As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and potential response has diverted our attention away from Brexit, I have to assume that David Davis was behind the attack.
I agree that if you have rules, you should adhere to them. But bombing Assad only risks lengthening the war and for most people, the aim is to shorten it.
"We need to make a point" is noble, but at the serious risk of increasing the body count?
As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and potential response has diverted our attention away from Brexit, I have to assume that David Davis was behind the attack.
I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.
The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.
May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David.
I can't find the statistics but last time I did we had dropped something like 10 bombs in Syria. There have been far more attacks in Iraq but these are winding down quite sharply now as ISIS are pretty much defeated there and there are fewer targets to hit.
I think your figures are for the coalition and will be at least 70% US.
They are indeed for coalition David, but still grim reading and what a waste of money when we have the streets littered with homeless people and foodbanks as our only business boom.
Obviously Gloucestershire are going to be champions...oh hold on, that was a fantasy I had last night. That said, with Bracey in, Roderick back and Mustard no longer playing as a specialist captain, they should do better than last season, where the only trophy they won was first prize for the T20 mascots.
Middlesex are favourites to straight back up at 2/1. Avoid. Their batting is inconsistent (and likely to be deprived of Dawid Malan who is also captain) and while they have three good bowlers in Harris, Finn and Roland-Jones it is a long time since they fired as a unit. Fourth would be a good position for them, anything higher is impressive.
Warwickshire at 5/1 look more realistic, but their batting is likely to remain fragile unless Ian Bell's century last week is a portent of better things to come. Their bowling also seems to me to be over-reliant on Jeetan Patel, so they need a dry summer.
For me the dark horses - and the value - are Sussex at 11/2 and Northants at 10/1. Northants are usually there or thereabouts and if their squad keep fit - they don't have many reserves - it's a good one. Duckett has a point to prove (although he will miss the start of the season) and the ultra-competitive Doug Bracewell is a shrewd signing. In Beer and Briggs Sussex have two of the better spinners in the country while Chris Jordan and Jofra Archer are both good pacemen. Sussex have had a miserable couple of years and might Just be due a revival.
The best bowler/batsman odds throw up some surprises. For example Samit Patel is apparently 12/1 for most wickets, which is surprising given he plays in Division 1. Norwell and Stevens are favourites after their heroic efforts last season, but buyer beware - Stevens is 42 and Norwell has a poor fitness record. None of those odds look very appealing, frankly. Craig Miles perhaps in the enforced absence of David Payne will be able to take more wickets, but 33/1 if long doesn't justify a 'value' tag.
Batting is little more tempting. However Sam Hain at 20/1 is not quite a long shot in what should be his first full season, while Stiaan van Zyl is usually reliable. Luke Wells is tipped for England and may justify his favourite tag, whereas I would tip Trott for retirement and avoid like mad.
The point that Secretary of State for Defence Mattis was making that I quoted over night is that under the deal done after the last outrage the Russians stood as guarantors that this would not happen again. And yet it has.
What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. It is a demonstration of Russian weakness and lack of influence, not strength. Their response of it didn't happen and if it did it was the rebels is basically an attempt to deny their own weakness.
For those that didn't see it Mattis said:
"The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"
Qatar got a mention because that is who he was meeting at the time of the comments.
"What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. "
There is another, more worrying option: that Russia does not care. That's the one I'd go for, especially as Russia has been show to use such weapons themselves twice.
It might make some sense from the Russian perspective: nuclear weapons are massively costly to maintain in the long term. The maintenance of their existing stockpile ready for use will be costing their stricken economy a great deal of treasure. Chemical weapons (and less so biological) are cheaper to develop and maintain, and do not risk all-out nuclear war if they are used. In fact, we've shown several times (e.g. Halubja) that we will not react to their use.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and potential response has diverted our attention away from Brexit, I have to assume that David Davis was behind the attack.
And while what he says may be true, I'm not sure saying it helps......
The last Irish election was 2016. I know Enda Kenny has since stepped down and was replacxed by Leo Varadkar, but that was June 2017. Now, remind me, what else happened that month?
Obviously Gloucestershire are going to be champions...oh hold on, that was a fantasy I had last night. That said, with Bracey in, Roderick back and Mustard no longer playing as a specialist captain, they should do better than last season, where the only trophy they won was first prize for the T20 mascots.
Middlesex are favourites to straight back up at 2/1. Avoid. Their batting is inconsistent (and likely to be deprived of Dawid Malan who is also captain) and while they have three good bowlers in Harris, Finn and Roland-Jones it is a long time since they fired as a unit. Fourth would be a good position for them, anything higher is impressive.
Warwickshire at 5/1 look more realistic, but their batting is likely to remain fragile unless Ian Bell's century last week is a portent of better things to come. Their bowling also seems to me to be over-reliant on Jeetan Patel, so they need a dry summer.
For me the dark horses - and the value - are Sussex at 11/2 and Northants at 10/1. Northants are usually there or thereabouts and if their squad keep fit - they don't have many reserves - it's a good one. Duckett has a point to prove (although he will miss the start of the season) and the ultra-competitive Doug Bracewell is a shrewd signing. In Beer and Briggs Sussex have two of the better spinners in the country while Chris Jordan and Jofra Archer are both good pacemen. Sussex have had a miserable couple of years and might Just be due a revival.
The best bowler/batsman odds throw up some surprises. For example Samit Patel is apparently 12/1 for most wickets, which is surprising given he plays in Division 1. Norwell and Stevens are favourites after their heroic efforts last season, but buyer beware - Stevens is 42 and Norwell has a poor fitness record. None of those odds look very appealing, frankly. Craig Miles perhaps in the enforced absence of David Payne will be able to take more wickets, but 33/1 if long doesn't justify a 'value' tag.
Batting is little more tempting. However Sam Hain at 20/1 is not quite a long shot in what should be his first full season, while Stiaan van Zyl is usually reliable. Luke Wells is tipped for England and may justify his favourite tag, whereas I would tip Trott for retirement and avoid like mad.
Summary follows.
Ydoethur, You have too much time on your hands if you know so much about the rounders. Must be all those holidays and 5 hour days that does it. PS: Go heavy on turnip harvest it will be a bumper crop.
Div 1 - favourites Essex, Lancashire, dark horses Hampshire, relegation scrap Somerset, Surrey, Yorkshire, Worcestershire. Best bowler tip Abbott, best batsman Ballance.
Div 2 - favourites are poor value, Sussex and Northants are better although Warwickshire are in with a shout. Best bowler is a prick the pin exercise, best batsman similar. Miles and Hain ones to watch.
The point that Secretary of State for Defence Mattis was making that I quoted over night is that under the deal done after the last outrage the Russians stood as guarantors that this would not happen again. And yet it has.
What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. It is a demonstration of Russian weakness and lack of influence, not strength. Their response of it didn't happen and if it did it was the rebels is basically an attempt to deny their own weakness.
