Alf Bentley

Yes, I saw that film - though I had the idea before seeing the film, honest. Not a particularly inspiring film, as I recall., though I like Spall as an actor. Might give it another watch if I get round to making such a trip.

My experience of selling in Oadby is 20+ years out of date, so I won't make recommendations - except to suggest that it might be worth asking multiple estate agents to come and do a valuation. That way, you can quiz them about their approach, compare their terms and valuations, and form a general impression of them. There can be big differences not only between different firms, but different branches and different individuals. When I sold my parents' London flat in 2017, I got 3 estate agents to do valuations. One didn't turn up for their appointment, one massively under-valued the flat (based on eventual selling price) while the one that I used massively over-valued it and turned out to be chaotic and uncommunicative. With hindsight, I wished I'd asked more than 3 firms to do valuations and had researched local estate agents more thoroughly.

If you didn't keep a diary at the time of your trek, you ought to record your memories while your brain is still young enough to retain/remember them. Must've been a fascinating adventure. I'll definitely be in touch for tips if I do ever get round to traveling in that part of the world.

That sounds like a fantastic adventure. I'd love to do that some day - and will contact you for tips if I ever get round to it. I had vague ideas of some day walking John O'Groats-Land's End via an interestingly circuitous route. For now, I think that I could still walk that far (so long as I didn't aim for more than 12 miles per day). But, being realistic, the accommodation would cost too much unless I camped everywhere - which would add another physical stress for my aging body. I'm now thinking that I could do most or all of it by bus, assuming I make it to free bus pass age in good shape (less than 4 years off, now). In 1985, as a gormless young tosser, I did an Inter-Rail trip that took in Yugoslavia. Back then, I was clueless about the history/culture of ex-Yugoslavia, aside from a vague awareness of Serbia's role at the start of WW1 and many Croats being on the other side in WW2. I was mainly sleeping on trains, accompanied by a bottle of wine or slivovitz. I visited Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade and Skopje - and remember thinking how different these places seemed from one another - it seemed like multiple countries in one (duh!). Even then, Ljubljana seemed more like Austria, Belgrade like the stereotypical Stalinist eastern bloc and Skopje like I imagined Turkey to be (third world marketplaces dominated by women in headscarves who I assumed to be Muslims, probably wrongly in many cases). Youth is wasted on the young!

Glad to hear you're not going to Dignitas, as they do assisted suicide there. Is Dignitass a twin institution for Brits to confess their folly or Americans to get a kick up the bum?

That'll teach you to sleep with the 7 dwarves.

I think it's fair, too. I just find it surprising that 1 in 3 respondents think the main cause of the UK being on the wrong track is the Brexit Referendum - esp. with all the other options. I think it was deeply unwise and damaging - and seems even worse now, due to other developments like Trump and growing division & extremism worldwide. But I do still think we need to look wider for the MAIN cause of the mess.....otherwise how do we explain that all other developed nations are in a mess to varying extents?

Your and @bovril's comments about folk on the Right blaming Blair for immigration/multiculturalism seem reasonable, even if he mainly presided over a big influx from the EU, whereas the Tories more recently presided over a big influx from Asia and the Middle East, which I'd expect right-wingers to find even more abhorrent. The Left might view Blair as a war-mongerer. I went on the big Iraq War protests myself - as a Lab member, at the time. I'm sure many, like me, would also criticise the extent of his abidance by Thatcherite ultra-free market beliefs, albeit softened by major improvements in public services & social provision and limited wealth redistribution. But would Lefties see Blair as the main reason for Britain being on the wrong track in 2025? The poll shows only 5-7% of Lab/LD/Green voters blaming Blair. Blair won large majorities still in 2001 and 2005, so remained popular before he quit. Meanwhile, between at least 2010 and 2019, there was a lot of hostility towards Brown on the Right, due to the economic problems in 2008-2010 and their aftermath (skilfully weaponised by the Tories blaming the financial crisis on Lab overspending as a justification for austerity/cuts). I'm not saying this as a Blair supporter. I had more time for Brown than Blair - whose record was decidedly mixed. I'm just interested in how views shift and/or how they're distorted by flawed polls. I'm sure that if Brown had been included as an option in the poll, a fair few on the Right would've blamed him rather than Blair. Likewise, the omission of Cameron/Osborne, Johnson, Truss and Starmer almost certainly affects the poll results. Surely, some respondents would've blamed each of those, given the chance? Although I think the issues are wider (uncontrolled global capitalism/finance exacerbating inequality & causing insecurity and extremism in all nations), I certainly view Cameron/Osborne as a period that did great damage in the UK (reckless, cynical Brexit referendum & poverty/inequality-inducing austerity/public service cuts) - much more so than Johnson or Truss, even though the former was more morally corrupt & chaotic, the latter more extreme, causing short-term damage due to her irresponsibly ideological budget. Some interesting figures in that poll: - Only 8% of Lab voters & even fewer LDs mainly blame Thatcher...how time allows people to forget.... - 17% of respondents blamed "None of the above"....I wonder who/what they did blame? Cameron? Johnson/Truss? Starmer? Capitalism? Don't know? - The blame for the Brexit Referendum as the main reason is surprisingly high: 29% overall, 40% of Lab, even 14% of Tory voters

