BaaLocks

I'd argue that it's £2.3bn (it's actually reported as £3.8bn) of support from UK that is lamentable - whichever way you look at it.
Want a pro-Ukraine spin? Well we've just signed of fifty times that to energy suppliers, fifteen times that on a non-exisent app for C-19. Kind of shows where the really focus is.
Want a anti-Govt spin? UK willingly removed ourselves in 2015 as an integrated player in European politics and has a limited geographical proximity to Ukraine - it's a terrible conflict but no more, no less than many others happening around the world (except these are whities, that look a lot like a lot of us, maybe not you - it's not a personal jibe). But all the flags, lapel badges and speeches from Boris suited two aspects perfectly - firstly to deflect from other news (partygate being an obvious one) but also to satisfy Bunter's desire to be all Churchillian and play silly war games (something he might have done for personal benefit but with imprecise return to the UK).

Yeah all true. And that's why we don't get to see big fights when we should because of the pitfalls. 
Because all these guys fight 2 times per year there's just no time to stage comebacks as such. 
Ideally AJ should be able to lose to Usyk and Fury. He should be able to go fight Wilder. And if he loses that then he should be able to fight Joyce or Wallin or Whyte or Ruiz again. Until he finds his level. Imo he smashes anyone below and probably including Wilder. But none of them would ever let him hold that position. They'd go over him and around him to bigger money, bigger reward fights that they can afford to lose.
But if AJ loses to Fury is value plummets. Nobody wants to risk their value on him. People want to skip over him. And AJ won't go and fight Wilder because if he loses that then he's back on undercards. Which is ridiculous when he's such an exciting fighter and one of the elite heavies. 
The belts further complicate things since people get fight easy defences over the best. 
Everyone in boxing can only afford a couple of losses and those losses have to be to the absolute elite. All the danger fights that count for nothing are rare. And when they happen there's not much money and hype. Luis Ortiz has only taken them because he was in do or die at his age. Ruiz and Charles Martin saw an old man with a (undeserved) good reputation 

AJ just shows what boxing can do to you - after the Klitschko fight we thought he was going to rule for years. It looked like nobody would be able to lay a glove on him. Then a sketchy performance against Takam (up to a rather challenged stoppage) and a poor night's work against Parker means that the Povetkin win was he only really strong night past that. Then, five fights and four years later and his only wins since Povetkin are against a very flabby Ruiz and a strong, yet eminently beatable Pulev. In that time three defeats and a complete loss of the aura around him. Wilder is much the same, he was 40-0 going into the Fury fight and has still only lost to the lineal champion but he's also not only lost his aura but also his belts.
It is so much about timing, and what is around you at the time. If he'd been around five or six years before Joshua could have racked up a pretty solid record but now he's always going to be considered at the guy who just came up short at the very highest level.

AJ has accepted the Fury fight. Talk about a career ending / reigniting fight - and I give him the props for taking it. Lose this and he's back to fighting Del Boy and Parker, legacy in the bin by the door. Win and he's back in the frame, calling the shots and among the big fights. It's a massive, massive decision for him to take but ponder it for a bit and I'm not sure he had that much of a choice. Say no and he's out in the shadows with no path to any belt and sat watching till Usyk relinquishes one or Fury comes good on his promise to retire. The only thing that is for sure is that he has to win - at the very, very least get a disputed split decision.

Is that the Brad Pitt film, or the film adaptation of Orwell's book? 

1

As I say, conscription is a bad thing and I fully understand those that refuse.
But so is being killed by an army invading your country.
No easy choices when someone else puts you in this position.

Hopefully some of our more regular posters can reach over to their bedside table and clarify the exact wording for you ?

Yes indeed, we all remember images of men being dragged from their cars in the opening days of the conflict as they tried to flee. As for the Russian side, much is being said of the decision that awaits Putin - at the moment there has been no conscription but if believe what is being presented it will be his next big moment in how he handles this confilict. Don't introduce conscription and he may risk defeat, introduce it and he risks significant impact on his domestic popularity.

