dsr-burnley

What worries me (as a Burnley fan) is that Everton and forest lose so many points, and Sheff U remain so bad, that we stop up with about 20 points and have to go through another PL season. I would rather be relegated, because the PL with VAR is so appalling.

I've seen it suggested, and it seems to make sense, that the Democrats will wait until the last minute and then announce that Biden is stepping down. That gives them 5 minutes to pick a new candidate (which won't be Harris), so no need for further primaries, and whoever they pick should win at a canter. They can pretend (and with some justification) that the reason they couldn't announce it earlier because it would have made Biden a lame duck president.

The point is that the current share price of a company takes into account the market expectations of its future. If it's already known that it is going to be big and profits are going up, then at least part of that will already be reflected in its share price.

I've never actually had a problem stopping my car on a hill - or restarting it, for that matter. As most of the roads in my town are 1 in 10 or steeper, sometimes much steeper, I get plenty of practice. I'll bear electric in mind when my driving skllls start to fade. (Btw, do electric cars have exhaust pipes? Because mine's just fallen off.

I think you can stop fancying that. There aren't enough games left. Besides, the PL stinks so badly that I think I would rather be relegated - we can have at least one fun season, winning more than we lose (hopefully), without VAR. As for the foul tonight, we all know that in most circumstances, if a player is heading in the direction of the ball and an opponent moves into his path to block it, then it's a foul. Maybe it's different when it's a goalkeeper. The problem with refereeing now is that it has become more or less random. Last match we played Villa and their man went down screaming in the penalty area because someone touched the sole of his boot while it was in the air. Penalty, which VAR looked at and confirmed that a tiny little touch is a foul. Today, the goalkeeper was blocked by a man moving into his path. Fully blocked. No foul. Again, it was looked at on TV from several angles. How can they rewrite the rules so that players know what is a foul and what isn't? If they think, with all the technology at their disposal, that a tiny touch is sometimes a foul and full-on block is sometimes not, then can they please write it down so we can understand? Because it seems to me that at present, they might as well toss a coin to get these decisions. It would be no less rational.

Remember that in trying to buy shares based on knowledge that other people haven't got or haven't yet applied, you're not on a winner. You're competing with full time professionals who know far more than you do. Unless you have genuine inside info, you can't beat the pros except (generally) by good luck, or by having a policy that they don't happen to share - either way, going down is a likely as going up.

£8k is £208 per door + VAT. (I assume the trader was VAT registered.) His quote would presumably separate the cost of the doors and the fitting. Typical costs on a random website "UK Oak Doors" are from £80 + VAT to £220 + VAT per door,

As is this one tongue in cheek. Don't put it "all in" anything. Spread the risk.

It's a common misconception that the European Court of Human Rights is the only source of human rights, and without it we don't have the right to vote, the right to not be jailed, the right to life even. It isn't true. It's a stupid idea, frankly. These are the rights that the ECR conveys. Article 2: the right to life Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Article 4: the prohibition of slavery and forced labour Article 5: the right to liberty and security Article 6: the right to a fair trial Article 7: the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalties Article 8: the right to private and family life Article 9: the freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10: the freedom of expression Article 11: the freedom of assembly and association Article 12: the right to marry Article 13: the right to an effective national remedy for breach of these rights Article 14: the prohibition of discrimination in the protection of these rights The UK has also ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, as well Protocol No. 1, which contains three additional rights: Article 1 of Protocol No.1: the right to free enjoyment of property Article 2 of Protocol No.1: the right to education Article 3 of Protocol No.1: the right to free and fair elections Can you seriously be saying that the UK, along with all those other countries around the world that aren't in the ECHR, don't have or support any of those rights? There is certainly a school of thought that says human rights in the UK should be codified by our elected representatives and not by foreign judges. Presumably as a virulent opponent of UK's own brand of rights such as habeas corpus (which we could now choose to fully enforce again, albeit so far as I know we haven't) then you would support at least this aspect of government by foreign diktat.