A 76-year-old man, they said. King Charles is aged 76. Don't want to speculate, but would explain the prospective global status of the scandal.

Non-serious answer: First development of complex cells in the oceans Semi-serious answer: Thatcher (she had a massive, baleful long-term impact on the UK....but we have to ask why all other advanced societies are increasingly a mess, to varying degrees) Serious answer: The development of advanced global capitalism & non-development of advanced global systems of democratic politics to reform, control or alleviate capitalism's flaws Before anyone responds...Yes, advanced capitalism came with enormous benefits; it's just that we're now seeing ever more of the downsides - even threatening the continued existence of human civilisation, as @leicsmac often correctly implies (Cassandra was scorned for her "doom-mongering" but she was right - Troy did fall. )....and, No, I don't have any template to resolve the problem of flawed global capitalism / flawed insufficiently global democracy, beyond inclusive, socially-minded democracy in nations & multinational blocs/organisations extending to a global level. But there's sod all sign of that happening. Indeed, we seem to be accelerating ever further from such improvements, thereby handing ever more power to the wealthy, the powerful and the violent. "Always look on the bright side of life...." A minor point: that survey seems massively flawed. It gives options to blame Thatcher, Blair & Trump - or other events - but not Brown, Cameron/Osborne, Johnson, Truss or Starmer. I can understand blame for Thatcher being surprisingly low - because nobody under 50 will have a strong personal memory of her time in office. But the high blame for Blair seems surprising. Given those other options, I'm sure much anti-Lab blame of Blair would shift to Brown (the man who "caused the global financial crisis by overspending" ) or Starmer. Meanwhile, there are surely many who'd blame Cameron/Osborne's austerity govt or Johnson/Truss's chaos?

Are we quite sure that video footage didn't also show a certain Polish ex-LCFC defender walking back and forth nearby? I definitely recall similar scenarios playing out with opposing players inexplicably lying motionless on the pitch while Wasyl walked back and forth nearby....

I played a couple of Youtube vids yesterday and quite liked the music, I must say. Still not sure about the 70s showbiz-style presentation, though. Maybe you were a mellower youth in the 60s than I was in the 70s? Or if not, maybe Cleo and Johnny mellowed you out?

Impressive Afro, certainly!

I noticed that one as my parents were fans of Cleo Laine and Johnny Dankworth. They'd always put their BBC jazz show on back in the 70s. I could never relate to it - all seemed a bit smug and showbizzy to me. But I was a disgruntled yoof, so probably wasn't the target audience! There can't be many public figures with a connection to my parents left anymore - and a fair few of my own youthful heroes gone, too. "Here we go..."

It wouldn't be undemocratic, partly for the reasons you state. But I'm not sure how practical it would be. In theory, we'd have to go through a candidacy/qualification process lasting many years. Though, if the terms were right for the EU, I suspect they might agree an accelerated process for the UK, given that we'd add economic and political weight to the EU - and would be significant net contributors to EU funds.....though this would probably reawaken hostility to membership in the UK (imagine what the media would say about billions being removed from UK public spending to be handed over to the EU ). There is also the little complication that each of the 27 EU member states would have a veto on our membership. In theory, any 1 nation could block UK re-entry or demand terms of benefit to their nation: e.g. Spain could demand the handover of Gibraltar. In practice, I suspect that a deal could be done, provided that it was on terms generous to the EU - and perhaps with a few add-ons for individual nations to ensure their alignment with the EU27 position. Well, we didn't have a clue about the terms before the 2016 vote. It took 3.5 years of negotiations after the referendum before we knew the terms of departure and 4.5 years before we had a rough idea of the terms of the future relationship - though that is still being implemented and renegotiated now. You're right that under EU law, new members admitted after 1992 have to seek to qualify to join the Euro. Though several existing post-1992 EU members (e.g. Sweden, Poland) have yet to qualify or adopt the Euro. As things stand, we'd fail at least some criteria for adoption of the Euro, I think: certainly debt/GDP ratio, possibly public sector deficit, inflation rate and exchange rate stability? Though that might allow the Euro issue to be effectively put on the back burner.....and I'm not sure that even nations like France or Germany would meet all those criteria now. What is certain is that we wouldn't have membership terms as generous as we had before we left. I don't imagine we'd have the opt-outs and budget rebates we had negotiated before we left. So, any campaign to re-join the EU would have to convince the voting public that EU membership would be sufficiently beneficial for it to be worth us being net contributors to EU funds (though that is determined by set economic criteria on income per capita, size of economy etc.) and to accept poorer terms than we had before.... Easy to see why the Govt is in no hurry to try to reopen this can of worms. I wonder if even the Lib Dems would do so, if they were in power rather than in power-free opposition where they can use the issue to win Europhile votes without having to face the political realities? ......and that's coming from someone who voted Remain and would like to be still in the EU in an ideal world.

