dsr-burnley

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?

Yep, that's democracy. Given the choice between democracy and some form of dictatorship, democracy (in the western world at least) is preferred.

I misunderstood your post at first, and thought you were hoping for over a thousand dead. Now I see that you want to kill "only" half a dozen or so.

Whether they were vulnerable has to come into it, unfortunately. Covid was not a matter of saving as many lives as possible with no negative impact on the rest of society. Even the NHS has to make calculations, whether formal or gut feeling, in allocating resources to the ones who will get most benefit. Case in point - if they have one heart and two people who could benefit from the transplant, then all else being equal it will go to the 10 year old not the 80 year old. The age and vulnerability of the potential recipients does count. What the drawn-out enquiry ought to do (but probably won't) is to assess whether the positive effects of lockdown outweighed the negative, and whether it was the right thing to do on each of the four times it was proposed or implemented. When it comes to excess deaths, it is at least possible to compare the "worth" of a life lost to covid compared with a life lost later to undiagnosed cancer, and hopefully a fair effort can be made at reckoning the numbers. It's harder to evaluate the worth of a life lost to covid compared with the effect on children of missing close to 2 years' school. Or for that matter the worth of a life lost to covid with the worth of the lives of the old people who spent a year or two in miserable loneliness and died anyway. But it's all relevant.

The logic that the virus disappeared because it burned out, is false logic. The virus didn't disappear. It's still here. Even in China, where their version of lockdown literally meant locking all infected people away, they couldn't stop the spread. And in this country, there were far too many people moving around to stop the spread. The whole food chain, from farming to manufacture to shops to delivery, ran more or less as normal. Hospitals obviously kept going and spread the virus. Manufacturing kept going, mostly. I've seen lockdown described as rich people self-isolating at home while poor people fetched them stuff, and there is enough truth in that to put the kibosh on any idea of eliminating the virus by stopping it spreading.

4 Burnley 1 Accrington Stanley 1 Rochdale 1 Blackburn Rovers. There are others who claim allegiance to "bigger" clubs but don't go to matches. They don't count.

The world rankings take into account the standard of the opposition. A team that draws with Denmark, say, gets more credit than one than beats Bhutan.

One hopes they have learned that preparedness is futile. All they can do is stock up on medicines. Trying to stop the virus from spreading is a complete waste of time - everyone caught it within a couple of years anyway.

It's a stretch to say that we can only know if science is wrong by "reiterative applications of the scientific process". Sometimes we can know that it's wrong because the expected results don't happen - for example, we know that covid doesn't kill children en masse because it didn't - it killed fewer than RSV does annually. And we know that eating hamburgers did not cause mass vCJD in the UK because mass vCJD did not happen. One of the problems with science is that it is perceived to be over-changeable in some fields. For example, whether or not eggs are good for you has flipped probably four times in my lifetime. And some of this isn't the fault of "science", I know, it's the fault of people with vested interests in diet and advertising, but successive governments have thrown their weight behind possibly dodgy science and that appears to validate it. Sometimes people simply reject "science", as stated above, because they think "science" is wrong. Example - my mother's first pregnancy, in 1959, she was cursed with dreadful morning sickness. She was offered this new drug thalidomide which scientists said was wonderful, and she turned it down. It is often wrong to ignore the science, but not always. (That's not to say climate change should be ignored, just to explain why it often is.)

Neither. You still haven't been forgiven for the 2p in the pound to St. John's Ambulance, I'm afraid. This will just compound it. (Whether the 2p to St John's is strictly accurate or is an exaggeration, I don't know. The stink survives even if that bit isn't factual.)

The problem was that the joke got too ambitious and tried to merge with the Two Ronnies Swedish lessons. "We F N 10 E M".

West Ham getting a penalty for Lord knows what against Villa shows that VAR doesn't necessarily help.

I agree that China and India were bound to be behind the curve re. fossil fuels. It would be completely unreasonable for the UK (and other rich nations) to expect the poorer, expanding nations to remain poor to preserve our lifestyle. They were bound to expand fossil fuel usage dramatically. It's the tone of the Guardian article that irks me. That newspaper seems to have an ambition to fit the character in Gilbert and Sullivan's little list song, who praises every country but his own.

If only the Chinese could match the UK's record on cutting down fossil fuels. You'd think from the tone of the Guardian article that the UK wasn't interested in cutting fossil fuel power generation. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-from-fossil-fuels-drops-to-lowest-level-since-1957/

Perhaps they haven't even decided whether they want to move, or where they want to move to. If they can't find something better than what they have now, at a price they can afford, they may not want to sell their own.

Gudmondsson (in that clip) and Bellamy (assistant manager) both left the club, both out of contract, as soon as the season ended. After Kompany left, both came back (though Bellamy has now left again, to manage Wales.) I was a supporter of Kompany for long enough, but the more I hear now, the happier I am that he isn't here any more. (And we got £12m transfer fee!)

Odobert outpaced his defender, but Brownhill doesn't outpace anyone. Both passes were inch perfect. Besides, didn't some bloke called Vardy score several of his many goals with the same sort of move?

My mother had probable covid in January but had no more than a cough, followed by a couple of falls and telephone 111 advised us to go to hospital (though not by ambulance as there weren't any!) It was pneumonia and we got there in time. She's 91 and fully vaccined. If you haven't had your chest looked at, then I think you should. Perhaps a course of antibiotics might help. You won't be still infectious.

Why a cheap one? If it's an accepted principle that the club can force you to buy something that you don't want to go and watch football, then why not force you to spend a fortune rather than just the odd £100 per year? I'd be interested to know what they are going to do about shared tickets. (Which they found at Burnley, when they threatened to enforce the no transfers rule a few years back, and abandoned when they realised how many people did it.) If, for example, parents don't know which of them will be taking their kid to the match until late doors, does the club tell them "we don't want your kind supporting us" or do they provide a free workaround?