dsr-burnley

Unless you work really hard at them, your insurers will register the claim as a claim on your insurance and you will lose no claims.

It shouldn't stop the right to protest, but I think protests that involve jihad are illegal already regardless of weasel words about jihad meaning different things. We know what Islamist jihad against the Jews means. (If someone called for a purge of gay people, the police wouldn't fail to arrest them on the grounds that they might mean happy people should have an enema.) However, the Remembrance weekend, with the 11th being on Saturday, has both days taken up with Remembrance. Let this weekend's protest be on Monday for a change.

The protesters could do themselves a lot of good by carrying posters of the Israelis being held hostage in Gaza and some of the dead in Israel, to make it clear that they are supporting the Palestinian people and not their government. Rightly or wrongly, they are seen as supporting Hamas.

In law, if not in practice, the other bloke has wrecked your car and he has to compensate you (presumably via his insurance). That's what happened with my brother's repair (not write-off) when an empty car, whose owner had forgotten both brakes and gears, parked it at the top of a hill. How much you insured your car for, and what your insurance company thinks about the accident, is (in law but often not in practice) irrelevant. Insurance companies go knock for knock even when it's stupid. You could always try dealing with the other party's insurance, if you know who they are. I did that once with my mother's insurance - I even had to send confirmation from one to the other that the other driver had admitted liability, because her insurance couldn't be bothered even to speak to the other party.

I agree. Chelsea got a penalty against Burnley earlier this season, given by the ref on the field, when the big question was whether the contact was inside or outside the area. The still photo showed the contact was inside, but also shows that Sterling was half way to horizontal before contact had been made. VAR was happy to confirm that it was a penalty, presumably on the grounds that Sterling was actually hovering and could have floated towards goal if he hadn't touched the Burnley defender. A lot of the penalty problem isn't with VAR, actually. It's with the referees themselves. A lot of them genuinely believe that if two players touch and one of them falls over, it is a foul by the other one. "Tripping" as an offence, does not mean that player A has done some action that made player B fall over. It means that player A and player B touched each other and player B threw himself down. Player B has finished on the floor and therefore he was tripped, end of story. It is literally impossible for player A to avoid "fouling" player B.

There's no way to judge the offside because there isn't a VAR camera that can see the ball. Hence it's impossible to judge whether Gordon was in front of it.

Surely "elves on the shelves" ??

I can't see how it's unfair on Leicester v Liverpool if West Ham have a decision settled by VAR. If Leicester had it and Liverpool didn't (or vice versa) then yes, it would be unfair, but not if a match the other end of the country has it.

This enquiry is all about hindsight. It's obviously concentrating hard on apportioning blame, which to me isn't important. what is important is what decisions were made, what mistakes were made, and how to avoid making those mistakes in future. Hindsight is all-important.

That's the sort of emotionalism that got in the way of debate all along, IMO. In real life, it's generally accepted that sometimes we allow people to die just because it makes life more convenient. Motoring being a case in point - it would be easy to eliminate road deaths by having all vehicles governed to maximum speed 20 mph, with maximum 5 mph in towns, but we don't because it would be inconvenient. It's a question. If there are 100 old people with varying degrees of dementia, is it better for those 100 - on balance - if they are allowed frequent visitors and 10 of them die of covid, 15 die of other causes, and all 100 live their lives in a happier state than they would have been? Or is it better to lock them up with no human contact and 5 die of covid, 15 die of other causes, and they're pretty miserable ands their dementia advances faster? The numbers are made up but the general question needs answering. And the wider issue. Did closing the schools make any difference to the death rate? And if it did, was it worth it? We can't allow older people to die just because they're older, but on the other hand we can't make every effort to save the older people if it costs other people too much. How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown? What was the "value added" of the excess deaths caused by lockdown as opposed to that saved? How much weight to we put on the cost to a child of two years' missed or affected schooling compared with the premature death of a sick older person? Again, lots of questions. We need dispassionate answers from this enquiry. My own personal position is that my mother would have been better off taking her chances, or some of them, by allowing people to visit each other in small numbers. Keeping families apart was absolutely a step too far, for example. I think closing churches was too. But we await the results, don't we.

She died during the second lockdown. She may have turned 99 when the first one started, I can't be sure. (And at her age, incidentally, meeting people outside even in August was barely an option.)

It doesn't seem to occur to him that if it;s chaotic, then it ought to be made non-chaotic. You hear the video official in rugby league, and it's not chaotic at all. It's calm and clear, and it almost always gets it right. And, incidentally, the ref gives a clear signal to the crowd when it is being used and gives another clear signal when the result is in.