For those that didn't see it Mattis said:
"The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"
Qatar got a mention because that is who he was meeting at the time of the comments.
Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...
Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.
First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.
The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.
Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.
Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.
Division 2 to follow.
As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
I would agree with that. And I should have discussed him as a favourite for most runs too.
The point that Secretary of State for Defence Mattis was making that I quoted over night is that under the deal done after the last outrage the Russians stood as guarantors that this would not happen again. And yet it has.
What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. It is a demonstration of Russian weakness and lack of influence, not strength. Their response of it didn't happen and if it did it was the rebels is basically an attempt to deny their own weakness.
For those that didn't see it Mattis said:
"The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"
Qatar got a mention because that is who he was meeting at the time of the comments.
"What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. "
There is another, more worrying option: that Russia does not care. That's the one I'd go for, especially as Russia has been show to use such weapons themselves twice.
It might make some sense from the Russian perspective: nuclear weapons are massively costly to maintain in the long term. The maintenance of their existing stockpile ready for use will be costing their stricken economy a great deal of treasure. Chemical weapons (and less so biological) are cheaper to develop and maintain, and do not risk all-out nuclear war if they are used. In fact, we've shown several times (e.g. Halubja) that we will not react to their use.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
Have to say , given the amount of players in there it is impossible to know which side actually did it. Many competing factions including the ones the UK and US are bankrolling are all in the betting. Lots of envy that Russian bank side is winning will be causing much wailing in London and Washington for sure given they have not managed a victory in Middle East despite many attempts.
Obviously Gloucestershire are going to be champions...oh hold on, that was a fantasy I had last night. That said, with Bracey in, Roderick back and Mustard no longer playing as a specialist captain, they should do better than last season, where the only trophy they won was first prize for the T20 mascots.
Middlesex are favourites to straight back up at 2/1. Avoid. Their batting is inconsistent (and likely to be deprived of Dawid Malan who is also captain) and while they have three good bowlers in Harris, Finn and Roland-Jones it is a long time since they fired as a unit. Fourth would be a good position for them, anything higher is impressive.
Warwickshire at 5/1 look more realistic, but their batting is likely to remain fragile unless Ian Bell's century last week is a portent of better things to come. Their bowling also seems to me to be over-reliant on Jeetan Patel, so they need a dry summer.
For me the dark horses - and the value - are Sussex at 11/2 and Northants at 10/1. Northants are usually there or thereabouts and if their squad keep fit - they don't have many reserves - it's a good one. Duckett has a point to prove (although he will miss the start of the season) and the ultra-competitive Doug Bracewell is a shrewd signing. In Beer and Briggs Sussex have two of the better spinners in the country while Chris Jordan and Jofra Archer are both good pacemen. Sussex have had a miserable couple of years and might Just be due a revival.
The best bowler/batsman odds throw up some surprises. For example Samit Patel is apparently 12/1 for most wickets, which is surprising given he plays in Division 1. Norwell and Stevens are favourites after their heroic efforts last season, but buyer beware - Stevens is 42 and Norwell has a poor fitness record. None of those odds look very appealing, frankly. Craig Miles perhaps in the enforced absence of David Payne will be able to take more wickets, but 33/1 if long doesn't justify a 'value' tag.
Batting is little more tempting. However Sam Hain at 20/1 is not quite a long shot in what should be his first full season, while Stiaan van Zyl is usually reliable. Luke Wells is tipped for England and may justify his favourite tag, whereas I would tip Trott for retirement and avoid like mad.
Summary follows.
Ydoethur, You have too much time on your hands if you know so much about the rounders. Must be all those holidays and 5 hour days that does it. PS: Go heavy on turnip harvest it will be a bumper crop.
I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.
The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.
May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David.
I can't find the statistics but last time I did we had dropped something like 10 bombs in Syria. There have been far more attacks in Iraq but these are winding down quite sharply now as ISIS are pretty much defeated there and there are fewer targets to hit.
I think your figures are for the coalition and will be at least 70% US.
They are indeed for coalition David, but still grim reading and what a waste of money when we have the streets littered with homeless people and foodbanks as our only business boom.
The Coalition air war has played a very significant part in the defeat of ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. It will have saved many, many lives on the ground and freed the local population from exposure to their mad ideology. It has been a good thing and in our interests to the extent that ISIL seemed to be inspiring lunatics closer to home.
Taking on Assad would be a totally different proposition. Firstly the opposition has already lost and it would take a gargantuan effort to reverse that now. Secondly, the Russians would resist it putting us in direct conflict with a nuclear power. Thirdly, the opposition became increasingly difficult to differentiate from ISIL anyway and I am not at all sure we want them to win.
So the US will punish Assad for using chemical weapons but will not look to change the position on the ground.
I agree that if you have rules, you should adhere to them. But bombing Assad only risks lengthening the war and for most people, the aim is to shorten it.
"We need to make a point" is noble, but at the serious risk of increasing the body count?
I agree that if you have rules, you should adhere to them. But bombing Assad only risks lengthening the war and for most people, the aim is to shorten it.
"We need to make a point" is noble, but at the serious risk of increasing the body count?
What will the long-term body count be if regimes realise they can develop and use such weapons with impunity? What good any international weapons treaties?
If you have international treaties, and especially ones involving warfare, then you need to be willing to uphold those treaties, otherwise they should just be ripped up.
(And I'e said our cowardice wrt Hussein's use of them at Halabja et al was a very bad thing).
What might keep Cook in the England side is there is no obvious replacement for him. Lyth, Robson, Duckett, Jennings have been tried and found wanting. Stoneman is in the side already and not pulling up any trees. Hameed needs runs. Chris Dent was the other opener who had a decent season last year but plays in Division 2 and the England selectors don't like Division 2 players.
With no. 3 also to put it mildly not settled (unless Root finally decides that's where he should be) they will want one experienced player at the top of the order even if he's past his best.
Can't see him on the winter tour though if Hameed, Stoneman, Livingstone and Borthwick come good.
My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.
Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...
Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.
First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.
The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.
Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.
Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.
Division 2 to follow.
As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
I would agree with that. And I should have discussed him as a favourite for most runs too.
The risk is that he might hang up his boots and head for the commentary box, especially if his eyesight is going.
Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...
Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.
First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.
The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.
Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.
Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.
Division 2 to follow.
As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
I would agree with that. And I should have discussed him as a favourite for most runs too.
The risk is that he might hang up his boots and head for the commentary box, especially if his eyesight is going.
The information, based on data from seven sources, shows that the Syrian government is responsible for the majority of 85 confirmed chemical weapon attacks. The data also show that the Syrian government has been largely undeterred by the efforts of the United Nations Security Council, the international Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and unilateral action by individual countries to enforce the prohibition on Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
“In Syria, the government is using chemical weapons that are banned the world over without paying any price,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.
The point that Secretary of State for Defence Mattis was making that I quoted over night is that under the deal done after the last outrage the Russians stood as guarantors that this would not happen again. And yet it has.
