Alf Bentley

That's already been used, Godber, you nerk! Any more of that and it won't just be Mr. Mackay you have to worry about, it'll be Genial Harry Grout sending Crusher round for a genial visit. Could continue the 70s/Glam theme, though.... - HMP Bowie might encourage knife crime - The connotations of HMP Wizzard are too positive, but... - HMP Sweet....can't see hardcore crims wanting to be sent there

Pound notes?

Incy Wincy Spider would be a better option. As a web developer, at least he'd improve our online communications.

Some might see him as the Messiah, but he's been inactive for almost 2000 years and was crucified for the job he did last time. Might be a bit out of touch with the modern game?

"Currant affairs are my raisin d'être", says fruity Sultana. Cherry on the cake as she sets date for new party. Public doesn't give a fig!

Yes, I presume Starmer is trying to influence US decisions in his contacts with Trump. He was openly advocating de-escalation before the US bombings, but clearly didn't succeed in influencing Trump on that one! Ultimately, the US is economically, politically and militarily massively more powerful than the UK, so any influence will be minor....but not necessarily worthless, if it brings the odd benefit for the UK on trade or slightly moderates Trump on international issues. But given Trump's nature, open disagreement may become unavoidable at some point. As regards "letting him have the run of the farm", he effectively has that already on a global level due to US political, economic and military power - and to his 99% control of the democratic levers back home. The UK and others can only hope to exert limited influence. The challenge to his running of the farm will surely have to happen domestically in the US, whether it's through one or other element of the democratic system (if that persists) - Congress, courts, mid-term elections - or through popular discontent, potentially even civil war? Given the extent of US power and of Trump's current control over that power, I'm not sure there's an effective way for the rest of the world to challenge him. Other countries may exert some limited influence, but I suspect the severity of the consequences will depend largely on what Trump chooses to do (highly unpredictable) and on what happens in US politics - namely whether he remains in power, further increases his power or is subject to a successful challenge internally in the US...

Starmer has very different political views from Trump but our govt has adopted a political strategy of holding its nose and getting on with Trump as well as possible - because they see that strategy as being in the national interest. They can cite the mini-trade deal with the US as a modest but important gain from that. They'll also hope to exert a small amount of influence over Trump's foreign policy (much as Blair sought to take Bush down the UN route over Iraq - initially successfully, ultimately very unsuccessfully). Given the imbalance of power between US & UK and Trump's unpredictable, autocratic nature, any such influence will be minor - but not necessarily non-existent, as even under Trump the US likes to see and present itself as having allies, despite having the power to act alone. Yes, I think it is pretty much "standard UK/France reaction to American foreign policy". For decades, the UK has sought to exert global influence above its standing by acting as a bridge between USA and Europe, staying close to both and having some degree of influence over both - which requires some biting of the tongue over disagreements with the US. Whereas, France has sought to exert global influence above its standing by being a/the leading power in Europe - which requires less "spineless" tongue biting with Trump. Starmer's strategy for handling Trump has already put him into difficult positions - e.g. biting his tongue over illegal attacks on Iran. At some point, Trump may well act in a way that makes that strategy impossible and means Starmer has to choose sides between US and Europe. Worth adding that the UK's position is all the more invidious due to having voluntarily diminished our other position of potential international influence as one of the most influential nations in Europe, due to Brexit. Still, at least we got masses more money for the NHS and control of our borders, eh, Boris/Nigel? There's also the fact that France & UK have different systems of representation. Macron is French head of state, so his role is to symbolically represent France to the world (as well as leading foreign policy, but not most domestic policy - led by the French PM). Whereas, Starmer is UK head of govt, not head of state. His role is pure politics, foreign & domestic. Our head of state is King Charles, who was recently symbolically representing the UK to the world (and to Trump), in an understated way, by making an early visit to Canada under its new PM and making some carefully calibrated speeches about Canada's independent identity etc. Starmer's strategy on Trump is high-risk and may yet back-fire. But people suggesting he should just call Trump out or openly declare his actions illegal are being naive as to consequences. I mean, if I walked into a pub and bumped into the biggest, most violent, most unpredictable criminal in Leicester, it might be "non-spineless" of me to tell him what I think of him and his criminality, but it might not be a wise strategy with regard to consequences...