Strongly agree with both parts of this (partly inter-connected). I got divorced 7-8 years ago. The solicitor's charge then was £20 + VAT per 6 minutes or part thereof. Thus.... - Brief email received and one-line response = £48 (2 x £24) - One hour consultation (and solicitor dragged these out by slowly reading docs aloud): £240.....presumably higher now. Our negotiations weren't particularly complex or contested, but cost thousands (at least £5-10k each, 7-8 years ago....I don't like to think about it too much!). For reasons of cost and stress, it's infinitely better to keep things amicable. It costs a lot more if things get hostile - and massively more if it ends up in court. One option, which we used, is mediation counselling - a neutral, mutually-agreed solicitor specialising in mediation chairs negotiating meetings between the 2 parties. For a few sessions, this cost us a few hundred quid, but not thousands. This is mediation over the terms of the divorce (children, property, money, maintenance etc.) At least, there is now provision for mutually-agreed divorce, if you both agree to that. Unsure exactly how that works, as it didn't exist 7-8 years ago. As we hadn't separated for 2 years and there'd been no infidelity, we had to agree terms for one of us (me, being the gentleman ) to accept "unreasonable conduct". Should be easier for you now, hopefully, so long as you both agree to divorce... Another point, from bitter personal experience: Watch out for meddling by family or friends of your spouse, seeking a better deal for them - happened to me and is common, I think. Likewise, best not to trust anyone too much, including your spouse, even if she's apparently being reasonable. Nothing is agreed until it's in legal writing....bitter experience, again. Of course, there's always Relate marriage guidance meetings (not expensive), if you think the marriage could possibly be saved.

A grey area and a matter of opinion, IMO, though I'm mildly in favour for reasons already stated. I'm realistic enough to think they wouldn't have introduced it if they thought it would harm them electorally, but I doubt that party political gain is the main or only reason for it. Public engagement in a time of cynicism matters. Plus, it was a manifesto commitment, so they publicly said they'd raise the voting age and were voted in (though not for that reason, obviously). If they were only bringing it in for party political advantage, that would be pretty unwise. A lot of young people, particularly young men, voted for LePen's crew in France. I also just checked to see which other countries have voting at 16 (only a handful, most still use 18). Those with voting at 16 include Argentina, which elected a Far Right President, and Austria, where a Far Right party won most votes. In the short-term (in 2029), I suspect those gaining most votes might be Corbyn's crew, the Greens and Reform. I'd expect a lot of young people to vote against Starmer in 2029 as the evil bastard in govt who hasn't done enough for the country or for the environment or for Palestine etc. Young people might tend to vote Left more, but they also tend to oppose the status quo / powers that be more. Hopefully it will increase democratic engagement in the long-term, though a lot else will have to change for that to happen. A much worse disservice to democracy was done by the previous govt needlessly introducing I.D. requirements for voting at polling stations (I might not like Tice, but suspect he's actually right that there are more issues with postal votes). Given the lack of evidence of significant in-person voting fraud, there's a strong case for arguing that the Tories introduced those changes for party political advantage, given that it is the poor, the young and racial minorities who disproportionately lack the relevant I.D. - and who disproportionately vote against the Tories. I do accept that minimum voting age is a grey area - and the reduction should be accompanied by better citizenship education - but at least this reform has the potential to help increase political engagement at a time of cynicism, rather than trying to selectively suppress voting, as the Tory change did.

Thanks, Macca. I can only answer by quoting Spike Milligan's response to (then) Prince Charles.