What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. It is a demonstration of Russian weakness and lack of influence, not strength. Their response of it didn't happen and if it did it was the rebels is basically an attempt to deny their own weakness.
For those that didn't see it Mattis said:
"The first thing we have to look at is why are chemical weapons still being used at all when Russia was the framework guarantor of removing all chemical weapons, and so working with our allies and partners from NATO to Qatar and elsewhere we are going to address this issue,"
Qatar got a mention because that is who he was meeting at the time of the comments.
"What this shows is that Russia cannot control Assad or, equally likely, Assad does not have control of his own forces. "
There is another, more worrying option: that Russia does not care. That's the one I'd go for, especially as Russia has been show to use such weapons themselves twice.
It might make some sense from the Russian perspective: nuclear weapons are massively costly to maintain in the long term. The maintenance of their existing stockpile ready for use will be costing their stricken economy a great deal of treasure. Chemical weapons (and less so biological) are cheaper to develop and maintain, and do not risk all-out nuclear war if they are used. In fact, we've shown several times (e.g. Halubja) that we will not react to their use.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
Have to say , given the amount of players in there it is impossible to know which side actually did it. Many competing factions including the ones the UK and US are bankrolling are all in the betting. Lots of envy that Russian bank side is winning will be causing much wailing in London and Washington for sure given they have not managed a victory in Middle East despite many attempts.
The rebels don't have any airpower. It is possible that their stocks on the ground were hit.
Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...
Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.
First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.
The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.
Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.
Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.
Division 2 to follow.
As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
I would agree with that. And I should have discussed him as a favourite for most runs too.
The risk is that he might hang up his boots and head for the commentary box, especially if his eyesight is going.
Doubt if he'll go into full-time commentary given he's got a farm to run on the side. He might even fancy the Essex captaincy. You never know.
As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and potential response has diverted our attention away from Brexit, I have to assume that David Davis was behind the attack.
That sounds like a scheme that would have involved guile, substantial negotiation and effort. So I think we can count David Davis out.
To be blunt, this, to the average person like me, looks like an increasingly messy civil war with no good guys - just varying degrees of bad.
But one set of bad guys is killing people with chemical weapons, the other lot of bad guys just has guns and bombs.
I think the message of an intervention in Syria is external to Syria: to any other regime that might be thinking chemical weapons are back on the menu of munitions, rather than trying to act as referee in a civil war.
And to show to Russia that, yet again, their chess players didn't think the game through properly. Which has got the Moscow Bots frothing....
Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...
Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.
First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.
The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.
Another one to look at are Worcestershire. I will be beyond surprised if they win the Championship, but they have a good young squad with a fiery pace attack and for all the upheaval over the winter a good coaching setup. They have a realistic chance of finishing sixth especially if Moeen is available. Yorkshire and Somerset, the one depleted by England and one over-reliant on untried youth and elderly experience, look more likely candidates for the drop for me.
Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.
Division 2 to follow.
As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
I would agree with that. And I should have discussed him as a favourite for most runs too.
The risk is that he might hang up his boots and head for the commentary box, especially if his eyesight is going.
Is that the main qualification for commentators?
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
Again, I'm unsure Putin cares. After all, the Russian line is (or at least was yesterday, it changes so often in such cases) that there is no evidence chemical weapons were used. Next, it'll be the fact the rebels used them and not what remains of Assad's forces.
In the meantime, the use of such weapons against civilians and for use in assassinations becomes legitimised by default because the treaties prohibiting their use are worthless.
And I'd argue that such weapons are much more 'useful' to Putin and his aims than his massive arsenal of nukes, and especially the tactical ones.
The reaction to the reported chemical attack in Syria exemplified the ideological intersection between geopolitics and national politics.
The reports were quickly dismissed as “fake news” and “false flag” attacks by supporters of the Kremlin and President Assad. Their concern appeared primarily geopolitical: staving off potential Western criticism or punitive measures by dismissing the claims against their principals.
The same “false flag” dismissal was used by far-right and conspiratorial users, but this appeared to have stemmed from primarily domestic reasoning. Rather than defending the Russian or Syrian regimes, the main aim appeared to have been to attack Western ones, portraying them as reckless, militaristic “neocon” elites, divorced from the democratic processes of government.
The reaction to the Syrian attack therefore illustrated how, and why, these separate groups promote the same messages. Their purposes are different; however, their target — Western governments and foreign policies — is the same.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
Again, I'm unsure Putin cares. After all, the Russian line is (or at least was yesterday, it changes so often in such cases) that there is no evidence chemical weapons were used. Next, it'll be the fact the rebels used them and not what remains of Assad's forces.
In the meantime, the use of such weapons against civilians and for use in assassinations becomes legitimised by default because the treaties prohibiting their use are worthless.
And I'd argue that such weapons are much more 'useful' to Putin and his aims than his massive arsenal of nukes, and especially the tactical ones.
I don't think he cares about the morality of using chemical weapons. I do think he cares about looking weak.
If May goes ahead and risks nuclear war in order to aid genocidal salafi jihadis of the kind we are continually told are one of the greatest threats to humanity, history will never forgive the Conservative party. It will go down in the annals of shame. If we survive.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
If May goes ahead and risks nuclear war in order to aid genocidal salafi jihadis of the kind we are continually told are one of the greatest threats to humanity, history will never forgive the Conservative party. It will go down in the annals of shame. If we survive.
Do you think Putin will nuke the UK if we bomb a few teenage Syrian conscripts trying to find reverse gear in a clapped out BTR-70? Is he that much of a "butthurt"? (as my teenage nephew says)
The reaction to the reported chemical attack in Syria exemplified the ideological intersection between geopolitics and national politics.
The reports were quickly dismissed as “fake news” and “false flag” attacks by supporters of the Kremlin and President Assad. Their concern appeared primarily geopolitical: staving off potential Western criticism or punitive measures by dismissing the claims against their principals.
The same “false flag” dismissal was used by far-right and conspiratorial users, but this appeared to have stemmed from primarily domestic reasoning. Rather than defending the Russian or Syrian regimes, the main aim appeared to have been to attack Western ones, portraying them as reckless, militaristic “neocon” elites, divorced from the democratic processes of government.
The reaction to the Syrian attack therefore illustrated how, and why, these separate groups promote the same messages. Their purposes are different; however, their target — Western governments and foreign policies — is the same.
You dont have to be a supporter of Assad or Putin to see this as the obvious perfidious nonsense it is. Personally I am glad they are doing a good job of destroying the world’s largest concentration of extremist salafi jihadists in Syria, as I think it makes the world a safer place, but I am not a fan of their human rights abuses, just as I am not a fan of those committed by us and our allies in places like Yemen.
