Interesting article.

In relation to Sky sports, I feel they are generally pretty good. The glaring exception tends to be the ex-footballer co-commentator. Almost all of which have no Managerial experience. And make a half-decent comment in the 1st minute of a game. And then repeat it every other minute for the entire game. I'm sure which 1 you dislike the most is based on who you support. For this Spurs fan, does feckin Alan feckin Smith have it written into his contract that he can give his ill-informed twaddle at every single Spurs game?

But is (for example) Carragher or Neville better? And Jamie Redknapp is only not nasty because he is routinely beige.

For me, the Jury is still very much out on Arteta. Has he improved your lot? Yes. Has he won anything worthwhile yet? No. And articles like that 1, seeking to get the excuses in first, don't really help. If he wins, suspect it will be down to him. And if he doesn't, it will be due to the players. In his mind, at least.

Wenger was a brilliant Manager. Emery would IMHO have been just as good, had he been the Manager after the Manager after Wenger. Timing is everything. Meanwhile your squad is unbalanced. If your Forwards were as good as your Reserve Defenders and Midfielders, your lot would be a lot more confident

A little.

I'm not saying rivalry isn't important-it is. But perspective is also important.

I love my Club. Always have. Always will. Like any true fan, the "like" bit can be a bit strained sometimes. But never the Love. Which is far, far more fundamental than the Dislike I have for Arsenal.

I was lucky enough that, when I was young, my Mum worked for the Arsenal for a while. And the Director who was her boss was a lovely man who understood where the right line is on tribalism.

It has always been a slight disappointment to me that, by and large, Arsenal fans are thoroughly nice people. On that subject, so are West Ham fans. Spurs have always liked West Ham, although the feelings have never been mutual. Surprising that they never mention single-handedly winning the World Cup 60 years ago

Know the feeling.

In the past, you have been more Spurs-y than us, regularly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It is faintly ridiculous that a Club of your size and ability has never won the Champions League, or the Premier League for the last 22 seasons.

22 years ago was, of course, your "Invincibles" season. A look at the current Portuguese Table amuses me. Too much is made about how supposedly uncompetitive other Leagues are, but not in Portugal.

Mourinho is only 2 games away from having an Invincibles season (P32, W20, D 10). But Benfica cannot win the title, as Porto are 9 Points ahead. And Sporting Lisbon are level on Points with Benfica.

The Top 3 in Portugal have this record:- P96 W72 D21 L3. All the more remarkable when you factor in that 12 of those results involve those 3 playing one another

Think you will win the League. You'll probably be 2nd Favourites in the Champions League, but plenty of worse teams have defied much bigger odds in that Final

I'm sure you and Tony won't mind that this Spurs fan won't be wishing you luck in the CL Final. But please feel free to "hammer" Wet Spam

Wish I could.

Unfortunately, there was a confidential agreement involved, and I believe my former Client is very much alive.

Whereas the 2 main players on the other side, Spike and George Harrison, sadly, are not

Similarly, the all-Chinese clash was Xintong v Diddle-I-Po, for this lover of the Goons.

The closest I ever got to the Goons was once acting on the opposite side to Spike Milligan, and he rang me up to call me a See You Next Tuesday.

[unable]

Just read the BBC's hatchet job on the Met.

Usually, I'm a big fan of the BBC. As an example, I would rather hope they would appreciate just how difficult it is to spot paedophiles-given that they employed one Jimmy Saville for decades.

The next thing to say is that it is the Police's job to seek to uphold the Law-not to be some Moral Guardian. And the BBC knows fine well just how difficult it is to stop people jumping to conclusions when it involves paedophilia.

The reason Epstein placed various women in London flats is very simple. In various States of the US, the legal age of consent for organising women to be paid for sex is 18 or 21. In England, except in certain instances, it is 16. In France, at the time, it was lower still. It was because the Police were unable to prosecute.

The Met didn't prosecute for various reasons. 1 of those was that this US citizen was being prosecuted for real offences where he lived. But another is that, in England at least, the definition of "slavery" does not usually refer to people getting Chelsea flats, given a £2,000 a month allowance, and being free to leave whenever they wish. And any info after 2020 is going to be irrelevant to prosecuting him.

