scottsdad

Serious point: just let her stand. Then Starmer can say that Labour really is a broad church. Just let the woman stand.

Hi Rishi!

I saw a bloke fall off the balcony during a fight in a nightclub. I don't know who he was but I can tell you one thing. He wasn't a bouncer.

The rust is holding it together

I'm free! I never have to watch this again! A 90 minute finale that feels like 180 minutes. No danger, no jeopardy. Turns out Michael is the chosen one (shockeroony). The last 4 hours of this finale is just sweeping music designed to make fans weep that the Grand Journey is over. Lots of folk hugging and saying goodbye. Not as bad as Enterprise's finale but a good effort. I joked with Scott that tomorrow we start again in season 1. He knew I wasn't serious. I will never watch any of this again. Never. But for the fans on here:

I've been giving an EDI lecture to concrete professionals and one guy keeps playing with his phone and taking pictures of my slides.

I reckon Davey is just on holiday and the cameras are following him about. This isn't campaigning. He's just having days out.

An actual news article in the BBC We should have our own version. "Why @Sergeant Wilson is done people pleasing"

Missed this one in March. St Denys grandad slams council after bin goes uncollected for weeks

9 for Thursday. Chess.

My sons are fucking scumbags so I am voting Tory (Mail)

Noted! Cheers.

I am washing my hair that night, sorry.

I love local trophies like this. Glad it is back.

The familiarity thing - how does this exist? Assuming it is a thing, imagine the following. Team A plays on artificial grass. They are familiar with it. Team B plays on grass and are familiar with that. Playing each other, home and away, how does team A have any advantage? This is before we look to the elephant in the room; teams that play on grass and train on astroturf.

Let us know how you get on.

Never mind. Found it.

Can someone put up the Hal Hooberman tweet again? I need a laugh.

Jim from Neighbours really looking for a new career these days

I tried it once when I was living in Sweden. Loads of people use it there. It's like a mini tea bag that you put between your upper gum and top lip. I tried it and the sensation was strange. A creeping numb/tingling sensation spread from that point all round my head. Once my head was totally like that, I spewed my guts up all over the place. Didn't try it again.

I started at 18.

I wasn't sure what the EPL point is, i'm not overly fussed with why other associations ban them. I just want to understand why fans at other clubs are so against them. To be truthful, if there was a genuine, measurable advantage to having an artificial pitch and it was well known about, the premiership clubs wouldn't be voting to ban them; they'd be installing them.

I used to live opposite a family where the parents were divorced but they still lived in the same house as their son, who was at school with me. I remember visiting him one day, chapping on the door and his dad (who looked a bit like Lurch) answered. He shouted up to his son "Friend to see you". "Send him up" his son replied. The dad shook his head. "Impossible. Come down here," he replied. I still remember thinking...impossible? I'm pretty sure I could have managed the stairs without a sherpa.

All I am asking for are proper reasons for banning them, other than "I don't like them". The "advantage" they give doesn't exist. They don't cause more injuries. I'm just asking why people are taking against them.

OK...however that one study (based on 3 seasons of the Dutch league) is actually rebutted by other, bigger studies that are published in more reputable journals. For example: The effect on home advantage when a team changes from grass to artificial turf – a worldwide study in professional football from the International Journal on Performance Analysis in Sport states and: Does accounting for an artificial turf advantage in Dutch football increase predictive accuracy of probabilistic models? states in a clear rebuttal to the paper you cited that There is a whole body of evidence showing no difference. There are a few papers showing there is. It's like finding the odd paper arguing that climate change doesn't exists amongst the others that state it does.