As a father to a young kid, though, I am disgusted and angry that we are willing to risk nuclear war in order to try and salvage the project to leave Syria as a Libya style balkanised failed state run by warlords. And revolted by the banana republic style level of propaganda our feral elite seem to have descended into.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
My Mum's cleaner, who voted Leave because of the £350m NHS bus and is a bit annoyed it hasn't happened yet, is a lifelong Labour supporter - as is her former union rep husband, but they're both voting against Corbyn and pro-May next time. They hated the way the media ganged up against her - she's doing a difficult job at an extremely difficult time and we should support her for the good of the country.
If May goes ahead and risks nuclear war in order to aid genocidal salafi jihadis of the kind we are continually told are one of the greatest threats to humanity, history will never forgive the Conservative party. It will go down in the annals of shame. If we survive.
Do you think Putin will nuke the UK if we bomb a few teenage Syrian conscripts trying to find reverse gear in a clapped out BTR-70? Is he that much of a "butthurt"? (as my teenage nephew says)
No, but he has warned of military retaliation against any forces that attack Syria, which presumably he would be under immense political pressure to carry out in that instance. A retaliatory cruise missile attack against US assets in SDF controlled parts of Syria or UK bases in Cyprus could escalate out of control very rapidly.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
same as football, played at all sorts of odd times of day and night now and rigged to help the rich teams.
On topic, all fair points from OGH but the "new" Conservative leader will also have four years of Government policy to defend and twelve years of Conservative Government (if the GE is in 2022).
We've also got the small matter of nearly four years to get past - the assumption all will be in 2022 as it is now is inherently foolish.
If May goes ahead and risks nuclear war in order to aid genocidal salafi jihadis of the kind we are continually told are one of the greatest threats to humanity, history will never forgive the Conservative party. It will go down in the annals of shame. If we survive.
Do you think Putin will nuke the UK if we bomb a few teenage Syrian conscripts trying to find reverse gear in a clapped out BTR-70? Is he that much of a "butthurt"? (as my teenage nephew says)
No, but he has warned of military retaliation against any forces that attack Syria, which presumably he would be under immense political pressure to carry out in that instance. A retaliatory cruise missile attack against US assets in SDF controlled parts of Syria or UK bases in Cyprus could escalate out of control very rapidly.
Speaking of sporting times, I think qualifying/the race start at 7am (just after for the race), which isn't too bad. However, it does mean the pre-qualifying ramble will be up on Friday. Hopefully, I won't suffer horrendous misfortune in the race this time.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
The BBC have rights to a few matches.
But the ECB will point out that no terrestrial broadcaster bid for the rights to all of England’s test matches.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
Again, I'm unsure Putin cares. After all, the Russian line is (or at least was yesterday, it changes so often in such cases) that there is no evidence chemical weapons were used. Next, it'll be the fact the rebels used them and not what remains of Assad's forces.
In the meantime, the use of such weapons against civilians and for use in assassinations becomes legitimised by default because the treaties prohibiting their use are worthless.
And I'd argue that such weapons are much more 'useful' to Putin and his aims than his massive arsenal of nukes, and especially the tactical ones.
I don't think he cares about the morality of using chemical weapons. I do think he cares about looking weak.
But he isn't looking weak. 'His' side will have won the war in Syria (although in the medium term I'm unsure how well Russian and Iranian interests in the country will coincide). Any embarrassment over chemical weapon will be minor compared to the win.
If May goes ahead and risks nuclear war in order to aid genocidal salafi jihadis of the kind we are continually told are one of the greatest threats to humanity, history will never forgive the Conservative party. It will go down in the annals of shame. If we survive.
Do you think Putin will nuke the UK if we bomb a few teenage Syrian conscripts trying to find reverse gear in a clapped out BTR-70? Is he that much of a "butthurt"? (as my teenage nephew says)
No, but he has warned of military retaliation against any forces that attack Syria, which presumably he would be under immense political pressure to carry out in that instance. A retaliatory cruise missile attack against US assets in SDF controlled parts of Syria or UK bases in Cyprus could escalate out of control very rapidly.
Immense political pressure from whom?
From his own side. He’d look fatally weak.
Of course, if it is just a pointless bluster for show that makes no real difference to the war, like last year’s prequel attack, Im sure the Russians will stick to diplomatic complaints and try and brush over it.
If however it is large enough to inflict major damage on Syrian forces then I would expect relatiation to be inevitable. If UK and US servicemen are being killed to aid genocidal jihadis, and the risk of nuclear exchange is looming, Im not sure how that will play with the public.
The deal was that Russia's minion would be allowed to win the civil war without our interference provided that they made him behave and not use chemical weapons (murdering the civil population by more conventional means was of course ok). In terms of the deal the chemical weapons were supposed to be put beyond use and the Russians were supposed to monitor this. They have failed either because they can't be arsed or because it was just too difficult. Either way it is an embarrassment for them, hence the histrionics in the UN.
Again, I'm unsure Putin cares. After all, the Russian line is (or at least was yesterday, it changes so often in such cases) that there is no evidence chemical weapons were used. Next, it'll be the fact the rebels used them and not what remains of Assad's forces.
In the meantime, the use of such weapons against civilians and for use in assassinations becomes legitimised by default because the treaties prohibiting their use are worthless.
And I'd argue that such weapons are much more 'useful' to Putin and his aims than his massive arsenal of nukes, and especially the tactical ones.
I don't think he cares about the morality of using chemical weapons. I do think he cares about looking weak.
But he isn't looking weak. 'His' side will have won the war in Syria (although in the medium term I'm unsure how well Russian and Iranian interests in the country will coincide). Any embarrassment over chemical weapon will be minor compared to the win.
Putin's ebay version of Desert Storm was 100% for domestic consumption.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
The BBC have rights to a few matches.
But the ECB will point out that no terrestrial broadcaster bid for the rights to all of England’s test matches.
Presumably because it would have been utterly pointless and waste of time and money.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
The BBC have rights to a few matches.
But the ECB will point out that no terrestrial broadcaster bid for the rights to all of England’s test matches.
Why would they bother when they know satellite and cable will just outbid them anyway and get the rights? What is the point of wasting time and effort on it?
If Giles Clarke's sale of the exclusive rights of cricket to Sky in 2005 (aided and abetted by the Department for Murdoch Media, Culture and Sport) was not the stupidest decision in the history of cricket, that is only because Graves' eight team T20 league sets the bar incredibly high.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
The BBC have rights to a few matches.
But the ECB will point out that no terrestrial broadcaster bid for the rights to all of England’s test matches.
Why would they bother when they know satellite and cable will just outbid them anyway and get the rights? What is the point of wasting time and effort on it?
If Giles Clarke's sale of the exclusive rights of cricket to Sky in 2005 (aided and abetted by the Department for Murdoch Media, Culture and Sport) was not the stupidest decision in the history of cricket, that is only because Graves' eight team T20 league sets the bar incredibly high.
Again no terrestrial bidder for all of England’s matches back in 2005.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
The BBC have rights to a few matches.
