chrisjpainter

I wish we could play with the dynamism of Italy.

Right. Are we all set to be confused by England's tactics again? LLLLLLLLLLLLLLET'S GET READY TO GRUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE

Ken Loach has made it today - 2016. I Daniel Blake. He then made it again in 2019, Sorry We Missed You. Same film, same motifs, same plot matrix, same misery, same dismal ending. He's been making the same film for decades. He's got another upcoming film too, The Old Oak. I can't imagine that will be any different.

I'm 37, does that count as younger generation?? I've seen it. Good film, but I prefer The Wind That Shakes The Barley, not that there's too much difference between them or any of Ken Loach's films!

Sparrowhawks are in decline right now. The data are complicated as it appears more people are seeing them, but that's because they're becoming a more urban species and traditional areas with perfect habitat are empty of them. No one's going to miss a feral pigeon...

That's no surprise. Imagine if they got that bit wrong...They'd really have to answer to the High Court of Pigeonwatch then. Heads would roll, several officers would be birched and the chief constable would be hunted through the marshes by spaniels - but only if they were prepared to follow their masters into the water. They'll confirm in due course one way or the other soon enough. Every family with someone missing in that area will be wondering what if, so it's best they don't jump to conclusions.

There are a few and some specific to things like veterans (fishing for heroes, for example) and I think some that do fishing for those with mental health issues. The other option might be to contact your local club? If they have a juniors section that does coaching with them, they might well appreciate the tackle; I know my club's always on the hunt for stuff for our juniors

Yeah I've rather given up on it as a forum. It's so unpredictable with how the rules are interpreted and enforced.

It wouldn't surprise me. I'd also bet there's a correlation between gender and unplanned suicide attempts. More men commit suicide than women, but women are much more likely to attempt suicide. The methods favoured by men tend to be more successful. 55% of male suicide comes from hanging. 41% of females comes from drug causes, but drug use is notoriously unpredictable and gives life-savers more chance to work on them, so I'd bet the survival rate from hanging is massively lower than that of drugs-taking.

I see what you're saying, but planning in that sense isn't demonstrative of common sense; it's still the emotional side of the brain taking over. Common sense is perhaps not the way to think of it - more rationality based on an objective interpretation of the facts. For them, the logical part of the brain is functioning in a way, (a cliff is better than a first floor window, for example, or bleach is a nasty way to go, especially if it fails) but it's all driven by emotion and an inability or unwillingness to rationalise with everything, not just the part that fits their desire to die.

Great discussion on England's tactics from John Barclay... Six Nations 2023: Former Scotland captain John Barclay is "confused" by England's attack - BBC Sport

Come again?

Very much a 2-tier tournament this year. Scotland, Ireland and France will fight it out for the championship and everyone else will fight it out to avoid being bottom. That can't have helped. I'm unconvinced by Van Poortvliet, Hassell-Collins was anonymous for large chunks and Farrell's kicking was way off the mark. Marchant looked the best of our backs by a country mile.

Yup. And it's great to have at least one game plan that works well. I just think he made the wrong call with Farrell at fly-half. We know what we get with Farrell when he's in the England 10 slot. What we don't know is how effective Smith can be when he's at fly-half but without Farrell clogging things up at 12. I think this would have been a great opportunity to find out, knowing that if needed we could revert to type to make sure we don't lose. Predictable, safe England. Not the sort of rugby that will do damage against Ireland or France.

An effective if not eye-catching first half. We're so lacking in flair though. We need a bit of dynamism in the midfield

That is the attitude that causes so many deaths from suicide, mostly amongst men. It's the attitude that stops people looking for help in the right areas and it's the attitude that drives them to drink. I've seen it far too often for it to feel anything other than commonplace. Then it's left to people like me to help pick up the pieces for their kids. You know what I hear from the adults about their drinking? 'I never thought it would happen to me'. Nobody chooses it. Some are much more prone to it than others, but for many, it's insidious. It creeps up without them ever aware it's happened. It is not THEIR choice. It's often too late way before they're conscious a choice could have ever been made. My issue with this method of treatment is that alcohol inhibits cognitive processing. Allowing people to keep drinking stops them from thinking clearly and hides the reality of their own situation. I genuinely hope I'm wrong and that it does work, because for some it will be the only thing that does, but I'm not convinced yet.

It's the same with cricket. Even aussies are nice enough to sit next to; they're harsher on the players than fellow fans. But SA fans have just got a nastiness about them. It's more embarrassing in cricket, because they have a lamentable track record of choking in the biggest competitions! It sounded like a wonderful match on TV. There's been some great play from the three best teams in the comp. Whichever one of Ireland, France or Scotland wins the tournament will have thoroughly deserved it.