I don't have a strong view, but am inclined to be in favour of this change. It might encourage young people to become more interested in how they're governed and to feel they have more of a stake in society, at a time when things are increasingly difficult for young people in multiple ways (careers, housing, student debt, social media pressures...). But I absolutely agree that we should improve citizenship education in schools. It's decades since I was in school, but my daughter went more recently (21 now). My impression of her school provision was as you describe: some citizenship but limited, shallow and rushed. She has a fair degree of interest/info now, but mainly gleaned from friends, parents and her own online research. I saw the Tory spokesman opposing this due to the inconsistency between voting age and age limits for marriage, drinking alcohol, going to war, standing as a candidate. I find that disingenuous, selective and wrong. At 16, you can already join the army (but not go to war), get married (with parental permission), have sex and drink alcohol with a meal. At 17, you can have a driving licence. Anyway, I think it's reasonable to have different age limits for different activities - and older age limits for going to war, getting married without parental permission or standing as a candidate than for voting seem sensible to me, as more is at stake. Some of the other limits are grey areas. A lot of 16-year-olds may be under-informed, but so are a lot of 18-year-olds - and an awful lot aged 28, 58 or 88! I've just spent 4 weeks interviewing passengers on buses and have now started a bar job in a holiday camp. I've been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and amenable most folk are, but unpleasantly surprised by how thick an awful lot of middle-aged and elderly folk are! I think citizenship should be compulsory, expanded and given more attention in schools. Clearly, care would be needed to avoid political bias. But a lot of citizenship knowledge (how democracy works, as well as practical life skills like banking/budgeting, tax, housing, pensions) is politically neutral - and guest speakers from different parties could be invited into class to explain their basic beliefs.

Mistake on his part. Wrexham only signed Ward because they mistakenly thought he had a special affinity with their club. They heard that when he joins a club, he wrecks 'em.

I agree with most of what you say here, but am genuinely in two minds as to whether Farage is on course to win the next election. This link showing Reform target seats makes interesting reading: https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk If the country is still in a mess (likely, I'm afraid), I can certainly see Reform sweeping through the first 200-250 seats, plus some more thereafter. But they'd need 325+ seats for a majority. Could they win in Mid-Derbyshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Reigate, North Cornwall, Shrewsbury, Cotswolds, Worthing, Cardiff North (the posh bit), Tunbridge Wells, Leicester East....because they'd need to win a lot of such places (though I suppose there's the possibility of a Reform-led minority govt - I presume only the Tories & Ulster Unionists might get in bed with them?). Of course, much will depend on whether the Lab Govt improves people's lives in the next 4 years - a phenomenally difficult task for any govt, given the state of the economy and global turbulence. It might also depend a bit on how Farage/Reform are viewed over that time - and they're now in control of numerous councils nationwide. If they fail to improve things locally (again, a difficult task given local govt finances) or get involved in repeated scandals, that could undermine people's inclination to vote Farage into Downing Street. Plus the SDP and UKIP have had high poll ratings in the past and folk have voted in large numbers for the Brexit Party, UKIP or the Greens at European or local elections, but haven't done the same in general elections... If things don't improve for voters by 2029, I'd agree that it's likely that Reform will win a lot of seats, but will they win power? That's what I'm in two minds about. I can see them winning most seats in the North & Midlands outside major cities, as well as impoverished ex-industrial towns and coastal towns, and socially mixed areas of the South (e.g. in Essex, Kent). But there are a lot of seats in major cities, in prosperous rural parts of the SE/SW and in Scotland (maybe Wales, to a lesser extent) that they might struggle to win. I'd also expect there to be a lot of anti-Reform tactical voting in seats that were known to be marginal at a general election. God knows what a hypothetical Reform govt would do in office, as they'd face the same problems as Tory & Lab govts. - Tax & spend: Slash taxes and public services, potentially harming a lot of their own voters while redistributing wealth to the rich, as per Trump's "big beautiful bill"? - Illegal immigration: They'd have less chance than Lab/Con of gaining international cooperation to reduce illegal migration, so mass deportations of small boats migrants to Rwanda or somewhere with some UK equivalent of ICE conducting raids or grabbing people on beaches? Always assuming things don't get even darker with boat sinkings or similar? - Legal immigration: Presumably they'd want major cuts here - and their voters would expect it - but what would happen to sectors with a lot of migrant labour like care, hospitality & agriculture? - Demographic timebomb: This won't go away, so would they alienate their own often older voters by major cuts to pensions and/or the NHS to fund tax cuts? - Net Zero: Will they continue to oppose this, when the majority of voters (even a lot of potential Reform voters) see climate change as an important reality that needs addressing?