But the ECB will point out that no terrestrial broadcaster bid for the rights to all of England’s test matches.
Why would they bother when they know satellite and cable will just outbid them anyway and get the rights? What is the point of wasting time and effort on it?
If Giles Clarke's sale of the exclusive rights of cricket to Sky in 2005 (aided and abetted by the Department for Murdoch Media, Culture and Sport) was not the stupidest decision in the history of cricket, that is only because Graves' eight team T20 league sets the bar incredibly high.
Again no terrestrial bidder for all of England’s matches back in 2005.
Of course, if it is just a pointless bluster for show that makes no real difference to the war, like last year’s prequel attack, Im sure the Russians will stick to diplomatic complaints and try and brush over it.
If however it is large enough to inflict major damage on Syrian forces then I would expect relatiation to be inevitable. If UK and US servicemen are being killed to aid genocidal jihadis, and the risk of nuclear exchange is looming, Im not sure how that will play with the public.
This is why everyone dances on the head of the pin on this. Everyone is, I hope, trying to avoid a direct attack by NATO countries (including Turkey) on Russian forces in Syria. An attack on the Syrians alone won't have consequences - Putin will tell Assad to ignore it.
Yesterday's Israeli attack was on Syrian forces not Russian. It's possible a Russian could be piloting a Syrian Air Force plane which gets shot down but that can be fudged away.
The argument in 2013 was if we attacked Assad the only winners would be the Islamists who were considered worse than Assad and indeed many on here argued we should be making common cause with Assad against ISIL.
An excellent set of points in the thread header, Mike. I think it's fairly clear now that the polling companies themselves do what you warn against, that is (to quote the header) they make adjustments to their methodology "by thinking back to the last one and applying the same sort of judgements relating to what happened".
Corbyn supporters indeed seem happy to blithely disregard current polling on the basis that the polls were wrong last time and thus can be relied upon to understate Labour support next time. In fact, it is quite possible that instead the polling companies may have compensated for that error, on the false assumption that the same judgements should apply, and thus the polls could in fact revert to overstating Labour support next time.
If Corbyn badly underperforms against his supporters expectations at GE 2022 or whenever, what might be the consequences? (Other than the very predictable one that the cultists would of course blame everyone bar themselves for such a result.)
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
Yeah, right. Putin is going to bomb RAF Akrotiri on behalf of Syria out of embarrassment. This is the rabbit hole down which your alt right shitbaggery has led you.
An excellent set of points in the thread header, Mike. I think it's fairly clear now that the polling companies themselves do what you warn against, that is (to quote the header) they make adjustments to their methodology "by thinking back to the last one and applying the same sort of judgements relating to what happened".
Corbyn supporters indeed seem happy to blithely disregard current polling on the basis that the polls were wrong last time and thus can be relied upon to understate Labour support next time. In fact, it is quite possible that instead the polling companies may have compensated for that error, on the false assumption that the same judgements should apply, and thus the polls could in fact revert to overstating Labour support next time.
If Corbyn badly underperforms against his supporters expectations at GE 2022 or whenever, what might be the consequences? (Other than the very predictable one that the cultists would of course blame everyone bar themselves for such a result.)
It will take a Tory overall majority at least to remove Corbyn in 2022 or prevent a Corbynista succeeding him as leader
What I've never understood is why the Arab alliance doesn't police its own states! As Islamism is internally regarded as enlightened, how can other Arab states allow genocide to take place in a fellow Islamic country.
Why is it always 'outsiders' making the play? It's not as if the Arab countries collectively are short of a couple of bob.
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
With these regional conflicts where both sides are utter shits and neither preferable - surely the best outcome is one side to win quickly and decisively ?
‘Yeah, right. Putin is going to bomb RAF Akrotiri on behalf of Syria out of embarrassment. This is the rabbit hole down which your alt right shitbaggery has led you.’
I’m a moderate left Labour supporter and am as derisive about alt-right shitbaggery as anyone. Just because a stopped clock is right now and again, and some of the right are correct on this issue doesn’t mean most of what they come out with isnt reprehensible cobblers.
So you don’t think Putin will respond to a massive attack on Syrian forces, which would inevitably kill Russian servicemen who are embedded throughout, on a casus belli provided by jihadi propagandists?
I hope the real policymakers arent quite so blithe.
(Just to clarify, I dont think Russia would respond militarily to a limited attack for show like last year’s)
What I've never understood is why the Arab alliance doesn't police its own states! As Islamism is internally regarded as enlightened, how can other Arab states allow genocide to take place in a fellow Islamic country.
Why is it always 'outsiders' making the play? It's not as if the Arab countries collectively are short of a couple of bob.
They don’t have military nous for actions like this.
From the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran/Iraq war, and the first Gulf War they’ve contracted out the military campaigns.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
indeed I used to be an avid follower until it went exclusively on Sky and since then I have barely watched a ball. A massive mistake by the cricket authorities if they want interest in their game to continue
What I've never understood is why the Arab alliance doesn't police its own states! As Islamism is internally regarded as enlightened, how can other Arab states allow genocide to take place in a fellow Islamic country.
Why is it always 'outsiders' making the play? It's not as if the Arab countries collectively are short of a couple of bob.
Arab and Middle Eastern states look after their own interests, hence the Saudis, the UAE and Turks are backing the Syrian rebels and Lebanon and Iran are backing Assad. Though Jordan has played a key role in leading strikes on ISIS
Is the New Party actually going to come into existence at any point?
Blair said he'd got an institute to put forward some New Labour centrist ideas, he wasn't going to start a political party but he hoped he might give some policy ideas...
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
That was another aspect of the 2013 argument and especially so in the light of Iraq.
It's a fair point - the London Evening Osborne yesterday ranted on about how we "must do something" and how we should all feel ashamed and then concluded a) we'll do nothing and b) there isn't much we can do anyway.
That's the problem - the plight of the children and the civilians compels our humanity to seek some response, some action to mitigate their plight but unfortunately our reason points out our helplessness and the potential catastrophe of over-reaction.
I'll simply re-iterate a point I've made about this before - Russia isn't interested in Assad, it is interested in Tartus and its other base on the coast which act as a Russian presence in the Eastern Med and is a vestige of the USSR's power projection. The ultimate and probably fatal humiliation for Putin would have been for the Russians to be chased out of Tartus by a successful Syrian uprising. Had the rebels told Moscow they could and indeed would welcome the continuation of the Russian presence I expect Putin wouldn't have lifted a finger to save Assad and indeed might have aided his departure/demise (delete as appropriate).
Trump seems to have abandoned his rather sensible campaign strategy of non-intervention so I await John Bolton's new middle east strategy with interest.
Mr. Smithson, one concern people have about F1 is that the move to pay TV is leading to declining audiences and, correspondingly, less sponsor interest.
