Eddie Hitler

It's a meaningless rhetorical phrase that you can graft anything you want onto and it will still make sense. His 'learning to live with' is 'take more risks because I don't want to keep paying you in case you realise there is a magic money tree after all'. Another person's is 'I am learning to live with it by mitigating the risks and not moaning that I can't have everything my own way every five minutes'. And so on.

Lovely idea, in theory, and I do agree that that would be a good focus if certain workers' jobs can't be saved for whatever reason. Many of those who might lose out in coming months are affected by working in industries which are viable enough in normal times and will be viable again when folk are able to get out and about the same as before. In short, they need a safety net to get through a lean period visited on them through little fault of their own. The whole system of benefits *ought* to be providing a decent 'safety net' against illness and bad luck etc; this was supposed to be the whole point. It should help until folk can 'get back on their feet again'. To me, this means ensuring losing your job is not the start of a downward spiral but I am not sure the Tories in charge give two hoots about that. So there's the problem; we are ruled over by people who do not want to provide a 'safety net'; only do as little as they can to provide the illusion that they are so that other folk (Tory voters) will feel justified shouting that enough is being done already. These folk are in charge for at least the next four years and something needs done *now* to help those who are suffering and about to feel the effects of Sunak's announcement today. By the time there is a Labour government which has been able to implement anything, half a decade will have passed (and that's optimistically resting on them winning the next election) and that's if they are even minded to reform the benefits system at all. Ultimately, proper reform of the system is needed but has to be something for later and you are pissing in the wind if you expect it to be delivered by a Westminster government of any hue in the coming decades, far less months.

I hadn't played for a few weeks but was drawn in by the update. Agree that it is - to say the least - jarring. Still keen to try out the apparently improved tournaments but perhaps after I have gotten rid of the 'ring rust' as I was losing like a madman last night.....

I am pretty sure it was the run-up to, and results of, the 2015 General Election that achieved this. This was when it became obvious to him (and everyone else I think...I recall Andrew Marr confessing on the election night coverage that independence was 'a historical process that probably can't be stopped')) that independence was an idea that wasn't going away. I might be remembering wrongly but I am pretty sure it was around then (just before election day) that Daisley wrote something bitterly lamenting the downward spiral of the Labour Party, referencing them having been his grandpa's party (in itself a nice reminiscence actually, but he seemed angry that they were about to get hammered).

So you think that because he reversed a decision to resign, he shouldn't be allowed to stand? He should expect firm competition, yes, and if his branch don't want him any more then fair enough (and perhaps they might feel that he wasn't sure he was committed enough any more, hence the decision he made in the first place). Regarding your last paragraph, no-one can dispute that women were unfairly held back in politics in times gone by (and maybe in some cases now, I'm sure) but I am not sure it's always fair to "remedy" that by excluding other folk now to "make up for it" because the folk who were unfairly excluded previously (i.e, women unfairly excluded in past processes) don't benefit unless it was pretty recent and (probably more pertinently) the men who excluded them are not the ones punished by being excluded now, but instead will often be younger men who might (surprising, I know!) actually sometimes be a better person for the role. Anyway, it will all play out without reference to me as I don't make any of these decisions

What’s to enjoy about watching them play? Where they’re playing another international team of any quality, the best you can say about them is that they’re “functional”, with a bit of pace and decent at set pieces. But they’re turgid and lacking creativity if the other team can defend worth a f**k and that IS boring to watch and annoying when their media cheerleaders think they’re brilliant.

To be clear, I was mainly talking about everything that isn't an ice lolly or similar.

I am basically in agreement that chocolate should be enjoyed at room temperature. It's a bit nasty if it's too cold. The only reason to put chocolate in the fridge is to prevent it being melted before you even open it, on the rare days that it's warm enough for that to happen.

Lots of "coulds", "mays" and '"doesn't necessarily bring us nearer to herd immunities" in there. In short, we can hope the findings signify something positive, but hardly hang our hats on it and, in fairness, the article says this in noting that more analysis is needed for firmer conclusions we can have confidence in.

