lichtgilphead

Yeah, compared with his performance at St Mirren at the start of the season, it's night & day. However, I was taking the piss out of 1320's plan to play 2 RB's & 2 CB's...

Isn't playing 2 right backs a bit unbalanced?

We put £200 per month into a savings account in case of any big bills that we cannot meet out of "normal" dog costs. Doesn't take that long to build up to a significant sum if you start saving when the dogs are younger and less likely to need it. (We have 2 rescue greyhounds which are often trickier to insure as we don't always get the full history when we rescue them)

Maximum sentence will be 6 months jail time and/or an unlimited fine. Obviously, that will only be intended to be applied in the very worst cases. It's still bad law though.

Agreed, but how does this affect their view that this is bad legislation?

If you can provide proof that Raith have a spare Kevin Dabrowski jersey with his surname & the number 1 on the back in your usual blue/white first kit, I'll take your point on board. Otherwise, please f*ck off.

That's my updated list in. 12 from last year, 1 dropped & 3 new signings. Assuming that noone else dies in the next 6.5 hours, 2023 has been my worst ever performance, with only Gianluca Vialli & Rosalynn Carter making the scoresheet

I would rather believe the RSPCA than Sunak's populist pish https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/bsl/xlbullies The UK Government has now confirmed that XL Bully dogs will be added to a list of dogs which are banned in England and Wales - and we understand this is hugely concerning and upsetting for owners, as well as animal welfare organisations like ourselves. The RSPCA is opposed to this ban, which we don’t believe is effective in protecting the public. We do not agree with the broad legal definition of an XL Bully dog announced by the UK Government but we must comply with the law and we are committed to supporting dog owners as we await more information.

What is this perch you speak of? I prefer to call 5½ yards a "rod" or "pole"

I think you're mixing up furlongs and acres. Easy to do with the haphazard mix of crazy units in the imperial system 1 acre = 1 furlong (220 yards) x 1 chain (22 yards) = 10 square chains = 1⁄640 of a square mile = 4840 square yards Simples!

Remember this? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/18/metric-system-imperial-measures-consultation-brexit Jacob Rees Mogg set up a consultation with a biased set of questions hoping to show that the UK wanted to return to Imperial measurement. It was touted as a "Brexit Bonus" Finally, the results of this consultation have been released (or would it be more approptiate to suggest "sneaked out during a holiday period" ????) Here they are: Overall preference Number of responses Percentage of responses Status quo (keep metric as primary unit of measurement) 81,867 81.1% More choice (open to increased use of imperial measures) 870 0.9% Purely metric (completely metric system) 17,798 17.6% Purely imperial (completely imperial system) 403 0.4% Total 100,938 100% I make that 98.7% pro-metric, against a massive 1.3% pro-imperial responses. However, pro-imperial brexiteers can rejoice, as they will now be able to buy wine in 568 ml bottles. That's nearly a pint, you know. What a fantastic boost to the economy, and all due to Brexit! I'm sure that all the EU, US, Australian, South American & South African vineyards are frantically sourcing new bottles & retooling production lines to cope with demand. Caution: The above post may contain traces of sarcasm

Even with the obvious bias toward imperial in the consultation document (I wonder whether Jacob Rees Mogg had a hand in drafting it), it had been rumoured that the proposed reintroduction had been opposed by a significant margin. I didn't expect quite such a trouncing though! No wonder the UK Government have released the results whilst parliament is in recess & many people are still on holiday. 568 ml is still a metric measure, It's just short of a pint. A pint is defined (in Schedule 1 of the Weights & Measures Act 1985) as 568.26125 ml So, to summarise, here's the changes that Brexit has allowed the UK Government to make (new measures in bold) Still wine 100, 187, 200, 250, 375, 500, 568, 750, 1000, 1500 ml Sparkling wine 125, 200, 375, 500, 568, 750, 1500 ml I'm sure that all the EU, US, Australian, South American & South African wine bottlers are frantically manufacturing new bottles & retooling production lines as we speak. Realistically, I can't see anyone apart from a few small-scale UK wine producers taking advantage of this new "freedom", but the Brexiteers had to do something to try to spin the consultation response in some sort of positive fashion.

