Tonge moor green jacket

Unfortunately, I wouldn't trust our governments to ban it. IRGC is apparently, finally, going to be proscribed. We have a history of being soft on dodgy groups, and individuals associated with them. As above, some gulf states are far more proactive in dealing with these groups.

Before the tournament I would probably have agreed. Having seen both play, I just feel that France's pace, especially on the counter attack would be damaging. Of course Spain's technical ability is arguably superior to ours, but we botb tend to play a possession type game, which we may be more comfortable with. Mexico hadn't conceded until we played them neither, so the players should have some degree of confidence that they can create and score goals- maybe just not many of them.

Yep. Spence plays both positions and was excellent when he came on. Bellingham was inhibited when Eze came on as he went deeper. TT saw this and changed it, putting Eze wide and James on. It helped reduce their superiority during that period, and was a good tactical move. Konsa did well enough. As you say, we found a way to win.

No we're not.

If so many form the same opinion, then it is hardly an over reaction. He, and his cabinet started the rot almost as soon as they wiped their feet in number 10 and 11. Old folk, hidden taxes, farmers, migration, defence, failure to implement certain policies, introducing one's that weren't detailed, scandals and bad appointments. Now Ollie Robins is suing the government. A fine opposition leader, caught in the headlights.

There is always a balance.

Thought Spain would win it. France still might of course, but I doubt it.

Maybe because the public felt he was a poor PM! Of course you didn't, and that's completely reasonable, but many didn't. I also think many of his back benchers felt he was a poor PM.

That would make him older than Trump whilst in office.

Once again, you are making assertions that weren't covered, nor commented on. To much screen time etc, as you say, is bad. He was referring specifically to news, not to other output, nor quantity. As I said, find it, watch it and see what he says. It makes complete sense to me, as cells need a rest from insulin exposure or they become resistant. In much the same way science now says only eat two or three meals, and not frequent small amounts, as any event that leads to frequent blood sugar spikes leads to constant insulin exposure, and higher chance if resistance. High blood sugar as a result of adrenaline release or food intake is still high blood sugar.

Some controversy in the house today, around the (lack of) scrutiny of the incoming man. Dunno what the reality of the situation is, but he is masterful at directing the narrative. May change in high office of course.

Unfortunately for him, he doesn't. If he wants a blank slate, he'd need to have another general election, release a new manifesto and form a government around it, subsequent to winning an election. At the moment he is hamstrung by the current one- unless he chooses to stick with it of course.

You can take that up with the doctor. Screen time wasn't mentioned. Specific content- namely news- absolutely. No mention of co-morbidities, though I would imagine that they could accentuate any effect. I would imagine there is a potential cause by way of increased stress hormones causing slow damage to cells, via a number of biological processes. In short, you may be right, but it was second (iirc) on the list of factors that can lead to it. Have a watch: it made sense, and anecdotal evidence suggests too much "bad content" isn't good for you.

Aye, wasn't huge. Just bastard windy.

Wouldn't argue with that; main problem though is that the Islamic ones want to get rid of everyone else.

Depends if he can take the back benchers with him. Some already agitating for him to water down the home secretary's tougher plans against migrants.

I reckon there could be a civil war. Bit of a difference, and I'm taking my cue from my observations and experts. A similar approach says Rice and Anderson are very good for England. You're very much an outlier there.

I also don't see wages for an assistant coach as being as high as might be anticipated amongst fans.

All of England's players so far have had different levels of performance. Main thing is to have enough of them doing well, that ones a bit less influential are covered. Even those can be having an effect in that their presence creates openings for others to exploit, even if they don't appear to be great on the day. TT deserves much credit.

Like so many players in recent times, the Spanish work so hard off the ball to get it back, without necessarily having "ball winners" in midfield. You see it in the best prem teams- City and Arsenal too. Watching them the other day, I was struck how often they would close an opponent out and manage to get a foot in which wasn't just a tackle but was a little pass to a teammate. Turnover complete. France clearly pace and quality to open any team up, but have shown they can be got at. Probably a close game, either way. France favourites I would imagine, but I have a feeling that Spain will nick it.

You reckon England need better than Anderson and Rice.

I saw a medical film jobby on YouTube the other day. An American chap, using studies etc. One of the causes of insulin intolerance, blood sugar etc was watching too much news! Makes sense. Much prefer it now, as specific information and science underpins a lot of stuff. Much of it you can't really expect media to cover as the breadth of topics is so huge. Of course you have to check for charlatans etc, and take some stuff with a pinch of salt, but for the most part, far more interesting.

Thought I'd have a go. It reckons civil unrest is still highly likely, and there are many problems. Reckons civil war is unlikely- which it is-and quotes a particular professor. It also sites "far right" folk ramping things up. It doesn't mention the other experts who I've referred to for example. Their balanced, evidence based analysis, which sites the risk as at a high level. What so many seem to struggle with is "High risk" doesn't mean immediate or near future severe country wide violence and societal breakdown. It means that we aren't in as good a place as we should be, and ignoring the signs just pushes us that bit closer. Bit like climate change. Some say it's real and some deny it. Science will provide evidence, some of which will be refuted. Alternatively, folk can go outside and witness for themselves where things aren't going right.

A fine looking woman.