Tonge moor green jacket

The bill seems to have been initially started in the Lords. It was a private members bill there, just earlier. Not sure exactly how this works and I've downloaded both to compare. I think they're the same but will have to check. It is also worth noting that the ballot to allow the private members bill had to be well supported initially to get air time. Starmer nay well be supportive of it being brought forward, but there were no absolute guarantees it would have been selected.

Maybe he is indifferent on the subject or sees the wish of the people as being of more importance than just his own. It has to go to the next stage yet, where ammendments can be made which should help to shape any rough edges, so any concerns he or others have can be sorted then. If it is the will of the people, then mps have the responsibility of making the legislation and good and strong as it can be. The health and justice secretaries are going to have to do exactly that as they will have responsibility for its implementation later.

Got other stages before the Lords. Not much would necessarily get done if every bill had a free vote. Not every mp will agree with every policy, or part thereof, of their own government, let alone an opposing one. Sometimes, party lines have to be followed.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1 For an idea of scale, just scroll through this lot. Ridiculous.

Why? Passing on the views of those he represents, it'll never catch on.

There are. Perhaps not so many with some of ours! 😁 Clearly it isn't every team, and there are those who use the higher ball still, I just think there is a bit of a shift in general. Seemingly every premiere league team plays out from the back, to some extent, and that's has filtered down the leagues. Lower league players perhaps not so good at it, so begs the question why persevere?

Taken folk long enough to complain. From what I understand it's comments/innuendos. If there is a genuine cause for concern, the fair enough. Just hope it's another woke witch-hunt.

That's my point though- teams are trying to play on the ground more, and that is driven by something. Obviously there is a view from overseas football; the Dutch and Spanish for example. I also believe a driver is the knowledge about risks of heading the ball.

Ask managers, not me. That's the way football is going. Like any fad, it has its pros and cons.

It appears to be just that. So long as you're within the criteria, you can apply. The fact that you can save money for those close to you isn't a factor for the doctors/judges to say no- at least from what I can see/understand. The concern expressed is that it is inevitable that someone with a terrible quality of life, and possibly in pain, then takes the government to court siting discrimination as they may have more than 6 months to live and don't qualify. Once a judge upholds the case, then the precedent is set. Of itself, that doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable, but you can see how quickly this legislation could be stretched. Very tricky one, and something that will need to be heavily scrutinised when it comes back.

Long gone are the days of a big 'un and a little 'un together.

I we want it enough, I reckon we'll win. Start well, get ahead, then control it and become comfortable please.

Yep. Could easily be 2 years before it becomes law, and it may not pass the third reading, nor the Lords. Plenty of religious chaps in there. Then it's backwards and forwards until it does.

I think so. I genuinely believe it is because of the greater knowledge of risk of long term damage to the brain. We've seen the campaign by Jeff Astle's family, and also new rules in rugby. Nothing official in football yet, and I think the authorities don't want to see the game completely changed, but I do think there is a slight shift away from it.

Good point that. I suppose that's the flexibility of a manager within his squad. We still weren't a boot it and hope team though, even with him in.

Fingers crossed for you. Better than a fuck off.

It is. Especially those doctors who will not break the hippocratic oath. Whoops. Even the numbers declaring either way beforehand indicated a pass.

Agreed. We don't play enough quality crosses in early for them to attack. Early, quick passes also give your strikers that fraction longer to get the ball under control, as they can be on the move, with a touch of space. Too often, it's laboured with the forwards heavily marked, in a densely packed defensive area. We are capable of doing it right, and very difficult to stop when we do. Just don't seem to be able to do it consistently, with enough variation to keep the opposition guessing.

Point is, we didn't have one when SJM and Walker were here, but we did pretty well. Nowt wrong with the ones we've got, if we'll just use the ball quicker.

Travellers arrived on Tesco car park near the Reebok. Supposed to be leaving today. If they don't, then it might be an interesting next home game.

Can't say I'm surprised by the latter story. When spineless politicians and loony judiciary won't tackle the issue at home, then it's easier to funnel some cash through the back door, and do the work in an underhand, "invisible" way.

It's blurred unfortunately, but can be accessed via government Web site.

Absolutely. Following the typical comment of the judgemental one, I downloaded goverment notes on the bill. Hopefully, the screenshot I've attached is visible (text). Looking at the methodology, it seems that the interviewee was right. The only "check" is that the person applying isn't being pressured. That individual could say they aren't, even if they are. They may also choose to give their relatives a bit more cash by virtue of ending/preventing any undue suffering. This is where the (maybe any) such legislation becomes a mine field: a legitimate, pressure free decision, or a decision not quite in keeping with what they'd really want. Really difficult.

Not sure what's mad about that. This vote is being taken purely on the personal view of around 650 people, and not their electorate. From a democratic point of view, this seems reasonable.

Have to disagree there. I really don't see what blatantly going on. If you mean the non-dom status, then that's something that has been around for a while, and wasn't his baby. His chancellor did introduce some (slight) restrictions on his watch too. The new government seem to want to extend those controls, as is their prerogative. How that effects the desire of such folk to live here we'll never know. Reports suggest a good number of very wealthy folk have already left. Time will tell.