I *think* that was on his Life in Belfast album which was excellent.
Anybody who bought tickets for the Monkeys reunion tour
 

Indeed, and one of the very worst things about this has been the forced conscription of all Ukrainian men, forbidden to leave the country and forced to fight. I'm surprised how little criticism of that there's been. I'm pretty sure it's similar on the Russian side too, in that the Russians are desperate for more soldiers here, so a lot of kids will be sent in to die.

Personally, and excuse me for maybe being a bit plummy, but I don't really see much to laugh or scoff at. The average soldier is a kid, with parents that love them, that has no real beef with the enemy they have been sent to fight, that is carrying out instruction inside the 'theatre of war'. Very few of them would not happily swop the experience for chance to go home, sit on the sofa and watch television - from either side. There is not much humour in that for me.

Personally, and excuse me for maybe being a bit plummy, but I don't really see much to laugh or scoff at. The average soldier is a kid, with parents that love them, that has no real beef with the enemy they have been sent to fight, that is carrying out instruction inside the 'theatre of war'. Very few of them would not happily swop the experience for chance to go home, sit on the sofa and watch television - from either side. There is not much humour in that for me.

Personally, and excuse me for maybe being a bit plummy, but I don't really see much to laugh or scoff at. The average soldier is a kid, with parents that love them, that has no real beef with the enemy they have been sent to fight, that is carrying out instruction inside the 'theatre of war'. Very few of them would not happily swop the experience for chance to go home, sit on the sofa and watch television - from either side. There is not much humour in that for me.

As Rowan Atkinson said, with far more humour than I can write it:
I say, I say, I say what is the secret of good comedy
I don't know, what is the secret of..
Timing

It's good of the USA to decide who to offer security to. 
A bit like the city of Rome it just always seems to work out that their entirely defensive moves are perceived as threats by their warmongering enemies. 
So misunderstood by some. 

I watched a Documentary on Netflix the other day by John Pilger...it certainly opened my eyes and brain more than what I thought about the good old US of A
Have a read or better still if you have Netflix watch it and see how the States have monopolised the South China Sees, Below is the story and video.
http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-coming-war-on-china
A proxy War is being played out in Ukraine with a huge chunk of $s and arms being sent to Ukraine courtesy of America, Putin/Russia now appear to be on the back foot at the expense of 10s of 1000s of Ukrainians and Russians on both sides.
Putin now it would seem only has Gas to fight with, Europe will struggle this Winter as will Russian forces even more, My guess is Putin has been played like a cheap fiddle and America is pulling the strings. 

Tbh when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 they did the same.. got to the suburbs of tblisi. Eventually withdrew to South Ossetia.

We should bring beck "chinny reck-on" complete with stroking of the chin. I think it would work well at PMQs or for football journalists to use in post match interviews

We should bring beck "chinny reck-on" complete with stroking of the chin. I think it would work well at PMQs or for football journalists to use in post match interviews

It is an interesting point - compare the outrage to Sinclair with the support seen over the past few days prior to Lineker - he was criticised by a Commons select committee for expressing political views and his woke (I'm joking) legion of followers lept to his defence. They were dealt with very differently, one time it is made clear Sinclair is not entitled to have radical views, Lineker was pretty much exclusively supported for his.
That said Sinclair deserved it, his comments were ill thought through and ill timed. There's always one (sometimes more) who ill judge the moment and write a few words that cost them for years. His choice, his error, his consequences.
To the point on freedom of speech, I can't add more than that freedom of speech does not come without freedom of consequences (I shall use that one more than once). My challenge that I have with people who claim to value it is pretty much always that they do it with the aim of talking 'to' rather than 'with' - it comes as a one sided privilege and some sort of free pass to express views as sacroscant.
I really think so much of the last few years could have been avoided (or better dealt with) if we'd just be a little bit more "live and let live" in our approach to dealing with others.

Oh, and please don't read anything into the fact that the wife of a Shell executive donated £100k to the Liz Truss PM campaign. Totally unrelated.

Oh, and please don't read anything into the fact that the wife of a Shell executive donated £100k to the Liz Truss PM campaign. Totally unrelated.

Oh, and please don't read anything into the fact that the wife of a Shell executive donated £100k to the Liz Truss PM campaign. Totally unrelated.