Alf Bentley

I'm getting pretty sick of politicians saying: "Let me tackle that head on", then adding that they are "laser-focused" on providing a "robust" solution...

This report is informative: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/paul-doyle-bit-sailors-ear-33051416?int_source=nba The ex-veteran PTSD argument was not used because he was never on active service during his time in the military. As a young man he was repeatedly in trouble with the courts and his military employers for numerous violent assaults (including one against his superior officer), criminal damage and dishonesty. This culminated in him getting discharged before the end of his service period and being given a 1-year prison sentence for biting a sailor's ear off in a bar brawl. That answers the "ex-veteran PTSD" question, but doesn't answer why he perpetrated this rampage, when he'd clearly turned his life round. It seems he'd not been charged with any offences for 30 years, had settled down in employment and a stable family life - then suddenly went haywire. Blood tests showed that he had no alcohol or illegal drugs in his system. Video footage shows that well before he reached the celebrating crowd, he was repeatedly undertaking cars and jumping red lights. Why was that? You'd presume that, if any psychiatric/psychological assessment had found him to have been seriously mentally ill, then his defence team would have presented that - as grounds for a diminished responsibility not-guilty plea or mitigation, at least. I don't know if he or his lawyers offered any explanation of his driving before he reached the event? Again, if some extreme event had provoked his behaviour, surely his lawyers would have raised that as mitigation for a lighter sentence? Maybe, he is just a man prone to rage and violence (as his youthful behaviour suggests), who had successfully got those inclinations under control for 30 years - but for some minor reason (stressful life? argument with wife? pissed off at having to pick his mate up?) or simply due to a foul mood, he drove into the city like a maniac, then saw red at the crowds getting in his way - and did what he did?

Amusing to see Scots getting angsty about McTominay not being a nominee - particularly as they might have a point (Serie A title & POTY after ManU failure; spectacular goal in WC win). Looking forward to Vardy getting the 25-26 award, after he wins Serie A POTY at 39, gets a late England recall, scores the winner in the World Cup final, then celebrates by baring his arse at Trump and Infantino, before being grabbed by ICE and deported to an El Salvador prison....

I wonder if Littler might win this year? He's widely known among casual sports TV viewers and has a big media presence - on top of achievements and youth. Rory has to be a contender and is a known personality beyond golf fanatics, so definitely has a chance - but golf is a minority sport for TV viewing. 2 England women footballers being nominated harms both their chances - and women's rugby is surely also a minority interest, World Cup notwithstanding? Likewise, motor racing - granted that F1 drivers have won before, but maybe better-known, bigger personalities than Norris?

You've been peeping, haven't you? Get back in the women's changing rooms, you perve! You're also going to look very silly when Rory comes out as trans. Regarding the "white" bit, it looks like the vast majority of winners, including 7 of the last 10 have been white? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Sports_Personality_of_the_Year_Award Only Farah (black) and Hamilton & Raduceanu (mixed race) not white in the past decade - and all 6 nominees are white this year, aren't they?

It's a Knockaert The Only Way is Lynex Absolutely Fabregas Wasyl Death Do Us Part Andy Peaky Blinders Raddy Antic Roadshow Match of the Mervyn Day Father Teddy Sheringham ....er, Top of the Pops..

Murderous former MI5/IRA double agent, Freddie "Stakeknife" Scappaticci: Murderous former Chelsea footballer, Ron "Chopper" Harris

"Police confirm that they have arrested a white man in his 70s from the Islington area. They are also looking for a young woman of Asian heritage with a Coventry address". It's Your Party and they'll fight if they want to, fight if they want to....

Older people calling for younger people to be birched. Generally for things that the said older people used to do when they were young, of course... Geriatric outrage still exists, of course, but the punishment priorities seem to have moved on.

Young hooligans like you should be birched. Mind you, you'd have sobered up by the time the fish & chips arrived - though they might've been a bit cold. The battered Mars bar would probably have still been edible. On a youthful trip to Glasgow, I remember us getting deep-fried pizza....which proved as disgusting as it sounds. We might also have been a bit drunk.

I now have visions of a mud-spattered Hugh Grant hoofing it into Row Z.... I reckon Hugh's style would be to elegantly play it out - to the opposition. Huth, on the other hand...

