pingpong

Another 3pts from bazunu, that's 9 so far this season with him in goal, higher return than with calamity McCarthy.

Would have been a simple catch if the guy wasn't two yards off - can't blame the keeper for that, he was correctly judging the flight of the ball and the positioning of the players.

Good to see baz back, hope he gets the same leeway fans give to McCarthy when he, for example, jumps out of the way of the ball to let the opposition score a goofy goal, but suspect he won't. Fortunately, not a concern today as we will keep our sheet clean and scienza will get his first hat trick.

I have a concept, that I think some people in here already adhere to - become an anti saints fan. Just support whoever is playing us. You can still go to your local stadium, and you win or draw nearly every week. There's a lack of a long term league target, but you could get lucky and lose a bunch of cup games to get to a wembley game once in a while.

He looked furious to me, can't say he isn't showing emotion.

Back 3 again, not sure why he still persists in such attacking formations when we need to be more solid.

Scienza? Charles? Azaz? Fellows? Armstrong? Fraser? Jander? We're not short of people to create chances,that's why we create so many. Having said that, most people saying we should have got Moore would never have said that in the summer.

The other advantage of having two goalkeepers on the pitch is that it gives us an extra space on the bench for outfield players and more options - if McCarthy gets sent off, baz can move back into goal. I hope at least we're considering bringing him on in the 85th min when we are 1-1 and need to score - if we're going to insist on passing it to the keeper for the final minutes of every game we may as well make it a keeper in the final third of the pitch.

So bazunu is probably our best passer of the ball, definitely our best header of the ball. Can he run? I think he probably can't tackle. I'd be quite happy to see him as a central attacking midfielder, he can stroll around le tissier style, stay onside, and just score from all of our set pieces?

So do you think advertisers are putting diversity ahead of money? Personally I think it is incredibly naive to think that they are doing anything other than trying to sell as much product as possible, and personally, I think they do a shit ton of work figuring out what works and what doesn't. They'll know their target markets and what appeals to them. There are also a lot of misleading stats on this. I did a research study on this a couple of years ago, and the proportion of BAME actors in adverts was roughly equivalent to the proportion of BAME people in urban populations. People complaining seem to see the one black woman in an ad and not the 5 white people who are also in it.

3 at the back again, I do wonder if we need to show less attacking ambition and focus on clean sheets, after what happened at Bristol - a solid back 4 with 2 cdms rather than so much width, yes it gives us a lot of attacking choice, but it leaves us too open, and we're not performing well enough to take so many risks. I guess still is feeling the pressure and can't afford to be cautious.

Policing is another matter entirely. We all think it is unlikely we will have genital inspections. It's likely this just results in people using the law as an excuse to bully people out of toilets who they don't like the look of. The initial ehrc guidance, which is our only current clue to the direction the full guidance will take, talked about biological women "being excluded from women-only facilities where reasonable objection is taken to their presence based on their appearance or attributes." It's based on the concept that everyone "can tell", which is a bit like the toupee fallacy.

I'm not sure it's great, as the upcoming system seems like it will be looks based.

We're agreeing, the old system we've had for decades is fine, and supreme court and ehrc shouldn't be making laws and guidance based on appearance. But that's where we are at the moment, unfortunately.

If you follow the logic of all this, without genital checks, toilets will be policed by how masculine or feminine you are. Butch women will have to use the gents, and effeminate men will have to use the ladies. We will all end up mixed together anyway. The ehrc solution to this acknowledged issue is that it will be asymmetrical, meaning that butch women (or trans men) will simply not be allowed to use single sex spaces, and will only be able to use specially provided gender neutral facilities, which most places won't provide, so they'll just have to cope. Trans women who pass will still use the ladies, but would be eligible to use the gents too, which I guess is nice for them.