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
With these regional conflicts where both sides are utter shits and neither preferable - surely the best outcome is one side to win quickly and decisively ?
Precisely.
NEWSFLASH
The Empire is gone.
The fleet is gone.
The coaling stations are gone.
The air bases are gone.
All of the means by which we acted as the globe’s policeman are gone. Why must our politicians play act?
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
indeed I used to be an avid follower until it went exclusively on Sky and since then I have barely watched a ball. A massive mistake by the cricket authorities if they want interest in their game to continue
I sort of agree (but pay for Sky and BT Sport too) but why is that any different to football? People say that Sky are killing cricket but not football. Why? Actually, Sky isn't that costly – list price is £40/pcm or so but customers with decent status on Sky or Virgin get it for less than that simply by threatening to cancel the service.
Is the New Party actually going to come into existence at any point?
A party of Blairites, Cameroons, LDs and diehard Remainers led by Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry and Vince Cable is I thing more of a discussion point in London salons than an idea that will actually get off the ground
Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party
Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.
Why would remainers who voted Tory in 2017 abstain *in that issue* in 2022
You're right! It's the Tory exUKIP hard Brexiteers who are more likely to sit on their hands and stay at home in disgust. They'd vote UKIP if they could but there won't be the choice.
indeed I used to be an avid follower until it went exclusively on Sky and since then I have barely watched a ball. A massive mistake by the cricket authorities if they want interest in their game to continue
Rare though it is and fraught with personal risk I'm going to have to disagree with you here, sir.
The money that has come in to the sport has been hugely welcome and as with horse racing the only thing the sport has to sell is itself. I'd also have loved cricket to have been free to air on the BBC, ITV or C4 but cricket isn't going to give its product away (why should it ?) and none of the terrestrial broadcasters at the time or since have been willing or able to pay the money.
Horse racing is funded from the sale of media rights to bookmakers and broadcasters such as At the Races and Racing UK but, as with test cricket, the quality meetings are a separate package which went to ITV after a bidding war with C4 and Sky.
The question is why test cricket wasn't afforded any kind of "protected" status guaranteeing its full coverage on free to air channels.
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
With these regional conflicts where both sides are utter shits and neither preferable - surely the best outcome is one side to win quickly and decisively ?
Syria is a huge source of regional instability that is driving mass migration to Europe, becoming a Petri dish for the use of chemical weapons, and probing the ongoing relevance of the rules-based international order, and also incubated a nascent terrorist state in the shape of ISIS. So we absolutely do have an interest.
That doesn’t mean there are any clean easy choices but doing nothing is also a choice, which will also have consequences for us.
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
With these regional conflicts where both sides are utter shits and neither preferable - surely the best outcome is one side to win quickly and decisively ?
Precisely.
NEWSFLASH
The Empire is gone.
The fleet is gone.
The coaling stations are gone.
The air bases are gone.
All of the means by which we acted as the globe’s policeman are gone. Why must our politicians play act?
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Is the New Party actually going to come into existence at any point?
A party of Blairites, Cameroons, LDs and diehard Remainers led by Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry and Vince Cable is I thing more of a discussion point in London salons than an idea that will actually get off the ground
They are talking about in the hairdressers, they are talking about it in the nail bars...
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
indeed I used to be an avid follower until it went exclusively on Sky and since then I have barely watched a ball. A massive mistake by the cricket authorities if they want interest in their game to continue
I sort of agree (but pay for Sky and BT Sport too) but why is that any different to football? People say that Sky are killing cricket but not football. Why? Actually, Sky isn't that costly – list price is £40/pcm or so but customers with decent status on Sky or Virgin get it for less than that simply by threatening to cancel the service.
I joined Sky the day they launched and am now deemed a VIP customer (overv15 years) and they replaced my box with Sky Q with multiroom free and as they own the boxes I do not need separate breakdown cover saving £100 ish per year. I was paying £78 per month but negotiated it down to £64 per month recently.
Sky Q also gives access to your tablets and of course premier league football is available in Ultra 4.
Sky are generally negotiable and are best by miles for sport
What might keep Cook in the England side is there is no obvious replacement for him. Lyth, Robson, Duckett, Jennings have been tried and found wanting. Stoneman is in the side already and not pulling up any trees. Hameed needs runs. Chris Dent was the other opener who had a decent season last year but plays in Division 2 and the England selectors don't like Division 2 players.
With no. 3 also to put it mildly not settled (unless Root finally decides that's where he should be) they will want one experienced player at the top of the order even if he's past his best.
Can't see him on the winter tour though if Hameed, Stoneman, Livingstone and Borthwick come good.
Off-the-wall idea, which they'll certainly not go for:
Bairstow hands over the gloves to Buttler or Foakes and goes up the order. He's good enough to be a specialist batsmen - easily. Try doing a Stewart-but-without-the-gloves. Stoneman at 1 Bairstow at 2 Cook comes in at first drop, when the shine might be off the ball. With his powers of concentration, he's still a massive asset. Then Root stays at his preferred 4, Malan at 5, Stokes at 6. Dependent on form and need, shuffle in two of Ali/Woakes/Wood/Crane to fill two slots between 7-9; Foakes or Buttler to be 7 or 8, Broad and Anderson 10 and 11.
I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will
The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.
May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
More than 29,000 strikes on Iraq/Syria , over 6K civilians estimated dead, over 100K bombs and missiles. Hardly trivial David.
I can't find the statistics but last time I did we had dropped something like 10 bombs in Syria. There have been far more attacks in Iraq but these are winding down quite sharply now as ISIS are pretty much defeated there and there are fewer targets to hit.
I think your figures are for the coalition and will be at least 70% US.
They are indeed for coalition David, but still grim reading and what a waste of money when we have the streets littered with homeless people and foodbanks as our only business boom.
The Coalition air war has played a very significant part in the defeat of ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. It will have saved many, many lives on the ground and freed the local population from exposure to their mad ideology. It has been a good thing and in our interests to the extent that ISIL seemed to be inspiring lunatics closer to home.
Taking on Assad would be a totally different proposition. Firstly the opposition has already lost and it would take a gargantuan effort to reverse that now. Secondly, the Russians would resist it putting us in direct conflict with a nuclear power. Thirdly, the opposition became increasingly difficult to differentiate from ISIL anyway and I am not at all sure we want them to win.
So the US will punish Assad for using chemical weapons but will not look to change the position on the ground.
We shouldn’t touch Syria with a barge pole. None of our essential interests are threatened, and our intervention would be immaterial to the outcome anyway.
With these regional conflicts where both sides are utter shits and neither preferable - surely the best outcome is one side to win quickly and decisively ?
Syria is a huge source of regional instability that is driving mass migration to Europe, becoming a Petri dish for the use of chemical weapons, and probing the ongoing relevance of the rules-based international order, and also incubated a nascent terrorist state in the shape of ISIS. So we absolutely do have an interest.
That doesn’t mean there are any clean easy choices but doing nothing is also a choice, which will also have consequences for us.