@ftfagos's excellent flow chart clarifies the screening dilemma. But there is also no real equivalence with mammograms: prostate cancer screening is more complicated and uncertain than breast cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening/testing generally has 3 stages: 1. PSA blood test: Raised PSA may indicate prostate cancer. But it may indicate various other conditions, such as benign prostate enlargement or a urine infection. PSA tests are also vulnerable to false positives and false negatives. A PSA test alone is nowhere near enough to diagnose prostate cancer. So that leads to.... 2. MRI scan: This offers a better indication of whether it is cancer or not, but is still inconclusive. In some cases, the scan will strongly suggest an aggressive cancer or no cancer (but can still be wrong). But in a lot of other cases, they come back saying it is unclear whether or not it is cancer - various shades of grey, as regards diagnosis. 3. Biopsy: Only at this stage, is the diagnosis close to 100% reliable. The biopsy is low-risk but not risk-free. Nor is it pain-free, as it involves local anaesthetic jabs to the perineum (skin between scrotum and anus), then perhaps a dozen samples taken via a contraption involving a spring-loaded needle directed at speed into the prostate either via the anus or the perineum. Not pleasant, but quick-ish... (I'm neither a medic nor someone with an axe to grind, just someone who went through these screening/testing stages a few months back). Please remember 2 key points that are often overlooked: - Prostate cancer often has no symptoms until it has spread and usually can no longer be cured, only held at bay. You often see publicity mentioning possible symptoms like disrupted urination. These can be valid - but can also be misleading, as a lot of men with prostate cancer have NO noticeable symptoms.....a reason to get tested if at all possible, in my view. - As well as a higher risk to black men and to men with close relatives who had aggressive PC, there is also a higher risk to men with close female relatives who had breast cancer or ovarian cancer. My understanding is that this is linked to the BRCA gene issue. It would be a damn sight more useful for authorities to publicise this connection, rather than to keep mentioning BRCA genes, given that very few people are likely to get their genes tested - but people usually WILL know if close relations have had a serious and relevant cancer diagnosis. To finish on a more positive note, it should be remembered that most prostate cancers grow slowly. Unless you're unlucky and get an aggressive variant (like me), provided the cancer is identified in good time, many men will have years before they need treatment - and many more will never need treatment, just "active surveillance" (regular monitoring) of a cancer that will never kill them. This ties in with ftfagos' flow chart...

Any excuse to watch it again....

Jimmy Cliff, also gone at 81....

Merz, Macron and Starmer are NOT "drafting an 'alternative peace plan' for Ukraine". Having spoken to Zelensky, they are seeking to agree a joint position to try to persuade Trump to amend his plan. Here are Starmer's comments: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-remarks-on-ukraine-ahead-of-g20-summit-21-november-2025 Note: "We will discuss the current proposal on the table, and in support of President Trump’s push for peace, look at how we can strengthen this plan for the next phase of negotiations". That attempt at persuasion may or may not work, but given what is at stake for Ukraine - and for Europe/the world in the medium-term - it is certainly worth trying. It is particularly worth trying given that Trump is an unpredictable leader who frequently shifts his stance on key issues - including having shifted to a more Ukraine-friendly, Putin-sceptic stance, at times, under the influence of allies. a) Russia might or might not stop fighting and accept an amended plan. It might or might not stop fighting and accept Trump's plan....and Ukraine might or might not stop fighting and accept Trump's plan! Here's a supplementary question: In the medium-term, why would Russia not resume aggression towards Ukraine and other nations if its aggression is rewarded with large chunks of Ukraine, including areas it doesn't currently hold, a militarily weak Ukraine and major economic benefits - especially knowing that Trump is keen to minimise US military spending/NATO support? Maybe appeasement of Putin would work - but the strategy of appeasement of military aggressors/dictators doesn't have a great track record. b) Policy/strategy discussions between European nations have been ongoing. We know that from their previous contributions. But they have had to react to a new bilateral US-Russian plan from which they and Ukraine have largely been excluded. They have to react because the US is still the world's most powerful nation militarily and arguably economically and politically - and peace in Europe could be at stake. c) As @Dahnsouff said, they're not useless, they're (comparatively, but not entirely) impotent. I suspect you hold a minority opinion in viewing Starmer, Macron and Merz as useless on foreign policy. The first two are deeply unpopular (DK re. Merz) but for reasons of economic performance / domestic policy / migration, not due to policy on Ukraine. I've not seen a recent poll but here is YouGov info dating to the time of the Trump-Putin Alaska summit: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52766-where-do-britons-stand-on-ukraine-ahead-of-the-trump-putin-peace-meeting-in-alaska

On a lighter note.... BBC News moved to a news items about Ukraine.....and up came a Strictly Come Dancing backdrop. For a split second, I thought Zelensky had signed up as a Strictly celeb dancer. The world is getting crazy enough for this not to be entirely unthinkable...