I think Labour saw how, for years, the Tories in Govt apparently got away with blaming Blair/Brown for any economic problems - claiming they were due to Labour over-spending in office and overlooking the small matter of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. But they need to wake up to the public mood. It might seem unfair in that they genuinely have inherited an economic mess (partly caused by the Tories via austerity economics, Brexit, Johnson & Truss; partly due to one-off factors like Ukraine/fuel prices and Covid knock-on impacts). But the fact is that the public is not interested in who's to blame, they just want things to improve. To that extent, Starmer is probably right to keep going on about things like breakfast clubs, NHS waiting lists etc. I know it's irritating when we hear them time after time, but that's probably because we pay much greater attention than average to politics. Most people pay very little attention, so a claim may be made dozens of times, but they might hear it once. From a Labour perspective, their first year in power has seen far too much media coverage of stuff that's gone wrong, like the winter heating allowance & benefit cuts, and too little about positive changes (early stages, admittedly). Ultimately, though, Starmer & co have another 4 years to somehow achieve significant improvements in people's lives - improvements they notice. Otherwise, there's every chance they'll be booted out in 2029. I'm sure anyone who's being remotely fair would agree that's going to be a massively tough task, given the state of the economy and public debt, low growth, an aging population, climate change and external factors like Trump, Putin, the Middle East etc. Even if they govern brilliantly for 4 years (and their record has been genuinely mixed - good and bad - so far, I think), they might fail....

Absolutely agree with these posts. I got a greater insight into the contribution of care workers about 10 years ago, when my Dad was in decline with Parkinson's and mild dementia for 18 months. It wasn't just their willingness to do dirty and sometimes physically demanding work, there was also the specialist knowledge of techniques (I injured my shoulder trying to move my Dad at one point), their extreme patience - and, in several cases, their ability and willingness to see and relate to him as an individual. For 18 months, he had increasing levels of care support - increasingly frequent visits, then latterly someone living in. My brother and I covered alternate weekends - and I think I'd struggle to do such work on a full-time basis, mainly due to the need for consistent patience, rather than the dirty or physical work. The carers were from Tanzania, Liberia, Greece and Ghana. For that matter, my Dad's GP was a Greek Cypriot, his physio was Australian and his hospital specialist was 2nd generation Polish! This was in London, so that's not entirely typical of the nation - more British carers in other areas, including my first cousin. But certainly we'll continue to have a shortage of carers if, as a society, we expect people to do important, demanding work for low pay - and try to halt the flow of immigrant labour (though I accept that integration and English language are genuine issues). After my Dad died, my brother and I agreed to give a thank-you payment to the carers. But I'll still always feel that I'm in the debt of the Tanzanian woman and the Liberian man (the main carers) for the way they made my Dad's final decline so much better than it would otherwise have been.

The fact migrants come through countries that have ID cards doesn't mean they do so BECAUSE those countries have ID cards. I've heard the odd immigrant on TV comment about harsher treatment by the French authorities, but language and family/community connections are a big part of the explanation. We don't see a big influx from North or West Africa (Nigeria & Ghana apart) because migrants from those countries have stronger linguistic/family/community connections with France - or sometimes Spain or Italy - so are more likely to stay there. Likewise, there are strong existing family/community connections that lead many Turks or ex-Yugoslavs to prefer Germany. Aside from a few with existing family/community connections, many migrants say they come here at least partly due to the English language. Many, even from Syria, Afghanistan or Sudan, will have some English - now effectively the global Esperanto via the Internet & global US-led culture. The UK also seems to have a reputation for being more welcoming and less racist - a compliment, in a way, though whether it's still justified or remains justified in future is another matter. I've no idea whether it's easier to find illegal work in the UK than in other European countries. But it's certainly possible elsewhere - and even if it is a bit easier here, I find it hard to believe that countless thousands are prepared to risk their lives purely because it's marginally easier to find illegal work. If it is easier to find illegal work, that's an argument for stronger enforcement of legal employment - but that means reversing more Tory spending cuts, at least in the short-term, at a time when the Govt is struggling to fund much higher spending priorities... Looking at the wider issue - immigration overall, legal and illegal - the UK public has to wise up to the real choices on offer. We have an increasingly aging population, a low birth rate and (like most of the West) growth levels that have been low for several decades. If we don't want significant net working-age immigration, our options are limited: - Discover a way of boosting growth that no other western govt/nation has yet found (ironically, the US had one - at least partly based on mass immigration, legal & illegal) - Increase state pension age to 70+ - Increase taxes on most people (directly or indirectly) - Slash public services even more than they have already been slashed - Accept lower living standards Rejecting all those options as well as rejecting high net immigration will potentially leave our economy, society and democracy in a worrying place...