I can't try driving one because I haven't got one. Is it literally impossible to put in words?

I believe with a horse and cart, you have to stop frequently to feed the motor as well ... What exactly is the comparison here? Are you saying the ride quality from a petrol car to an electric car is comparably better than from a cart to a petrol car? Is that because electric cars don't suffer from potholes, or something?

They started an enquiry in 2021. It's still going on. How on earth they can spend 2+ years without finding anything, I have no idea.

I think that's a function of the vast rises in college fees rather than a vast reduction in the minimum wage. Good luck if they think they can reduce college fees by a factor of 10 or so.

If he is able or will be able to manage a stairlift, then perhaps stairs needn't be a deciding factor? You could try stairs at first and if they become impossible fit a stairlift.

So is the entire panel of PL referees. I'm always pleased when we get a newbie ref who's done very few PL matches, because they haven't learned the "fall over is a foul" rules properly. All PL refs would give that, and so would the VAR refs. That's the real scandal. I wonder if it would help if referees were sent a memo telling them that footballers are not scrupulously honest and that they will willingly cheat to gain an advantage. It's a scummy sport, frankly. If a cricketer claims a catch when it was on the bounce, do they say "he had to do it"? If a poker player hides an ace up his sleeve, do they say "good game management? If a snooker player shifts the ball to get an easier shot, do they admire him for cunning and astuteness? Of course not. It's only in football that cheating is admired and seen as a valid tactic. But if referees are under orders to give wrong decisions to enable more goals (to make up for the offside goals that are being disallowed), then the people giving those orders (the PGMOL) are utter buffoons. They need to be sacked, every man jack. (And woman jill, for that matter.)

I wasn't astonished. He's one of those players that seems to have all the skills but can't use them all at once.

If you're looking for reasons why Maxwell fell off his boat just before the you-know-what hit the fan about his pensions theft, I don't think you need to look at Epstein and his daughter.

If you're doing 30 on most of the proposed 20 mph roads, then you're driving dangerously. 30 mph on a residential street with cars parked both sides is too fast - regardless of the legal limit. 30 mph on a wider street with regular through traffic is OK, but hopefully that isn't what's going to be restricted. Restricting the limit to 20 won't stop the maniacs who drive at 40, because maniacs like that think that there is no speed limit where there is no speed camera. They don't think it possible to injure or kill anyone so they don't feel the need to obey the law if they won't get caught.

They've had 20mph in Lancashire since 2013, and it isn't controversial at all. The point is that main trunk roads, even through towns, are still 30 mph. Side streets and residential streets that aren't (or shouldn't be) used as through routes, are 20 mph. It's a crucial difference from the Wales and Scotland mess-ups.

And when you've taxed it, what do you do with it? If there is some way to take all Musk's assets off him without devaluing his companies, you will have $38 per head to share round the world. How do we change the people's lives? Put it this way. The average spending on healthcare in the USA, by individuals and governments, directly and indirectly, is $4.5 trillion. If Musk's entire assets were taken off him and converted into cash, there wouldn't be enough to pay for a month's healthcare. Billionaires may indeed have obscene amounts of money, but the only reason for taxing them to destruction is because of spite or jealousy, not because of the good it would do.

OK, got you. I didn't get the hidden subtext that you weren't talking about local weather.

No snow in Burnley. Have you had a lot in Leicester? Or were you referring to a story from a different part of the world that I missed?

Because "atrocious conditions" like this happen for about half of winter and if we didn't leave the house because a gale is blowing, we wouldn't be able to go to work?

That's an extremely narrow view of capitalism. You can of course argue that a pure capitalist wants no state intervention, and by the same rationale that a pure socialist wants no private ownership of so much as a teddy bear. But you'd find that most of us (in fact all of us) are somewhere in between.

A tub? Are you getting the spreading kind? That's more expensive. Half a pound of butter is (I think) £1.35 in Farmfoods and two litres of milk is about £1.45. (Which, strangely enough, is even more than it was in the 1970's when I remember it went above 30p per pint.)