Agreed that protests were not necessarily wise in the pandemic. Folk need to stop being children about everything though. The 'he did it!' whataboutery response (and I am not saying you are saying this, but it's been a common refrain for weeks 'oh, but they did it for their protest!') is the level of argument I would expect out of an immature wean. Ditto with Cummings; he's a walloper and Boris is a p***k for keeping him in post but we don't all have to be 'monkey see, monkey do' about everything if we don't think something is a good idea but just want to use someone else's behaviour as an excuse to do our own thing.

Yup, and this was not an accident. Signal received as well.

I bow to your superior knowledge of epidemiology (of which I am quite happy to confess I know bugger all about). Should we expect to see you on the news shortly offering your expert views?

It's not a case of not easing up when the virus is suppressed which is surely what we all ideally would want. More a case of wondering whether our government(s) have i) ensured that they have suppressed it before deciding we're 'off to the races' and, probably more crucially, ii) have they definitely got in place the correct measures to ensure any resurgence here is stamped out before it can get going? Given that countries like Germany, which has generally been thought to have dealt well with the virus, clearly hadn't taken measures that ensured it was totally suppressed, I think DAFC can be excused for not being wholly confident that we have managed it here. The low level of cases is 'what we know', but we don't know how many people with mild symptoms or who are asymptomatic are going to wander around infecting folk. Now we can only go on what we know so I fully agree that we should look to relax when cases seem to be low. But the powers-that-be are also failing us if they allow that to happen before they are certain bloody sure they have the infrastructure in place to deal with further outbreaks and not only just 'the hospitals aren't full' but in a way that means people who get ill have a good chance of coming through it just fine. I know that 9 cases seems very low, and it is, but back at the start of this we were told that 1 infected person can (within 10 chains of infection) start off a chain whereby 59,000 folk become infected. I calculate that this means that fewer than 100 initial cases could have seen all of Scotland infected if allowed to spread untrammelled. We didn't thankfully but this shows that we really need to make sure we have the measures in place to stamp resurgences out and I think it's the least we should expect and that folk are entitled to ask for reassurance on that point.

Stop being so patronising. Most folk here are engaged enough to want to discuss the issue, so they are not blindly doing anything. He's allowed to decide what he prioritises from a range of political issues. He's also allowed to decide what he thinks has been bad policy and - guess what - his assessment might differ from yours and that doesn't necessarily make him wrong. Especially in relation to this where better minds than mines or yours don't have all the answers. But even if he does agree that there has been bad policy, he is still allowed to prioritise other things ahead of them if he so wishes. His choice, not yours. And if he's an indy-zealot as you allege, he doesn't seem to be any more of a zealot than you are about your hobby horse of 'things haven't opened up fast enough!'. You're entitled to that opinion, which is all that it is, just as others are entitled to think easy does it. You cheer on anything that supports your view just as 'blindly'. You are too convinced of your own rectitude in relation to something that most of us - myself included - don't have a clue about beyond trying to follow some trends. Even then, anyone with a brain knows we are relying on a bunch of official figures that could be way out for many reasons, including poor data collection.

English 'R number' going the wrong way, says Beth Rigby, via Sage

Regarding the regular refrain of “oooh Sturgeon has handled it okay but it’s just the same message as Boris!” I’m not Nicola Sturgeon’s biggest fan but I’m not really sure what folk expect, saving certain failures common to quite a lot countries might have been avoided (care home issues in particular). But regarding lockdown and easing of, in general of course every country’s message sounds the same. They’re opening up the same stuff, they have very similar institutions (educational, legal etc etc) and social habits etc. Lockdown relaxations are going to look pretty fuckin similar in most places. In fact, the only dispute to be had is about the pace of opening these things back up and very emphatically she’s trying to slow this a bit while Fannybaws can’t wait to push folk back whether it makes sense or not. Her strategy is as different as it can be really, and I say that as someone who thinks she’s too cautious a lot of the time.