1 new allegation is that various of these women were in the UK on Study Visas. Who appear to have been working. I look forward to the Solicitors handing over their details of Criminal Conduct by their Clients, as opposed to seeking to milk the UK taxpayer once more.

Epstein was a vile man. But you cannot prosecute the dead. What Solicitors can do is try and take the UK Govt for money. Were some of these Women "victims"? Probably. Were some of them Criminals? Were some of them effectively Prostitutes? Definitely.

Are these Solicitors campaigning for a change in the Law, to protect under 18s or under 21s? Don't see it. Just see people looking for money. From us.

That last 1 in that article is, logically, longer odds than this one.

Incidentally, the lady in the original article did ace a par 3, and the albatross/eagle were at par 5 holes

I just don't get these million to 1 odds.

Top lady golfers now hit up to 290 yards off the tee. The minimum yardage for a ladies Par 5 is 401 yards, and 450 yards is common.

If someone is telling me that if there are (say) 3 Par 5 holes between 401 and 499 yards, and that it is a million to 1 chance that a lady hits a good drive and then holes an iron from between 120-200 yards, then I'm taking those odds.

The Par 5 become Par 4 effectively. Trillions to 1 someone hits a hole in 1, another eagle and a birdie in the same round? Show me the bookie

Not that simple, I'm afraid.

On Pro Golf, since 2001, there have been 8 holes in 1 on Par 4. 2 by women. Which satisfies both the hole in 1 and albatross at the same time.

That 4.5 billion to 1 is, I suspect, confusing (in poker terms) the odds of hitting quads with getting As, Ah, and in that order. One is very unlikely-the other massively unlikely

2 interesting points of view there-thanks

Like all decades, PMs have varied in quality. I believe Cameron was as good while in control as he was terrible afterwards. And Rishi Sunak did extremely well, especially given the hand he was dealt. Did far more than anyone else to stop the massive spike in immigration under Johnson.

You are quite right to say there "doesn't look like there is anything better on the horizon". But what there is, IMHO, are things a whole lot worse. Because electorates still harbour this belief that raxes should be paid by other people, and benefits only given to those who act the way we want.

I don't believe Starmer is particularly bland. It just suits the Press to exaggerrate that. The bias is extreme-so (for example) we currently have a Home Secretary who seems to me to be further to the Right than most Tory PMs. But that only means she is ignored by the Mail etc-not praised.

Starmer's problem is this. He is a 20th Century politician in the 21st Century. He has no soundbites, no guff or meaningless "vision". And that is now essential. As is working a crowd.

Trump can work a crowd. So can Putin. So could most of the most evil men in history. They were all populists, too.

Charisma remains the most overrated quality to be a leader. The only difference is that it temporarily seems to be the be-all and end-all.

Before the end of this Decade we could have a Government where the only man with significant experience in Govt will be Robert Jenrick. With absolutely no-one in Opposition with any experience. Spending vast sums on vanity projects.

While I'm warming to a theme, here's an example of just how much trouble the Conservatives are in as we approach the local elections.

I live in a Rural constituency in Essex-a Council run by the Tories since God was a Boy. In my constituency, the sitting Tory at the last Local elections got more votes than everyone else combined.

I've just received his 6 page election leaflet. Spends 6 pages talking about himself, and what he has done locally. On those 6 pages, makes no mention whatsoever about the future, or why Reform (who are the only likely challenger) might be less than ideal. Nothing about the reorganisation of Essex. And-incomprehensibly-tries to hide the fact that he is standing for the Tories. He only mentions it once-in the middle of a paragraph near the bottom of Page 2.

I am (like a lot of people) torn on how to vote. To cast a largely symbolic vote for Labour. Or to vote for the Tory, on the "Anyone but Reform" ticket. But voting for a man who appears ashamed of his own Party is not easy...

Contrary to popular belief, it is not when their lips move

Let's use this latest Starmer/Mandelson spat as an example.

It is clear to me that recent statements made by Starmer and Sir Olly Robbins are incompatible. At least 1 of them is lying. And the way statements are made has been very telling.

Starmer is unequivocal. He states that he never received the vetting advice. That it was hidden from him. And, logically, this bit (at least) must be true. There are too many people with the potential to prove that this was not true. And, were that to be proved to be the case, he would have to resign.

