egg

447 PL minutes, but yep, only 4 starts. I don't think he's ever been played to his strengths in any of that time. Like you, I'd like to see him playing up top with Archer. Feed him crosses and I think he'll do ok.

Cheers. Pyongyang and Ibiza on the same latitude. Who knew.

True story. Nearly 70% apparently.

Reduxx. The new authority on all things bigoted. Jeez.

Solicitor

Thanks. Searching Khelif and looking at news articles doesn't take you to it the reduxx. You've gotta be pretty obsessed/determined to seek out loopy websites like that.

You came across as a bigot, and your pursuing it months later confirms that. As I say, crack on mate if it's that important to you. I'll wait for a proper report from somewhere credible, and see what people with knowledge of this complex issue decide should be the fate of this woman.

Hypo, you crack on, you're plainly excited by this possible news. I really couldn't give a monkeys. I'm just here for the jokes.

She doesn't have testicles. Read it again. Regardless, I'm not going to rely an a report from that website, and I'm not here to define her sex. She competed as a recognised woman. Let's see what people who know what they're talking about decide.

There was no link so I had no idea whether it was credible.

Where have you sourced this? The recent credible news reports about her are all about her starting her professional female career. That suggests that she is welcome to continue to compete as woman.

Nurse

On your first point, yep, there appears to be a perception that businesses can just do this and the people won't get hurt. That ain't the reality. On the rest, they had to raise this money as we're skint and public services are on their knees so I'm not sure that an if should attach to the raising money question. Where people's views vary on this is whether they consider it necessary to support increased public expenditure through increased taxes. I do. The issue is the how to go about it. They should never have boxed themselves into the corner of not being able to reverse the daft Tory NI give away. Madness from both parties but Reeves should have just reversed it and been done with it.

Roses

Kidney

I've got no issue with most of what they did - vat on school fees, non dom changes, CGT (I'd have gone higher), or pretty much everything else (iht on pensions and farms excepted), but this NI change for me will be really damaging for employees and employers. My view is not from a position of political ideology, as perhaps is the case for others, but as a business owner. My politics are that public services should be improved, and that those with the broadest shoulders should pay. Leaving the responsibility for bailing us out on all businesses, regardless of their ability to pay, means plenty of narrow shoulders will carry the weight.

The impact will be more significant than you believe. In round numbers, the NI change is about £800 a year for income up to £10k, and then an extra 1.2% for everything on top. The NI bill for a business with a wage bill of c.£3m will increase circa £120k. Many employers will maintain profits by job losses which is damaging in all manner of ways. Lower down the scale, I know of small businesses who'll be letting staff go as they can't cover the extra NI and still make the profit to justify the effort and risk of running the business. You're right that labour boxed themselves in so left themselves little choice other than this. The impact will be seen in time, but it won't be positive.

You say all that whilst completely ignoring how often you have to replace batteries over a 10 year / 120k miles ownership. An engine won't need replacing. If the green credentials of an EV from Inception to recycling were better than a clean burning small petrol engine we'd have evidence of that.

See my thread above. I've seen no evidence to support the 'ev is greener from creation to grave' argument. The focus is just on the bit in the middle. And that's no greener if you're running them on coal derived electricity.

That's a crude (no pun intended) approach. The relevant question is the environmental impact of a small/medium petrol car against an EV over a lifetime, say 120k miles/10 years. That should include everything from the mining and manufacturing of all the ingredients, including the heavy plant and trucks to dig, cart and ship stuff, the running, the infrastructure to operate and fuel, then break them down at the end. I'd be staggered if any EV is still on its original batteries by that point, and that the total environmental impact will be less for the EV. It's a con that wannabee green people are fooled by.

Indeed, although the EV the production is at least as much for the global market as their domestic market. It staggers me that people think their EV is green, completely ignoring how the energy is made to produce and run the things, where the ingredients for the batteries come from, and how they're mined using fossil fuelled vehicles and machinery. That's before we get to recycling the things when they die. EV's are a huge con.

China are not moving in a green direction in a way that improves the picture. They build more coal fired power stations a year than we build major hospitals. China's focus on this issue is to dominate the global EV car market, and BYD overtaking Tesla tells us how well they're doing. Anything we do here, in reality, will not make a blind bit of difference. And that's before we get started on the environmental damage caused in battery production, etc.

Your idea of "help" is a "gift", not help. Loans helped businesses through difficult times and should be repaid. I'm not sure why there's this expectation that the state gifts monies.

Indeed. And a loan is help.

Sadly 5 and 10 year UK Gilts are going in the same direction.