or so, which is plenty. If you want to push it to 80 mph then you have to hold the wheel firmly and your mpg goes down.

The graph, so far as I can read it, is based entirely on the model figures. It does mention in the detail of the article that the model started in the past so they could compare model figures with the actual figures, but I can't actually see in that article where they have done it. Thanks for the info, anyway. The second article is interesting too. The raw data can (I think) be found by putting together the various bits of info scattered around the article, but what I think it amounts to is that the number of days with more than 2 inches of rainfall, for any given part of the country, has gone from about 3 every 10 years to about 4 every 10 years. I wonder how much variation would be expected on a purely random basis? From personal observation, about floods not rainfall this time, there is a certain caravan site in Eckington, Worcestershire which used to flood every winter without fail in the seventies. In the eighties this stopped happening, and people replaced their old fashioned tin box caravans (no electric or plumbing) with newer ones with all mod cons. In the nineties the site flooded once, and in the 2000's, after the caravans had been replaced, it flooded once more. The site has now moved to the next field on higher ground, but the original site is still flooding only rarely. There are multiple causes - I doubt that lower rainfall is the cause, but improved river management of the Severn and Avon probably is. (The 2000's flood was a summer flood, which is unusual, but the figures from your second article suggest that summer rainfall is not increasing anyway.) There is also a bridge in Worcester marking the height of the River Severn floods. There are numerous examples from the 1600;s, fewer from the 1700's, then nothing until the second half of the 1900's. There is clearly more to flooding than just climate change, and studies need to be very much in depth to get to the bottom of it all.

No, that's a prediction. Even the so-called historic data is a prediction working backwards of what it might have been. Is there any actual recorded data that shows number of extreme rainfall events?

Are there statistics for that?

A lot of the problem is dredging policy. In the seventies, policy was to dredge rivers to let the water flow quickly. Now, policy is not to dredge rivers because it's better for wildlife. The water can't get away as fast so it builds up and builds up until it has to go somewhere else. Couple that with less efficient maintenance of drainage systems, and more houses on flood plains and the Victorian sewers being 50 years older, and it adds up to floods.

It's a strange stat. It would only be meaningful if they told us what produced the steam. Maybe the steam was generated by oil-fired boilers. Coal or wood (then as now) would be a very bulky source of power.

No, that's true. You would have to do more than just destroy their businesses to get them to be poor. But how vital is it that they should be poor? Would you give up your job and your home so that Gates and Musk had a little less?

On the basis that I can't pick Lancashire, I'll go for Yorkshire (North Riding) followed by Northumberland.

They've all got richer by businesses growing. If we just shut down their companies, they'd be as poor as the rest of us. (Well, their ex-employees would be poorer still, but that's another matter.)

But we can only pay that duty to society if we have money. Obviously we could live a stone-age subsistence type life without money, but even then, they used to trade to get richer. People want possessions, it's how we are.

At its most basic, if there has ever been a rape that did not make money for the perpetrator, then the proposition fails. Love of money is at the root of a lot of evil. Love of power, ditto. But not all. And for that matter, Fayed didn't commit all those abuses to make money or because he loved money, he committed them because he loved abusing women. Money just made it easier but it wasn't the cause.

1. St Paul actually said that "love of money is the root of all evil". I think the misquote is often deliberate so it can be used against the rich. 2. He was wrong anyway. Neither money, nor love of money, is responsible for most sexual assaults, for example.

Because if that's true, which it probably isn't, they wouldn't chase after the culprit because they didn't know at the time that it was her.

They need to have a way of getting rid of the incompetents. I have the good fortune to live on the Lancashire/Yorkshire border, so I have the choice between East Lancashire Trust and Airedale Trust. 13 years ago, I had a gall bladder operation, and because I had a choice, I chose Airedale. As would most people in this area. And as I had an operation coming, I did some research. Blackburn had cancelled 5,000 operations in the previous 5 years, for all sorts of reasons including not enough theatres ready, surgeon but no anaesthetist, anaesthetist but no surgeon, both surgeon and anaesthetist but no nurse, lights not working in the theatre, etc etc etc etc etc. Airedale, meanwhile, had cancelled 15. 13 years later, it's still the same. East Lancashire Trust is run as incompetently as it ever was, Airedale is still run well. An example of someone who needs sacking. A friend of mine had a heart attack. He knew what it was, so did his wife, so they rang 999 and were told the ambulance would be half an hour. Now, if the ambulance had arrived in half an hour, that would have been poor and worthy of investigation. But it didn't, because when half an hour was up they were told it would be a further 2 hours. (So they dashed off to hospital by car, Airedale of course!, and he survived.) Now, if the ambulance service had rung up after half an hour and said there was a delay and make your own way to hospital, that would have been abysmal service and action needed urgenly to improve it. But they didn't even do that. What Lancashire ambulance do is, when you first ring up, tell you not to ring back to see where the ambulance is, because you risk getting your first call cancelled and put to the back of the queue. And on this occasion, when the ambulance didn't turn up, my friend's wife did ring back to be told that the ambulance wasn't coming - but the ambulance service weren't going to tell her unless she rang. They were going to let him wait for at least two more hours until he died or got better. They told him an ambulance was coming when it was not. For that, someone should have been sacked. If someone wasn't following procedures, obviously them; if procedures were followed, then whoever set the procedures should have been out on their ear. How many people are in responsible roles but can't do them?