Compare/contrast with Robbins statement to the House today. He "does not recall" whether things happened. Usually the sign of someone who either doesn't know or does, and hopes it cannot be proved. He received documents, but he can't remember which ones, and he didn't read them. He pretends that Govt trying to get over the vetting hurdle is in some way problematic-it happens. Every. Single. Time.

Horrible man. Clearly not got the ability of his predecessor-the 1 who insisted on the vetting.

Will Starmer survive? IMO. yes and no. Survives this, then local elections are going to do for him.

Starmer is of a different age. A basically decent man. Bit bland. Bit grey. Solid. Unremarkable. More Brown or Sunak than Blair or Johnson.

Look at the likely next Leaders. Full of soundbites. Big ideas. And absolutely no idea (or experience) how to Govern or Budget.

Imagine a World where Reform is in Power. And the Greens in Opposition. And shudder.

Media attention has totally changed. It is no longer led by journalists. Just by click-obsessed AI, which has little or no regard for what is traditionally newsworthy.

Man Utd are traditionally the biggest club in the UK. Right now, probably the 3rd or 4th best-funded. And achieving the sort of form that they should have had for the last 10 years is (in this new world order) not newsworthy. Whereas it really should be.

My Club is Spurs. I get the media interest in whether we might go down. What I cannot quite fathom is why a club that has always been popular (for a variety of reasons-we like to think it is because we play the game the "right" way, but coming close without winning much is a factor too) is suddenly reviled. The hate coming from people is something I have never previously experienced. Poking fun at our troubles? Fine. It is the hatred I don't get.

Meanwhile no-one seems to want to mention the £hundreds of millions of rule-bending (at the very least) of Man City or Chelsea. The brilliance of Unai Emery at Villa is not newsworthy. The Liverpool board spend £450 million making the Champions worse, but they seem to be held to a different standard to that of Spurs.

Strange world.

Wasn't having a go. Firstly, you were just repeating the news. Secondly, while it is certainly true that Lawyers and Policemen often have different viewpoints, I have in the now-distant past acted for several Police Federations and their Members.

But the BBC's position here is untenable. They are a large, well-resourced Company. With thousands of employees and Contractors, and a very large legal/HR Team.

If someone is accused of something it really isn't rocket science to ask the right questions. In 2016. Let's not forget 2 things. The Age of Consent in the late 1990s for certain acts between men was 18. He had told his employer that he was accused of acts with someone then under-age. Which he denied. This 16 bit is ludicrous-it really isn't difficult to ask how far under 18, and whether he admitted it. While it is a potentially live issue. Not 2026. When it is not. And, from Scott Mills' perspective, he got the best possible result, in that there was officially no further action to be taken. There is no better outcome.

I'm placing myself (or indeed anyone) in his shoes. Imagine if a former Partner made allegations about you, or me, in 2016 about something that may or may not have happened in the 1990s. You tell your Employer about the Police investigation and that you get the all-clear.

Then, in 2026, your Employer decides to Summarily Dismiss you and broadcast that there was an allegation that in the public's eyes amounts to paedophilia. Having done nothing for the 3 years of the investigation (unless you count promoting him) and then doing nothing in the 7 years after the investigation was over-unless you count more promotions and having him fronting fundraising for BBC Children in Need.

Terrible.

Some bits you have read appear to have been written by the Police

It is misleading for the Police to say "there wasn't deemed to be enough evidence". It's simpler than that. There wasn't enough evidence. Full stop. Not least because some 20 years elapsed between the alleged offence and anything being brought to the Police's attention. A 35 year old man suddenly remembering that something inappropriate may have happened 20 years ago. As opposed to only starting 17 years ago.

Let's put that into context. My parents were married for 61 years. They met when he was 18 and she was 14. Do you think they (or indeed any other childhood sweethearts) have ever been interviewed by the Police 20 years into their relationship? Of course not.

On a side note, I hear what you say about your work colleague's friend. In the majority of cases of that sort I have dealt with, the sexually naive one was the adult. Because (for example) any normal adult teacher knows the boundaries fine well. And, prior to 2001, Gay Men had to be more aware than the rest of us.