Recent content by FishofContemplation

I’m guessing you don’t fancy one but isn’t having a different number of priority points the very definition of relatively something in the context of the original question?

It took them nearly half a century after lowering the voting age to 18 before they lowered the candidate eligibility age to 18. There’s no precedent that they have to be the same.

It breaks the principle that you only check the current phase of play. If corners, why not throw ins and free kicks? How immediately does the goal have to be scored?

I’d be assuming it gives an over the line alert to the referee (as the goal line tech already does) and he then gives the decision of who gets the throw/ corner/ goal kick. It’s ready to do that.

Technically this argument is a tad spurious because there is no minimum age for paying tax, although it would be hard legally to earn enough before 16. Agree with the measure though.

To some degree, what Wimbledon proved is that the British can’t do technology in any sport, not just football. They’ve used that technology without any problem at the Australian and US opens and most of the ITF tour events for several years without any real problems. Wimbledon buggered it up at...

That’s the point of it. I assume it means you also can’t pass a penalty to a teammate to score which, while rare, is still theoretically possible at present (as long as it’s played forwards) and I have seen happen once. All penalties will just become the same as shootout penalties. Taker...

The guilty plea always earns a reduction. It suggests that the aggravating factors have been taken into account to arrive at a sentence before that deduction. The problem, if there is one, is what I said on the tree thread. The tariff range for “run of the mill” murder is too low. The sentence...

You mean like the arrangement Norway has had for half a century? Is it the way that country is an economic basketcase that convinces you the two are in compatible?

There are lots of things we can blame the Tories for, but the arguably overeager enforcement by the Starmer Government of an arguably overbroad law passed by the Blair Government is very much not one of them. Other than at the farthest extremes of politics, from which we have mercifully been...

Juries were the problem. Historically, it is because the general public sit on juries that the crime of causing death by dangerous driving came into being. It is an effect a third degree homicide peculiar to motorists that only exists because it was becoming increasingly difficult to get a jury...

I’m not minded to consider that statement to be true without evidence. To the contrary, I think that the vast majority of casualties of most civil conflicts or victims of an oppressive regime have historically been adult men between 18 and 60. Only a small minority have historically been women...

That’s not entirely true. Dangerous driving in itself is an offence, and you can’t, in law, accidentally drive dangerously. He didn’t intend to kill or cause harm. So he didn’t intend to commit both elements of the crime he was charged with. But you can’t say he didn’t intentionally commit any...

The real sad reality is that there is at the moment a Labour/Tory/Reform mission. I vote for the position, not the name. If Labour wants to be a reactionary and racist party that delights in punching down, as it apparently does at present, then I will treat it as such and find one that isn’t.

We could always go back to the days (Lord’s four years ago, that’s all) when an appropriate response to chasing 270 at 3.5 was considered to be to shake hands at 170/3. Test cricket as it should be that was.