I am fairly sure he didn't mean ICUs but all other settings. If you've not seen folk with masks on disregarding personal space and charging about supermarkets, for example, you must be walking around with your eyes shut. This said, folk without masks have been doing the same thing in my experience. In the first weeks, there was a lot of consideration for others' space. Now, judging by the looks on their faces, a lot of folk are back to fixating on what they are trying to find on shelves rather than folk in their surroundings.

Yup, and then shouting that they can't get a train when staff protest for better wages and conditions without realising that their need for a train only emphasises how valuable the staff are because the service is needed for things to function. Screaming about how "selfish" the staff are, little realising the irony in demanding the staff dance to their tune and go back to work.

Exactly right and this line of thought works with others some people don't think should be raised up for whatever reason. I was having a conversation with someone at my work a while back about McDonald's workers demanding $15 an hour in America. The other guy was up in arms that I thought "they should be paid more than me" (which allowing for exchange rates etc I doubt they would be but that's besides the point). He simply could not be made to understand that folk who thought the likes of McDonald's workers should be paid a fair wage were not thinking of the McDonald's workers in isolation and felt that *everyone* should be paid a fair wage and that this might result in him being paid more. It was all "they shouldn't get as much as me" along with a total acceptance of the idea that it simply wasn't possible that fair wages could be paid despite societies like Denmark making a decent fist of it.

Yes, that's right. You've heard anecdotally that some people are ripping the pish out of it, and some guy in your work's annoyed you, so everyone else who's relying on it currently can piss off and starve. I don't doubt that what you say is true, and that some are taking the piss, but I am not supporting other folk getting fired off it because some folk are twats. That's the same sort of argument Tories usually use to try and deny folk other forms of support. Folk should be taken off it when it's time, when it's safe to go back to their respective work arenas and not one minute before. I'm fortunate (because I'd be jiggered without a weekday routine apart from anything else) not to need to rely on it but I am not going to support taking folk who need it off of it in some fit of spite. Some employers might not be able to manage this change in contributions etc but that's a separate question from "I want to bin it because I think some folk are abusing it".

Haha, all your ranks are better than mine haha. My best is low plat on 3s although I did get quite close to Diamond a while ago back. Have only ever made high gold on 2s and find solo std a real struggle (despite mostly playing standard 3s as as a solo). As most of the player base is in gold or below I think, you have to face up to the fact that you might be poor next to the pros but you are pretty good in terms of the whole player base I think I have played around 8700 matches at least according to the in-game stats. Agree that there's a ridiculous amount of team-mate blaming btw. Usually folk who are very good at aerials and other mechanics but haven't the first idea about rotation, positioning or helping on defence in my experience.* *Let's be clear, I am not claiming I don't do my share of messing up but I try to be honest with myself when I have!

Apologies for resurrecting quite an old thread but wondering if anyone is still playing this? Not playing as much these days but it's been the one game I have constantly gone back to now for three years and more. Not that that's meant I am any better than below average to average at it depending on ranked playlist type, mind If anyone wants to team up on it sometime for some ranked 2s (or maybe 3s) and you aren't so good that you'd just get annoyed with me, my PSN is Buddie1980.

Bollocks. SG has a job to do on care homes etc but until the day and hour that the staff who work in them are able to insulate themselves entirely from other members of the public, then the public has a role to play as well by attempting not to go about breathing on each other so that those working in care homes are less likely to carry infection into a care home.

Any news out of Ardeer Thistle or Saltcoats Victoria? As there are so few teams remaining who haven't applied, I am assuming all will apply in the end but have an affection for the area (and got along to an Ardeer game last this/last season) so would be interested to see confirmation.

Eh? I don't see that the statement I was responding to implies anything about anyone "getting put at a higher level than Lithgae" and nor did I suggest that they should anywhere in my comment either. Of course, other west teams might want to get in as well as some of the juniors but the latter have of course been the focus of "will west teams go for it and join the seniors?" and I didn't mean any more than that or to exclude non-junior west teams. Do not read things that aren't there.