Prolonging the war by aiding the jihadis with air strikes is not really an excellent strategy for reducing instability. Accepting Assad and Russia have won and our jihadi-run failed state is never going to happen would save a lot of bother to everyone. The sooner Syria returns to being a coherent, secular state in which salafi jihadism is ferociously repressed, the better.
Nothing wrong with my link - very interesting statement
Hello, my name is Dr Christine Blanshard and I’m the Medical Director here at Salisbury District Hospital. I am joined by Lorna Wilkinson our Director of Nursing. I want to give you an update on the progress of the two remaining inpatients that we are treating here at the Hospital – Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I will not be taking questions following this statement. Following the incident on March 4, Salisbury District Hospital received three people who required inpatient care – Sergei and Yulia Skripal and DS Nick Bailey, who was discharged on March 22. All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the nervous system from functioning. In the four weeks since the incident in the city centre, both have received round the clock care from our clinicians, who’ve been able to draw in advice and support from world leading experts in this field. We’ve been keeping you updated on the condition of Yulia and Sergei, whilst respecting the right to privacy to which they – and all our patients – are entitled. While I won’t go into great detail about the treatment we’ve been providing, I will say that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins. Both patients have responded exceptionally well to the treatment we’ve been providing. But equally, both patients are at different stages in their recovery. Yulia has now been discharged from Salisbury District Hospital. Yulia has asked for privacy from the media and I want to reiterate that request. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Yulia well. This is not the end of her treatment, but marks a significant milestone. Her father has also made good progress. On Friday I announced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
The problem with this line of thinking is this (from xkcd):
Comments
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/983600969958219776
And while what he says may be true, I'm not sure saying it helps......
I agree that if you have rules, you should adhere to them. But bombing Assad only risks lengthening the war and for most people, the aim is to shorten it.
"We need to make a point" is noble, but at the serious risk of increasing the body count?
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/983591658355818497
Obviously Gloucestershire are going to be champions...oh hold on, that was a fantasy I had last night. That said, with Bracey in, Roderick back and Mustard no longer playing as a specialist captain, they should do better than last season, where the only trophy they won was first prize for the T20 mascots.
Middlesex are favourites to straight back up at 2/1. Avoid. Their batting is inconsistent (and likely to be deprived of Dawid Malan who is also captain) and while they have three good bowlers in Harris, Finn and Roland-Jones it is a long time since they fired as a unit. Fourth would be a good position for them, anything higher is impressive.
Warwickshire at 5/1 look more realistic, but their batting is likely to remain fragile unless Ian Bell's century last week is a portent of better things to come. Their bowling also seems to me to be over-reliant on Jeetan Patel, so they need a dry summer.
For me the dark horses - and the value - are Sussex at 11/2 and Northants at 10/1. Northants are usually there or thereabouts and if their squad keep fit - they don't have many reserves - it's a good one. Duckett has a point to prove (although he will miss the start of the season) and the ultra-competitive Doug Bracewell is a shrewd signing. In Beer and Briggs Sussex have two of the better spinners in the country while Chris Jordan and Jofra Archer are both good pacemen. Sussex have had a miserable couple of years and might Just be due a revival.
The best bowler/batsman odds throw up some surprises. For example Samit Patel is apparently 12/1 for most wickets, which is surprising given he plays in Division 1. Norwell and Stevens are favourites after their heroic efforts last season, but buyer beware - Stevens is 42 and Norwell has a poor fitness record. None of those odds look very appealing, frankly. Craig Miles perhaps in the enforced absence of David Payne will be able to take more wickets, but 33/1 if long doesn't justify a 'value' tag.
Batting is little more tempting. However Sam Hain at 20/1 is not quite a long shot in what should be his first full season, while Stiaan van Zyl is usually reliable. Luke Wells is tipped for England and may justify his favourite tag, whereas I would tip Trott for retirement and avoid like mad.
Summary follows.
Now, remind me, what else happened that month?
PS: Go heavy on turnip harvest it will be a bumper crop.
Div 1 - favourites Essex, Lancashire, dark horses Hampshire, relegation scrap Somerset, Surrey, Yorkshire, Worcestershire. Best bowler tip Abbott, best batsman Ballance.
Div 2 - favourites are poor value, Sussex and Northants are better although Warwickshire are in with a shout. Best bowler is a prick the pin exercise, best batsman similar. Miles and Hain ones to watch.
Lots of envy that Russian bank side is winning will be causing much wailing in London and Washington for sure given they have not managed a victory in Middle East despite many attempts.
Taking on Assad would be a totally different proposition. Firstly the opposition has already lost and it would take a gargantuan effort to reverse that now. Secondly, the Russians would resist it putting us in direct conflict with a nuclear power. Thirdly, the opposition became increasingly difficult to differentiate from ISIL anyway and I am not at all sure we want them to win.
So the US will punish Assad for using chemical weapons but will not look to change the position on the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/983522865403301888
If you have international treaties, and especially ones involving warfare, then you need to be willing to uphold those treaties, otherwise they should just be ripped up.
(And I'e said our cowardice wrt Hussein's use of them at Halabja et al was a very bad thing).
With no. 3 also to put it mildly not settled (unless Root finally decides that's where he should be) they will want one experienced player at the top of the order even if he's past his best.
Can't see him on the winter tour though if Hameed, Stoneman, Livingstone and Borthwick come good.
“In Syria, the government is using chemical weapons that are banned the world over without paying any price,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/04/syria-year-chemical-weapons-attacks-persist
I think the message of an intervention in Syria is external to Syria: to any other regime that might be thinking chemical weapons are back on the menu of munitions, rather than trying to act as referee in a civil war.
And to show to Russia that, yet again, their chess players didn't think the game through properly. Which has got the Moscow Bots frothing....
In the meantime, the use of such weapons against civilians and for use in assassinations becomes legitimised by default because the treaties prohibiting their use are worthless.
And I'd argue that such weapons are much more 'useful' to Putin and his aims than his massive arsenal of nukes, and especially the tactical ones.
The reports were quickly dismissed as “fake news” and “false flag” attacks by supporters of the Kremlin and President Assad. Their concern appeared primarily geopolitical: staving off potential Western criticism or punitive measures by dismissing the claims against their principals.
The same “false flag” dismissal was used by far-right and conspiratorial users, but this appeared to have stemmed from primarily domestic reasoning. Rather than defending the Russian or Syrian regimes, the main aim appeared to have been to attack Western ones, portraying them as reckless, militaristic “neocon” elites, divorced from the democratic processes of government.
The reaction to the Syrian attack therefore illustrated how, and why, these separate groups promote the same messages. Their purposes are different; however, their target — Western governments and foreign policies — is the same.
https://medium.com/dfrlab/putinatwar-far-right-converges-on-false-flag-in-syria-2d94ff0a018e
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
I have to pretend to be a Man City fan tonight as I take my seat at the Etihad.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
As a father to a young kid, though, I am disgusted and angry that we are willing to risk nuclear war in order to try and salvage the project to leave Syria as a Libya style balkanised failed state run by warlords. And revolted by the banana republic style level of propaganda our feral elite seem to have descended into.