I wonder if the issue will attract more public interest now that his jailing is leading the bulletins? It's easy to forget that most people pay only superficial attention to news/politics. I think an awful lot of Reform's support comes from general discontent - cost of living / mistrust of politicians / perceived immigration issues - not from news/politics analysis. The approach of BBC 1pm News was interesting. They led with the story, mentioned that Gill was a key ally of Farage, but then stressed that Farage knew nothing about Gill's crimes - in their headline announcement, not just subsequent analysis. That's an interesting editorial decision. I'd love to know their justification for that approach, as I don't recall any similar highlighting of the innocence of the party leader (Starmer, Badenoch or whoever) when politicians from other parties were implicated in scandals or crimes - a major, arguably borderline traitorous crime, in this case. The leader's lack of knowledge might be mentioned in subsequent analysis, but not usually in the headline.... Is that approach due to fear of controversy, litigation, the response of Farage, Trump or the public? No real contextual analysis either on BBC News: e.g. no mention of Farage's history of lukewarm support for Ukraine and borderline sympathy for Russia. Never mind any mention, even nuanced, of Farage's history of working for Russian media.... I don't want to be one of those sticking the boot into the BBC, as it remains an invaluable resource, but this smacks of timidity, if not cowardice. Channel 4 News offers much better journalism.

I can't access that link - deemed insecure. But here are 2 other links about the circumstances behind the notorious 1974 Zaire free-kick and its perpetrator - plus the video clip for anyone who's not seen it. Shame the player died in 2015 and won't be around if DR Congo do qualify. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37370095/mwepu-ilunga-explains-zaire-dismal-1974-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/08/zaire-mwepu-ilunga-free-kick-world-cup-1974#:~:text=We ask for your permission,click 'Allow and continue'.&text=Ilunga enjoyed a long and,champions in 1968 and 1974.

Indeed. We'll be seeing a few TV replays of that 1974 free-kick if they do qualify. That was the first World Cup that I followed closely, though I remember hearing about England's games against Brazil and West Germany in 1970 (we first got a TV for the 1974 World Cup). I watched much of the DR Congo v Nigeria match and DR Congo looked much the better side - should've won without penalties. Nigeria have been pathetic, mind you - arguably put Sweden in the shade. Just shows yet again that it's a team game, useful though it is to have good individual players. I'd back DR Congo and Iraq or Bolivia to win the inter-continental playoffs. New Caledonia surely have no chance, Suriname have probably blown theirs - and Jamaica's results suggest they're weaker than in the past. Though I see that Steve McClaren has resigned as their manager, so maybe a new and better manager might get them in shape? Recall for Wes? It's a shame that the UEFA and inter-continental playoffs won't happen until March. Could harm those teams with momentum (Wales, Rep. Ireland) and help those that have suffered bad defeats recently (Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Slovakia, North Macedonia). All qualification is usually done and dusted before Christmas, isn't it, or am I misremembering?

We could also have two 1974ers: Haiti qualified, DR Congo (the artist formerly known as Zaire) with a good chance in play-offs. Indeed, more strong 1974 parallels: Scotland and Australia qualified; East Germany and Yugoslavia represented; Czechoslovakia not qualified (so far); USSR banned. We just need DR Congo, Poland & Sweden to win playoffs...

I see Iraq have qualified for the inter-continental playoffs, beating UAE with a penalty in the 17th minute of added time.... Sounds like the Emirs from the Emirates made the ref an insultingly low offer of petrodollars....

Nah! Express a "genuine" desire for Scotland to do well. Scots won't know if you're just being patronising to a small nation, so it will mess with their heads. (Though I genuinely do want them to qualify and do well - within reason - despite being amused at the misery when they don't....)

I was thinking of posting something similar in the Unpopular Opinions thread, but decided to avoid the flak. I'd like to see the Scots, Irish and Welsh all qualify, via playoffs if need be, though I don't think that'll happen. We're all brothers and sisters on these islands, aren't we?

DR Congo join Bolivia and New Caledonia (plus 3) in the Inter-Continental Playoffs.....Nigeria join Cameroon in the bin.

.....and San Marino narrowly miss out on the play-offs, along with Moldova. But Sweden make them, despite their shameful campaign. Wales v. North Macedonia is now effectively to decide which nation gets a home tie in the play-offs, as both will now be involved.