Alf Bentley

I wanna be well (run).....

Some hard-fought matches at home to him in the 1500s: Played Henry VIII & Thomas Cromwell up front and local fans over-ran his monasteries. Then he brought in Bloody Mary as playmaker and gave us a bit of a roasting. Last home fixture was an Anglo-Scottish Cup match in 1745, I think.

El Masochistico ....and in honour of "El Tel", the "El Bell" award should be presented on the pitch to the Bellend who played the biggest part in a disastrous season - a fierce contest with multiple contenders.

They'd have had fun using stats to analyse Pearson's location when he was here. All his stats would've been 0% in those matches where he sat at the top of the stand chatting to Steve Walsh....

My late ex-father-in-law was a prime example of this phenomenon. He was a working-class grammar school boy who became a successful, moderately wealthy businessman. Throughout the 50s, 60s & 70s, he was a Tory party member. But he was what, in the late 70s or 80s, would've been described as a "Tory wet". He ended up defecting to the SDP in the 80s and then to New Labour under Blair in the 90s, without ever changing his views. Some fair comment in that video, but he's overcooking it when he describes Labour as "Hard Right", I feel. They might have done some things that I disagree with, but their acceptance of free markets is still tempered by some strong social democratic instincts (spending boost for NHS, school breakfast clubs, housing plans, big boost to minimum wage & employment rights etc.). The fact that they're not doing more might be partly over-caution, but is also partly acceptance of the reality of existing within a globalised economic/financial system with low growth (unlike in the 60s), the reality of already high taxation and high public debt, which can't be easily added to - thus the emphasis on growth (good luck with that one!) - as well as a political strategy to front-load unpopular policies in the hope that growth will allow more generous, social democratic policies later in their term of office. Can't say I'm optimistic about their chances of achieving that, mind... Likewise, Attlee, who came from a middle-class professional family, was on active service at Gallipoli - and both Heath (Tory PM) and Healey (Lab Chancellor) served in WW2, Normandy landings and Italian campaign, including Anzio landings, respectively. On a personal level, as a wild youth in the 80s, I did a lot of hitch-hiking. The most surprising - but frequent - category of people to give me lifts were quite proper, china-and-doilies middle-class folk in their 50s & 60s who had done military service in the 1950s. During their military service, they'd hitch-hiked to and fro around the country themselves, as well as meeting a wider cross-section of folk than they would otherwise have done. I'm not suggesting that another war would be beneficial for social cohesion, but it's an argument in favour of some form of national service, perhaps?

Incredible levels of personal and institutional incompetence......or maybe not? One of the few gems of wisdom I've gleaned from life is that human civilisation functions and progresses (with major provisos) despite many people and many institutions being a lot more incompetent than most of us realise. I wonder if this supports the theory that the Trump regime is explained as much by cock-up theory as by conspiracy theory? Namely, that its actions are partly explained by incompetent sycophants and lackies on the make running scared of a popular, all-powerful and unpredictable leader, not just so much by a thought-through strategy of Far Right nationalist-populism? If so, things might get politically interesting very quickly if - as seems likely - the US economy and US living standards take a big hit from the tariff wars and Trump rapidly loses popularity. If US voters start turning against Trump, maybe the lickspittle Republicans in Congress will see it as in their self-interest to stop kow-towing to his every whim? Of course, it could have less benign consequences - classic Far Right stuff like blaming foreign govts, migrants and "the enemy within" for US voters' loss of economic security and living standards.

Don't do that to me! I read the "Points Removed" topic title and assumed LCFC had had a points deduction and might be in relegation trouble as a result.....

This BBC Verify on the calculation of Trump's tariff rates is worth reading: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o It links to the explanation given by the Office of the US Trade Representative: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations So, the tariff rates are not reciprocal at all - and are not even based on the tariff and non-tariff barriers deployed by other countries. The US tariff calculation is essentially: - Whack a minimum 10% on everyone, even if the US has no trade deficit with them For countries where the US has a trade deficit: - Take the trade deficit figure - Divide it by the total goods imports figure to get a percentage - Halve that percentage and impose that figure as the US tariff rate, falsely claiming it is reciprocal and generous In most cases, the US trade deficit has little to do with tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade imposed by other countries. The trade deficits have various causes (excess US consumption, climate, natural resources...), but particularly cheaper production costs. It costs a lot less to produce clothing or tech hardware in Asia than in the US (cheaper labour, land and plant). Likewise, cars from Mexico. So, there's a trade deficit in goods (not services). This isn't merely an aggressive form of protectionism (which can sometimes be justified). It's the 21st century economic equivalent of Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy. On the face of it, it's an attempt to deploy "might is right" as a strategy, using US economic might to try to force other countries to serve US economic interests - including by reversing decades, if not a century, of increasingly global trade networks and by financially coercing corporations into returning major manufacturing sectors to the USA. I say "on the face of it" as I'm not sure that's really the motive. Is it, as others have suggested, motivated by a desire to massively increase tariff revenues (in the knowledge that most manufacturers will not return to the USA - meaning that US importers and/or consumers pay much more to federal funds? If so, to what end, given that it will make US people and corporations poorer? A few tax cuts for Joe Public and bigger handouts for the elite/big corporations? Or is it simply a manifestation of the power of an ultra-nationalist autocrat with a narcissistic personality disorder? By all accounts, the more limited tariffs Trump introduced in his first term did very little to return manufacturing to the USA, so why would such action succeed this time? I suppose it might work for a few simpler operations/sectors: e.g. increased Californian wine production to replace tariff-hit European wine imports. But large-scale manufacturing investment is usually complex, expensive and time-consuming: - Acquiring suitable land, buildings and plant - Ensuring you have a suitable workforce, often needing experience or training (not to mention the cheap workforce shrinking due to mass deportations) - Establishing reliable supply chains, logistics, transport et. - Having the certainty that all this work and expense is justified and economic circumstances won't quickly change (due to Trump reversing his tariffs via negotiations or under pressure from an economic crisis, not to mention the fact he might be replaced by someone with different ideas within 4 years) If you were running, say, an automotive corporation making cars in Mexico and importing them, would you really want to gamble on all the hassle, time and expense of shifting production back to the USA, in those circumstances? There's also the issue of whether the USA is guilty of hubris, over-estimating its position of economic power? Of course, it ultimately has the military power to get us all blown up, but does it really have the economic power to force the rest of the world to serve its interests? It's the largest single economic power as a nation, but it isn't even the largest single market (the EU is). Although we all stand to lose from this, if counter-measures by large parts of the rest of the world are mutually complementary (not even necessarily coordinated), this could rebound badly on the US, couldn't it? Not that I'm proposing a confrontational response - negotiating this down remains the better response, or we all stand to lose even more - God knows how much more....