Hopefully she's OK. What a shit thing to happen - today of all days.

How many pieces of secondary legislation were passed? Btw, duelling was banned in the UK in 1844, so Alister Jack would probably have struck down any legislation to reintroduce it anyway. EDITED TO ADD Labour are in power in Wales. How many bills have they passed in the last 900 days?

Apologies. I didn't realise that my input was necessary before we could judge guilt. Mone is entitled to the presumption of innocence in exactly the same way as any accused in England, subject to the requirement to mention any defence she wishes to run during an interview under caution. However, unless I've missed it, she's not been invited for that formal police interview yet. Should she be charged with something, I'll look forward to the prosecution doing their best to prove their case in court, but until that date, the presumption of innocence remains in place. Hi Stormzy Unlike you, at least I've never been banned for trolling the site. However, if you look back, you'll find that I accused the inner cabal of the SNP of perjury during the Salmond criminal trial. How does that fit in with your pathetic attempt to attack me? Did I miss someone getting charged or prosecuted? .If the prosecution believed that there'was a case to answer, charges should have been laid. At this moment, police are only at the evidence gathering stage. Any guilt is yet to be determined.

That's not what I said. They don't even have to take the witness stand if they choose not to. Firstly they would have to be charged Secondly the Crown Office would have to decide to proceed to trial. Thirdly, the prosecution would have to prove the charges against them. Guilt is not determined during an interview under caution

Agreed. However, instead of pointing out that his statement was pure supposition, I chose to point out that the prosecutor has to prove his case. What is your problem with that? It really is a basic principle of Scots Law. Our caution doesn't have the bit about "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.". PACE is not applicable in Scotland.

???? With regard to Stichener, I simply pointed out that in every case that goes to trial, the prosecution have to prove their case. Suspects are perfectly at liberty to "no comment" every question if they wish as i's not up to the defence to prove innocence. I have no idea what was said at interview, and didn't claim that I did. With regard to Orfc, I pointed out that his second statement is pure supposition.

Are you suggesting that you know what was said under caution by the various arrested parties? Without that information, your suppositions are worth f*ck all.

Of course, it has to be remembered that the prosecutor has to prove guilt in a criminal trial. It's not up to the defence to prove innocence.

Chicken Momos (dumplings) to start & Solukhumba Bhenda (slices of lamb in chicken mince) as a main. You'll thank me.

I see what you're saying, but neither Mrs Gilp nor myself have any significant generational wealth. The kids left home years ago & are making their own way, the mortgage is paid & I have no other debt. We have 2 decent salaries coming in, so I should be able to pay enough AVC's to take my yearly salary down to below the higher rate tax band, Being financially prudent doesn't make me a f*cking Tory, no matter what @Left Back thinks.

Badly phrased, my friend. If I was taking full advantage of the AVC scheme, my top tax rate would be 21%. But yes, I pay some tax at the higher 42% rate due to my own inefficiencies & the recent local government pay increase

Yeah, that's true, but this difference in polling is magnified when you reach a tipping point in FPTP. The 10% potential drop in support results in a 50%+ loss of projected seats.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say? I said that current employers contributions have averaged around 12% since the early 2000's and that they were often 0% before that. Over my working life to date, this means that the average employer contribution has been roughly 6%. This is simple arithmetic, based upon my years of service. It's not just my pension scheme that's funded by the taxpayer - it's my whole f*cking salary. That's what working in public service means. Do I also need to explain the meaning of "nominally" as in "local government is nominally funded by Council tax" Anyway, now that other posters are starting to complain about you needlessly derailing the thread, you should probably give up.