Bespoke tailoring is mandatory.
On topic, all fair points from OGH but the "new" Conservative leader will also have four years of Government policy to defend and twelve years of Conservative Government (if the GE is in 2022).
We've also got the small matter of nearly four years to get past - the assumption all will be in 2022 as it is now is inherently foolish.
But the ECB will point out that no terrestrial broadcaster bid for the rights to all of England’s test matches.
Of course, if it is just a pointless bluster for show that makes no real difference to the war, like last year’s prequel attack, Im sure the Russians will stick to diplomatic complaints and try and brush over it.
If however it is large enough to inflict major damage on Syrian forces then I would expect relatiation to be inevitable. If UK and US servicemen are being killed to aid genocidal jihadis, and the risk of nuclear exchange is looming, Im not sure how that will play with the public.
We gave Cap Weinberger one didn’t we?
If Giles Clarke's sale of the exclusive rights of cricket to Sky in 2005 (aided and abetted by the Department for
MurdochMedia, Culture and Sport) was not the stupidest decision in the history of cricket, that is only because Graves' eight team T20 league sets the bar incredibly high.Brexit Secretary David Davis reveals final EU exit deal is ’90 per cent done’
Davis said that if he wrote on an envelope he could 'probably tell you 80-90 per cent of where we’ll end up'
Yesterday's Israeli attack was on Syrian forces not Russian. It's possible a Russian could be piloting a Syrian Air Force plane which gets shot down but that can be fudged away.
The argument in 2013 was if we attacked Assad the only winners would be the Islamists who were considered worse than Assad and indeed many on here argued we should be making common cause with Assad against ISIL.
Corbyn supporters indeed seem happy to blithely disregard current polling on the basis that the polls were wrong last time and thus can be relied upon to understate Labour support next time. In fact, it is quite possible that instead the polling companies may have compensated for that error, on the false assumption that the same judgements should apply, and thus the polls could in fact revert to overstating Labour support next time.
If Corbyn badly underperforms against his supporters expectations at GE 2022 or whenever, what might be the consequences? (Other than the very predictable one that the cultists would of course blame everyone bar themselves for such a result.)
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/935172571775012864
Yeah, right. Putin is going to bomb RAF Akrotiri on behalf of Syria out of embarrassment. This is the rabbit hole down which your alt right shitbaggery has led you.
Why is it always 'outsiders' making the play? It's not as if the Arab countries collectively are short of a couple of bob.
I’m a moderate left Labour supporter and am as derisive about alt-right shitbaggery as anyone.
Just because a stopped clock is right now and again, and some of the right are correct on this issue doesn’t mean most of what they come out with isnt reprehensible cobblers.
So you don’t think Putin will respond to a massive attack on Syrian forces, which would inevitably kill Russian servicemen who are embedded throughout, on a casus belli provided by jihadi propagandists?
I hope the real policymakers arent quite so blithe.
(Just to clarify, I dont think Russia would respond militarily to a limited attack for show like last year’s)
From the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran/Iraq war, and the first Gulf War they’ve contracted out the military campaigns.
They pay others to do their dirty work.
I mean do we really need the British Justin Trudeau ?
It's a fair point - the London Evening Osborne yesterday ranted on about how we "must do something" and how we should all feel ashamed and then concluded a) we'll do nothing and b) there isn't much we can do anyway.
That's the problem - the plight of the children and the civilians compels our humanity to seek some response, some action to mitigate their plight but unfortunately our reason points out our helplessness and the potential catastrophe of over-reaction.
I'll simply re-iterate a point I've made about this before - Russia isn't interested in Assad, it is interested in Tartus and its other base on the coast which act as a Russian presence in the Eastern Med and is a vestige of the USSR's power projection. The ultimate and probably fatal humiliation for Putin would have been for the Russians to be chased out of Tartus by a successful Syrian uprising. Had the rebels told Moscow they could and indeed would welcome the continuation of the Russian presence I expect Putin wouldn't have lifted a finger to save Assad and indeed might have aided his departure/demise (delete as appropriate).
I think it is a real wrench for him to leave the Tory Party.
NEWSFLASH
The Empire is gone.
The fleet is gone.
The coaling stations are gone.
The air bases are gone.
All of the means by which we acted as the globe’s policeman are gone. Why must our politicians play act?
The money that has come in to the sport has been hugely welcome and as with horse racing the only thing the sport has to sell is itself. I'd also have loved cricket to have been free to air on the BBC, ITV or C4 but cricket isn't going to give its product away (why should it ?) and none of the terrestrial broadcasters at the time or since have been willing or able to pay the money.
Horse racing is funded from the sale of media rights to bookmakers and broadcasters such as At the Races and Racing UK but, as with test cricket, the quality meetings are a separate package which went to ITV after a bidding war with C4 and Sky.
The question is why test cricket wasn't afforded any kind of "protected" status guaranteeing its full coverage on free to air channels.
That doesn’t mean there are any clean easy choices but doing nothing is also a choice, which will also have consequences for us.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Sky Q also gives access to your tablets and of course premier league football is available in Ultra 4.
Sky are generally negotiable and are best by miles for sport
Bairstow hands over the gloves to Buttler or Foakes and goes up the order. He's good enough to be a specialist batsmen - easily. Try doing a Stewart-but-without-the-gloves.
Stoneman at 1
Bairstow at 2
Cook comes in at first drop, when the shine might be off the ball. With his powers of concentration, he's still a massive asset.
Then Root stays at his preferred 4, Malan at 5, Stokes at 6. Dependent on form and need, shuffle in two of Ali/Woakes/Wood/Crane to fill two slots between 7-9; Foakes or Buttler to be 7 or 8, Broad and Anderson 10 and 11.
Following the incident on March 4, Salisbury District Hospital received three people who required inpatient care – Sergei and Yulia Skripal and DS Nick Bailey, who was discharged on March 22. All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the nervous system from functioning.
In the four weeks since the incident in the city centre, both have received round the clock care from our clinicians, who’ve been able to draw in advice and support from world leading experts in this field. We’ve been keeping you updated on the condition of Yulia and Sergei, whilst respecting the right to privacy to which they – and all our patients – are entitled.
While I won’t go into great detail about the treatment we’ve been providing, I will say that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins.
Both patients have responded exceptionally well to the treatment we’ve been providing. But equally, both patients are at different stages in their recovery.
Yulia has now been discharged from Salisbury District Hospital. Yulia has asked for privacy from the media and I want to reiterate that request. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Yulia well. This is not the end of her treatment, but marks a significant milestone.
Her father has also made good progress. On Friday I announced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.