That's the question that the enquiry should be focussing on. Was it right to lockdown? How many would have died if we hadn't? Did Sweden have a better idea? Did Sweden have a worse idea? What did we do wrong? What did we do right? And crucially, what should we do next time? There is certainly a valid argument that locking down - even if it did save lives in the short term - caused more harm than it did good. Was there a better way to protect the vulnerable (mainly the old) while also protecting the economy? No-one doubts that vast debt and shortage of money costs lives; no-one doubts that closing the schools has caused damage to children. How much damage? Was the cure worse than the disease? Quality of life needs considering. My mother (she's 90) mental and physical health both suffered, A friend of hers (she was 98 when it started) "celebrated" her hundredth birthday by standing in her doorway while neighbours shouted "happy birthday" from across the street. She died soon afterwards, not of covid; her life was made worse by lockdown, and would her life have been better taking her chances? The covid enquiry should give answers to these sort of questions. But I bet it doesn't.

From what I can gather they haven't got anywhere near (or are even trying to get near) a view on whether or not lockdown was needed. Expert opinion that suggests Sweden had it right seems to be disregarded.

If they had a system that worked efficiently and accurately, then yes. But since they don't have that system, then no. As I'm sure you're finding out this season, it's more fun celebrating a goal than it is celebrating the opposition kicking off. [edited for weird typo]

Are you saying that all Sky cameras (or at least 4 - two at each end) shoot at over 100 frames per second? I head 30 for the standard and 60 for the HD ones, but you're saying it's more than twice that? I don't think they have enough frames per second to get it even to the nearest 1/100th, let alone the accuracy they really need, but I am willing to be convinced.

There are two big problems IMO with that goal. (Three if you count Burnley losing a point is a problem!) One is that if two different camera angles give two different results, can it be conclusively said that the man is offside? The other is that technology isn't good good enough to measure it to the inch. When the offside decision is based on the idea that Rodriguez' head was nodding forward and the defender's wasn't, then you need a photo taken exactly at the instant the ball is played. This "offside" photo appears to be taken a split second after the ball has left Redmond's foot, which means it's at least 1/100th of a second too late. when we're talking about offside by 3 inches,. that's far too slow. A running footballer covers 3 inches in 1/100th of a second with ease, and parts of his body (eg. a nodding head) will do more.

The Brexit thing was whether it was an offence to invoke clause 16, the clause put in the Brexit agreement about changing the arrangements for Northern Ireland. In the end it was decided that if there was a clause in the agreement about how to change the rules, it wasn't a breach of the agreement to invoke it and change the rules. In any case, the EU had already invoked it first. Complete red herring.

Problem is that Hamas "soldiers" dress like civilians for two reasons. One, in the hope either that they will be spared because the Israeli army thinks they're civilians. Two, in the hope that civilians will be shot because the Israeli army thinks they are soldiers. If the Hamas army is an army, let them wear uniform and fight. (Or surrender.)

15 years? No part of a house should be scheduled to last 15 years. Houses are supposed to be long term. I expect a car to last 15 years. My roof stones (not slates) were put on 198 years ago, and when the roof was recently relaid (for the first time, incidentally) most of them are re-useable. Indian stone is available for the replacements. Try stone, if the house is strongly enough built to support it. Mind you, I haven't got solar panels on it. An east-west terrace roof in the north of England isn't best placed to take advantage!

If the brake fluid is fine and useable, they wouldn't necessarily replace it, but if it's dodgy business if they know it's on its way out and don't replace it. By "service" did UniFox21 perhaps mean the service of providing an MOT rather than a car service?

Surely if they were dong a service they should have changed the brake fluid as a matter of course?

According to the Daily Telegraph, part of the insurance risk of electric cars is that they have great difficulty in assessing the damage to the battery, and therefore have to replace the battery far more than is really necessary. If they had a better understanding of whether a battery has been damaged it would save on repair bills.

Apparently the Mercedes Mixte was a petrol powered car with the petrol engine feeding rear wheel electric motors. But the power came from petrol, it didn't have a battery. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092027_mercedes-benz-touts-its-hybrid-history-from-way-back-in-1906 I suspect the reason petrol cars drove out (pun intended) electric cars was because, then as now, they were more flexible in that they had greater range and much more convenient and faster refuelling. (And, I dare say, cheaper too.)

Perhaps the Yes campaign ought to have had a similar slogan on the lines of "if you trust the politicians, vote yes". (Or perhaps that was how it was seen and that;s why they voted no.) Wasn't a large part of the difficulty, that the amendment to the constitution would have set up this body as an advisory body but the government would have had the right to change the law to make it statutory with whatever legal powers they fancied? A bit like writing the politicians a blank cheque. I don't supposed aussie politicians are any more trusted than ours. Anyway, they can still set up the advisory body and then have another go at putting in the constitution once people have seen how it works.