egg

I think it's more 'always play a random mix, and never the best one'. Useless.

Disciplinary reasons makes more sense than anything else. Picking Manning ahead of him last week was mental, then bringing Fraser on ahead of him even more mental, then picking Manning again today even more mental still. I'd be disappointed in Taylor if he didn't speak up.

3 cb's seems obvious today. If not Stephens, then who?

Yep. Played a half for the kids team last night. Not sure what's going on there.

The lad's on wind up mate. He's one of the dinlo's under a different name.

I think that must be the case. Woods I never understood, and can only assume it was a pessimistic nod to next season, possibly Edwards too. Taylor should be in the team for me, but the treatment of him last week and last night is telling.

Yep. It's either an ego trip, naivety, incompetence, or a combination of the above.

The thing you're missing in all of your posts is the simple point that RM isn't playing in a way that gives our players the best chance. Managers must manage according to what they have at their disposable, not their idealism. It's a really simple concept. Other managers - Moyes, for example - would be much more pragmatic with these players, and play in a way that suits them not his beliefs.

Taylor played a half alongside Edwards and Woods. That's 3/4 of our back up defence losing 2 nil at home to Palaces kids. Not ideal. Diaz payed too. Southampton: Mohamed (GK), Moore (Tabares, 77), Taylor (Sesay, HT), Edwards, Woods, O’Brien-Whitmarsh, Merry (Charles, 65), Akachukwu (Ehibhatiomhan, 77), Dipepa (Robinson, 56), Amo-Ameyaw, Brereton Diaz.

SEND tribunal appeals launced are up thousands year on year. Appeal success rates are sky high as the original decision was wrong, although local authorities to be fair are skint. Not good.

I can't speak for others, but as tamesaint says, the actual issue is being discussed sensibly. Abortion is a different issue and I'm not even getting into a discussion about that unrelated issue.

Absolutely. He's potentially going to be the most powerful man on the planet again in under 3 months, and I doubt that acting in a "personal capacity" will serve as mitigation.

That was stupid from Labour, and pretty staggering they can't see the potential damage. Leave the Americans to it, keep our powder dry, and celebrate the winner whoever it may be, shouldn't be hard to comprehend.

Yep. Good sumnary. Apart from all that though, he got it spot on!

a) apples/pears. And personally I have no wish to see a decent thread dragged down by debating a discrete issue on a moral equivalence basis. b) ditto. Don't derail another thread SoG.

😂 That highlights the good and bad of our system. This one is such an emotive issue. Is it best to leave it to the masses or MP's voting on personal beliefs/experiences, not the view of their constituents?

Decent and well considered post, although my view remains that this is a bad idea, and I disagree with you in the slippery slope issue. However, I respect that views are for and against, and I've read some well thought out stuff for both sides of the argument. Just on the highlighted part. No mp can possibly hope to vote on this knowing the conscience of the group they represent, and I suspect will vote based on their personal opinion. Changes to the law, and the scope of who is included, will follow in the same way. I appreciate that's our democracy, but I see no reasonable way of allowing us, the voting public, to put our views on such a massive subject to the few hundred people who will determine who can elect to die and in what circumstances. Tough subject is this, and nice to see it being discussed mostly sensibly.

Yep. I like his movement and instinctive shooting. Good signing on the evidence so far. I'd like to see him tried playing off and around the big fella. Not happening under RM though.

The point you overlook is the risk that people could arrive at that decision with outside influence or coercion. The risk of abuse is just too great for me. As you say though, points have been made and as much as I disagree with your opinion, people will have differing opinions on this and everyone is entitled to the opposite view.

First highlighted point. That, with respect, is a daft thing to say. The issues are entirely different. Marriage is between people, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. Except you. The 2nd point highlights your naivety on this. It'll happen. You also completely ignore how people who are a burden feel about that, and how they are or could be made to feel.

If there's a law to widen, they can widen it. The safest way is to have nothing to widen. It's a difficult subject though is this, and you either support or oppose it. I'd hate to be an MP voting for this because you'll never know the conscience of your constituents, and will get pelted whatever way you go. For me it's a discussion we don't need to be having.

The point is a simple one. If you start with a narrow group of people who can do this, that group gets wider. Your suggestion that the law could be repealed after coming in ain't a good point. Simply, don't start it.

His time is up for me. He wont, and I don't think can, change things. His game management is shocking, and yesterday in particular. Fraser should never have been lumbered with the role he was given. Anyone with any sense would have brought Taylor on rather than Fraser. Negligent management.

If you weren't implying that Isis shared a common goal with the other protagonists, and were aligned with them, what was the point you were trying to make? Isis have nothing to do with this, and won't.

That would be a valid point for a good law. Helping people to die, imo, is not a good law.