Paninistickers

I'm ok with the midfield, I get the logic. . But it's the jettisoning of Ricky and Vesty, the use of BdcR, the recall of Ward, picking Vards to start, Mavididi struggling for minutes. The recall of Soumare. No loan for Alves. All are - opinion thing - poor decisions. Only one way out of making poor decisions. That's to win.

He's got swagger. He's a leader. He can start moves. He makes us tick. To not even be in the bench is baffling. You can make an attacking substitution to chase a game by replacing a defender. Chasing is not all throwing 10 strikers on

Where's Vestergaard l???

Ward ffs

But we've lost four of our six best players last season form the starting xi; KDH, Ricky, Mavididi and Vesty.. Only Winks and Mads and to an extent Wilf, Fatawu and Faes remain from last season's core team. That's helluva blow to recover from, albeit self inflicted

Apart from cob, 'bob' for excrement and 'okey' (now little used) for ice cream, I can't think of any words exclusive.. It's more an accent thing. When I'm in London at the bar with some colleagues,.had a drink, I can lay on the accent a bit thick to confuse them from my office voice.. 'geh'us too prohnees wiya pal' Edit, oh and they like the way i say days of the week Toosdeh Satdi

For me, that's the interesting part. I don't think you can appeal or demand a retrial on the basis her defence team were nigh on useless. It stinks of her parents....decent, quiet, timid people unable to challenge 'thier betters' and being unaware (or afraid to say) how weak the defence counsel was. Im conjuring images of that stuttering public defender in the my cousin Vinny film. Or did the defence subconsciously put in a poor performance thinking she was guilty? (Highly unlikely)

Almost certainly a palace win, but, it's them under pressure way more than us..not won and at home against garbage in an absolute gimme. If it was us in Palace's shoes, we'd crumble

I wouldn't let Buonnotte anywhere near the starting xi. He's too raw, lightweight and unpredictable. I presume this lad from Belgium has some pedigree. We have to invest in him and roll the dice.. Vards needs to be dropped. Mavs needs to be in. The conundrum is Wilf versus the new lad. Tbh, we could do with 12 players so we get the best of both!

Agree. The stats, ie the chances of A nurse being on duty for all deaths were reasonable, went unchallenged The lack of challenge / counter opinion to the expert analysis of embolism symptoms The lack of credibility knocking of the main expert witness The tainted non blind study (effectively,.do you reckon these babies were.murdered?, rather than a credible scientific blind study with dummy autopsies being there to review) ....it's a staggeringly inept performance from the defence. The therapy explanation for her notes was never argued Strangely,.my own personal gut feel is she's guilty. Her weird demeanor, feeble defence in the dock and kinda loner vibes don't do her any favours. But I'm loathe that the criminal justice system convicts people without an adequate defence or on the basis on 'gut feels'. You can't have trials like that.

I see some of the usual suspects have (unsurprisingly) framed this into the usual COVID / Immigration / Brexit political dividing lines. It's a fascinating case. Nothing wrong with admitting that. Interesting point, though the expert analysis has also been called into question (tho why oh why here defence didn't do that, goodness only knows) Autopsy reports were inconclusive and when reassessed by experts, the findings were tainted by knowing they were to do with the case (and not a blind analysis) Also, I listened to the times radio podcast on this and apparently the leading expert used has had his credentials in a past criticised for providing poorly researched, poorly articulated analysis

I'd be interested to hear a profiler's view. Isn't it usual that there is escalation? From attempted murders and then, usually, a specific MO? The variety - air embolism, insulin overdose, over feeding - all virtually undetectable means of murder, is questionable. Let's say an air embolism worked aa.a.means of killing.... it's very strange a serial killer would then switch MO to attempt death by insulin

It's becoming a fascinating case and an element of cause celebre about it. However, what troubles me is that all of this stuff could've and should've been presented by her defence. There's nothing new. An example; the statistical evidence of Letby being on duty for all the deaths. Looks damning. However, the stats show that due to staff rotas, the chance of an individual nurse being on duty for all the cases was relatively realistic. It just so happened that one nurse was Letby. Why wasn't that brought up by the defence to chip away at the stats evidence? I have to say too, that during her trial, she didn't do herself any favours with apparent cold, monotone, perfunctory answers under cross examination.

Good point. All the towns robbed of rail connections were industrial towns with large labour forces. Those that remained in the south east were essentially a service for Captain Mainwarings and Reggie Perrin to read the paper before work in an office

Pity that Snibstone mine didn't survive as an attraction. You could easily add Bosworth + Snibstone plus there's a bike track (which name escapes me) round that way too

You'd have to define exactly what tourism means. Can only imagine most tourists come under the bracket of away fans at tigers and city, visitors to Curve/de mont and dog walkers at Bradgate Park. If you were somehow trying to sell Leicester+county as a short break destination, you'd weave together Richard III, Guildhall, Cathedral, Jewry Wall (eventually), Castle Area New Walk, Museum, Queens Road/Uni Botanical Gardens and a day at the races Melton Food + Rutland Water Great Central Railway, River Soar walk, Beacon Hill Bradgate, Cropston, Swithland walk Not sure if it'd win me over apart from the fact of kinda seeing a low key, 'real' England

Watching at 5-5 ATM He's the real deal. Serious tennis player here.

What irked you? You do appear at times rather over sensitive for a 54 year old fella. I looked over this thread and it seems really interesting, really civilised. No 'bullying' Was it the religious thing?! If it was, I thought the point about kids' anxiety and religion was worth endorsement. Most people who I've got to know and happen to have faith seem to be decent, well adjusted and essentially kind, broadly happy people. It's not something I've ever got into but I kinda envy that they seem a bit more at ease with life than me Or was it objecting that many kids' personality traits are now medically diagnosed? - rather than just accepting that we all take many forms.

Yes... and no, no queues. Tho mid morning is always fairly relaxed. But had X10 of the people been at security,. it'd still have been quick. The new 'no unpack' scanners are great

Isn't it the opposite? We argued that the rules were ambiguous and open to interpretation. We have successfully won the legal argument that the rules need to be applied as written - and not as interpreted. So we have ADHERED to the rules,.not broken them

Tend to agree. Shy, quiet, thoughtful, sensitive were everyday adjectives when I was a kid. Now those sort of emotions are given medical significance and labelled as 'anxiety' You had to be borderline lunatic to be classified as ADHD. Yeah, I say it as a non religious person yet I went to Sunday school a few times, said grace before school dinners, had morning assembly with hymns and prayers etc It gives people a grounding in basic decency and social etiquette.

Proof is in the pudding ....there's no evidence of the project being financed

The delay is about funding, I'd suggest. The farcical plans to include flats and arenas etc was presumably fluff to entice some Chinese pension fund to essentially pay for it all that, and the teeny weeny detail of doing up the east stand too. Which clearly hasn't worked.

What's happened to Brad? And why didn't you like him? Always thought he was OK. We do miss the 'please welcome for xxxx' for a new signings and a 'welcone back to xxxx youri, Madders' as the teams are ready out.

It's one of those that I'd say veers between 'she might've done it' to 'she probably done it'.....but that simply isn't enough to convict on. That said, isn't it the defence's job to question the evidence and presentation of evidence put forward? Surely the trial can't be questioned on the basis of the argument put forward by the prosecution? Possible reasonable grounds for a retrial is that Letby wasn't given an adequate defence, as is her right.. But I dunno if that's grounds for appeal under law.