All gets a bit confusing when the facho pretends not to be a facho and gets banned for being an escroc.... Mind you, fulfilling both criteria seems to constitute a popular combination these days.

Just to second what @mozartfox said, PC diagnosis is a minefield & DRE is a very hit-and-miss tool. I was told that the doc can't physically reach all of the prostate, for a start. After I had a high PSA reading, I was given a DRE and the GP said my prostate seemed slightly firm (multiple potential explanations for this) but completely smooth. He thought there was only about a 25% chance that I had cancer - but the MRI revealed quite a large, aggressive tumour, but fully contained so no bumps... While the MRI often gives a better idea one way or the other - and was pretty clear in my case, due to it being high-grade cancer - that's not always the case. Some MRIs don't give a clear answer - then only a biopsy will do that. PSA readings seem to be a minefield, too. Different doctors set different thresholds for "high" - and a normal PSA level can differ from one bloke to the next (quite apart from there being other potential explanations for high PSA - e.g. benign prostate enlargement). The key seems to be identifying rises in the PSA readings of a particular individual, not necessarily an arbitrary figure - and then getting an MRI...then possibly a biopsy if the MRI is inconclusive.

It was just about confined at the time of the MRI - stage 2, but potential for imminent spread to nearby areas (almost stage 3a). The CT, bone and nuclear scans all suggested no metastasis, but the 6-week review will be the moment of truth for that, as I understand it - PSA will show if any cancer has escaped and lab analysis of the removed body part will show whether there's a "positive surgical margin" - if I'm remembering the term correctly: i.e. whether the cancer was all contained within the prostate - for now.

Went to hospital on Tuesday, swapped my prostate (removed by a surgeon-controlled robot) for a urinary catheter and was discharged barely 24 hours later. The first 48 hours out were a bit tricky at times due to constipation (common side-effect of surgery & general anaesthetic, it seems), but thankfully my world-class talent for defecation is now back. Very little direct soreness from the surgery and feel very well generally, but the catheter causes sporadic soreness. I feel well enough to walk for miles in terms of surgery recovery, but at times the catheter makes it painful to even walk short distances. Thankfully, the catheter is due to be removed in a few days. That will bring the prospect of likely urinary incontinence issues - just have to hope I'm in the majority for whom it is a temporary and/or minor problem, not the minority for whom it's more severe or long-lasting. Then, the moment of truth will be the six-week review to see if they think they've eliminated all the cancer (PSA rating should be near-zero, if so ). The surgeon seemed optimistic that would be the case, meaning no further treatment in the short-term - but thought it pretty likely the cancer would be back within 10 years, due to it being an aggressive one. Just a case of getting regular PSA tests to hopefully catch it before it spreads, if so. It's a bit weird that you can still get prostate cancer without a prostate, but apparently it can return in surrounding areas that are left in place. All the best to all going through this - and any other health trauma.

Must feel good to have a quarter of the ordeal behind you. Another 3 weeks will soon be done! I second your exhortation to "get it checked", but would add to do so even if your body does feel right - I'd had no change in symptoms before being diagnosed, a common problem with prostate cancer if no checks are done and it spreads to other body locations. If you don't mind me asking, is your treatment a "radiotherapy only" pathway? I was only offered surgery or radiotherapy with hormone therapy, though that might've been due to it being an aggressive cancer (Gleason 4+5). I was initially favouring radiotherapy but switched to the surgery pathway after realising it would also imply 2-3 years of hormone therapy. I might have stuck with radiotherapy if it had only required 2-3 months of potential hormone therapy side-effects, but I didn't fancy 2-3 years of potential disruption (even if the disruption is minor for some patients). The future's so bright, we've got to wear shades!

Excellent news. If the Welsh system operates similarly to the English, they might send you for an MRI scan in a few weeks - while not 100% conclusive, the MRI gives a strong indication as to whether the problem is cancer or something else (e.g. benign prostate enlargement). Good luck for whatever comes next.

As you may have seen, that Cancer Research UK link that I posted mentions a slightly different system for Wales: a target of 62 days from urgent suspected cancer referral to treatment. I know that targets aren't necessarily being met (as in my own case), but there's a bit of a difference between 62 days and 18 months! I appreciate you don't want to jump queues, but that's certainly worth challenging via your pre-existing medic or GP. It might be an error - perhaps it wasn't recorded as "urgent" or something? Good luck!