I tell you what, Scotland vs Ireland's going to be a fun match! What a fabulous win by them. As a competition, it's hotting up nicely. I'm hoping England bounce back tomorrow, but Wales look pedestrian

What would be the point? They'd only state the facts, which are known already. They're not going to dive headlong into conjecture, or say whether they suspect a crime's been committed, or if they think she's actually now in Aruba - or if they're approaching the point where they are stuck for ideas. It's probably best that anyone running the operation is actually out there, running the operation, not stuck in a studio somewhere infuriating the public because they can't give the answers the public thinks it deserves.

I would say that 'significant pressure' probably isn't going to be removed by taking seven people out of the situation. And I disagree with your implication that this is about turning their lives around. Yes, for some it might stop things getting worse. But that's stagnation, not improvement. As @Rookandrabbitsays, it's about finance, not welfare. There seems to be so many flaws in the process, not least of which is the fact that they're still able to buy alcohol outside the programme. Reporters being greeted by a man swaying down the corridors, clearly inebriated, suggest that we're talking fine lines of limiting alcohol consumption. It's really difficult to pin down any of the research coming out of Canada. The first peer-reviewed papers aren't terribly helpful, because all CMAPs from which their data were collated were run in such varying manners, with different outcomes and goals that it's difficult to pin down any particular success. Even basic things like criteria for qualification and alcohol provision differed. There is also the huge danger that these kind of programmes in the long run remove the incentive to quit. Yes, for some abstinence may never happen. But for how many could it have been a reality, but was never achieved because there was an easier option of not having to quit? One of the Canadian peer reviewed papers stated that alcohol price was a massive factor . The more expensive it is, the less was consumed. Negative substitutionary behaviour was demonstrated, but interestingly theft of alcohol was low and almost half just...went without alcohol. That's odd, seeing as this is a service that's meant to be targeting those who can't give up. It kind of suggests it's not about the alcohol at all. If that's the case, just giving them alcohol will, as I said, simply lead to stagnation. It doesn't improve the underlying issues. That same paper also concluded that long term MAP users were indeed less likely to ever give up. The implication there is that these services run the risk of keeping people as alcoholics. There are serious concerns with projects like this. It's not about getting on a high horse, it's about questioning the effectiveness of them in the long term and whether they're actually genuinely bettering the lives of the service users. On both counts, I say they will ultimately fail.

I found an article on it. It's a pilot scheme for 10 individuals to see whether giving them controlled amounts of alcohol can stop the cycle of binge buying which leads to pressure on the hospitals in emergency care. It's being sold as a way to save money - giving them what they need stops them costing the NHS more in ambulances and treatments. It's based on a Canadian model. Right now, it seems to be an attempt to help the absolute worst alcoholics for whom traditional therapies don't/haven't worked. Of the ten? Well two have been booted out and one left of his own accord. 30% failure rate in a few months. It doesn't sound like it's being that effective really! The way the article's written, it doesn't feel like there's any incentive to actually quit, it's just keeping them hooked, but in a potentially less expensive way...when it actually works and they don't just go out and buy more anyway... Sold as ground-breaking, feels like giving up on tackling the cause. The scheme that gives alcohol to alcoholics - BBC News

It's just awful, isn't it? Sometimes it really is like that.

Indeed so. If someone's kept their mental health struggles hidden, there's very little that can be done to investigate. I've lost track of the number of people who've said they never saw it coming when a family member commits suicide. Tragically, sometimes it's just too well hidden.

This is too much the problem with a lot of players. Worked hard...but mistake after mistake. And you're so right about our centres. What worries me is they don't try to get into the game. It feels as if they think it will happen naturally. But if it doesn't, they don't go looking for ways to get into it. They coast without much ingenuity. Previous favourites at centre went looking for the action. Say what you want about Manu, but he's never in the shadows where our current centres like to idle

Scotland fully deserved that. What moron told England it would be a good idea to play a kicking game against a side that want to run from deep with the ball? In the closing stages England got to the 22, kicked and lost the ball. We regained on the return kick, worked to the 22, kicked and lost the ball. We regained on the return kick, worked to the 22 and...conceded the penalty. WHAT'S THE POINT!? It's like a Beckett play, such is the repetitive futility. Some wonderful rugby from Scotland and rightful winners. I just wish the change of coach for England had resulted in a change of thinking. No other side tries to win by incessant aggregate gains with kicking, so why are we so arrogant to think we're the only ones who can do it and win?