Both the original Tory proposals and the current Labour plans were presented as increasing tax revenues overall. I presume those projections were made after Treasury calculations taking account of all fiscal impacts including lost VAT revenue. I presume the expectation was that the lost VAT revenue would be dwarfed by increased tax revenues from those who lose their non-dom status but stay in the UK and pay more income tax etc. If Reeves is reconsidering this, it'll be interesting to hear on what grounds: because the Treasury figures proved incorrect or simply due to political/media pressure? The article says that actual data on non-doms is imminent, so that will be interesting, too - given the claims of the expert cited that most who left after Osborne's changes planned to leave anyway and were not economically active. The article makes the point that the property bubble at the top also impacts house prices further down the ladder - potentially affecting all house-buyers. Of course, there are limits to which "soak the rich" strategies can be effective. A high proportion of tax revenues have to come from people with more normal levels of income/wealth and any revenue gains from non-doms are not massive compared to overall tax revenues - and if you increase wealth taxes excessively, then you do risk losing wealthy people & businesses of importance to the economy. In a way, it's also unfair that the wealthy non-doms who DO end up staying in the UK and paying more tax are likely to be those who are earning their wealth here....but until such time as there are global agreements to tackle tax avoidance, wealth that it not tied to work/business/location can be transferred to countries with looser non-dom rules or to tax havens. It will be disappointing if one of the few minor attempts to get more tax out of the wealthy falls flat, given the massive growth in inequality over recent decades. Given that we live in a low-growth economy (like most of the West) with an aging population, it will merely add to the ongoing dilemma between public service cuts and higher tax for people on normal incomes - not a recipe for a happy society, given the cost of living crisis and the difficulty of achieving a step change in growth due to long-term structural trends (low growth since 70s, very low since 2008) and external factors like Trump's tariff instability, energy price turmoil via the Middle East or Russia, climate change expenses etc.

After a press campaign about millionaires leaving Britain, Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering a U-turn on non-doms policy. An interesting article here challenges claims that the policy is economically harmful - and says it should not be reversed.... https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/06/let-the-non-doms-leave-rachel-reeves "A common misconception is that rich people are economically similar. But there are two very different species: people who earn loads of money and people who have loads of money. People who earn lots of money typically pay a lot of tax. A banker in London on £600,000 a year should pay about £245,000 in income tax and National Insurance (assuming maximum pension contributions), contributing as much to the state in three years as the average Brit contributes over their whole working life. This makes them very important from a fiscal point of view. But it also means they’re less likely to leave when there’s a tax change, because they have a great job that it would be hard to get elsewhere, and because they demonstrably already tolerate a high level of taxation. And after the 2015 Budget [when Osborne tightened non-dom rules] , this is what they did: they stayed. The other species are different. They are simply parking their wealth here, paying little tax, and leaving when the rules change. Arun Advani, the economist who led this research, told me that under the non-dom regime, the UK had effectively been a tax haven for people who had money here but didn’t earn money here: 'Everyone thinks, because they’re very wealthy, that means they must be paying a lot of tax,' he said, but the people who left after 2015 were recognisable as being 'not very well connected' to the economy by income – 'but that’s also why they weren’t paying very much tax. So the cost of losing them is much lower.' It’s very possible that this is what’s happening now: we are losing people whose connection to the economy was fleeting and low in value. The stateless rich will be missed in some parts of London. Showrooms for ugly, dangerous cars will fall quiet; gaudy clothes with someone else’s name written all over them will go unsold; bad Mayfair restaurants and galleries for gaudy, laughable art will have to reconsider their value propositions. But the rest of us might benefit, thanks to the property market. Expensive London property drags the rest of the housing market upward, imposing trickle-down inflation on homeowners. It also eats into our housebuilding capacity."

Boooooooooooooooo!!!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-trump/683078/ "Yesterday, President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to quell disorderly protests against immigration-enforcement personnel in Los Angeles. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared his readiness to obey Trump by mobilizing the U.S. Marines as well. These threats look theatrical and pointless. The state, counties, and cities of California employ more than 75,000 uniformed law-enforcement personnel with arrest powers. The Los Angeles Police Department alone numbers nearly 9,000 uniformed officers. They can surely handle some dozens of agitators throwing rocks, shooting fireworks, and impeding vehicular traffic [...] [...] Since Trump’s return to the presidency in January, many political observers have puzzled over a seeming paradox. On the one hand, Trump keeps doing corrupt and illegal things. If and when his party loses its majorities in Congress—and thus the ability to protect Trump from investigation and accountability—he will likely face severe legal danger. On the other hand, Trump is doing extreme and unpopular things that seem certain to doom his party’s majorities in the 2026 elections. Doesn’t Trump know that the midterms are coming? Why isn’t he more worried? This weekend’s events suggest an answer. Trump knows full well that the midterms are coming. He is worried. But he might already be testing ways to protect himself that could end in subverting those elections’ integrity. So far, the results must be gratifying to him—and deeply ominous to anyone who hopes to preserve free and fair elections in the United States under this corrupt, authoritarian, and lawless presidency". Written by David Frum, ex-speech writer for George W. Bush....

Norway 3 Italy 0 before half-time....

It's only 9-10 months since I moved, but I've probably already forgot a lot ("How to move" books/online guides usually include a checklist). A few that I do remember... Between exchange of contracts and move): - Obtain lots of cardboard boxes and tape or tea chests, more than you think you need....you always need more...and get packing at leisure (unless you're posh and are getting the removals firm to do it) - You'll need lots of bubble wrap / kitchen rolls or whatever for wrapping delicate items; black bags to pack informal clothes? - Work out any furniture / large items getting dumped and book council collection or take to tip - Arrange redirection of post from move date - Brainstorm institutions you'll need to notify of address change, though some can only be done last-minute: utility firms, banks, credit cards, HMRC, insurance, pensions, employer, council tax, schools... Last few days: - Defrost fridge/freezer (unless leaving behind) - Identify "last minute packing" items: kettle, tea/coffee, some crockery/breakfast food, move day clothes, kids' entertainment (if long move) - Dispose of perishable food (unless you hate the buyers, in which case insert kippers under floorboards/behind radiators ) - Double and triple-check for items that might be left behind (back of drawers/cupboards, loft, behind furniture, garden/yard/passage...) - Contact removals firm to double-check all ok for move on agreed day at agreed time - Compile a file/batch of documents needed for action in final days or soon after move? - Notify utility firms (old place & new place, if possible) Move day: - Buy a few cold drinks/snacks for journey, unless moving locally? - Take photo/record of closing meter readings in case of dispute, even if utility firm has automated meter readings - Check all equipment left behind is turned off (surprising how easy it is to brush against a dial/switch) - Turn power off at mains (if property will be vacant for a while)? - Check doors locked and windows shut (maybe a few ventilators open, depending on security, if new resident moving in quickly?) - Drop keys with estate agent or whoever I'm sure I've forgotten lots of things.....definitely worth looking at checklists online or in a book, I reckon Good luck!

Partly out of piss-poor commitment, but mainly for financial/practical reasons, I've rarely attended away games. My last away game was the one I presume you're referring to. A dreadful League Cup game at Molineux about 7 years ago: 0-0 draw, won on penalties - Danny saved 3, or was it 2 and 1 blasted over? So, I can honestly say that at my last away match, Danny Ward was the match-winning hero and all the Leicester crowd were chanting his name.

Trump threatens to impose 50% tariffs on EU and 25% on Apple: https://news.sky.com/story/trump-threatens-eu-with-50-tariffs-as-apple-faces-25-unless-iphones-are-made-in-us-13373325 Harvard sues Trump regime for blocking enrolment of thousands of foreign students: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje7ledqvyqo BBC Verify fact check on Trump's claims of white genocide in South Africa: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9vxve994ro So, South Africa is a murder-stricken nation, but there's no white genocide, farmers are a tiny minority of those killed, the inflammatory songs were sung by opposition politicians, the roadside crosses were not for graves and the reports he brandished at least partly related to murders of women in the DR Congo.... Still, I'm sure KKK fans among his voter base will have heard the subtle dog whistle... Just another day in Trumpworld....

Dream, baby, dream....

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.