Bungle comments

Well, we all know the ABs are the favourites, but Ireland were absolutely shockingly poor, and very negative from the outset.

For me, Eddie Jones is a wily old fox, and the only team left capable of stopping NZ is England. Next week’s semi is going to be a good one.

Several players engaged in antisocial behavior, including spilling drinks on DJ equipment, punching walls and mirrors, and tearing apart a stuffed bear, said the sources.

For some peculiar reason, I find this extremely funny!!!

No, it shows the stupidity of building a depot on a flood plain.

The first order was issued after a JAL co-pilot was convicted in Britain last November for being around 10 times over the country's legal alcohol limit prior to a London-Tokyo flight the previous month.

...

The limit for pilots in the UK is 20mg of alcohol for every 100ml of blood, which is one quarter of the current drink-driving limit in England (80mg/100ml).

So, at 200mg blood alcohol level, this former pilot was even two-and-a-half times over the drink-drive limit for motor vehicles! Effects of such a level of alcohol are:

Slurred speech

Unsteady walking

Nausea

Double vision

Increased heart rate

Drowsiness

Mood, personality and behaviour changes that may be sudden, angry and antisocial

The former pilot was as drunk as a skunk! And, JAL pilots are STILL doing it!

Flown by a full crew indeed...

Take it out to sea in tankers and dump it into the ocean.

Yeah, either barrel it up and dump it in one of the ocean trenches or pay an African country to take it out into the middle of the desert, dig a big hole, and leave it there.

There were fire escapes, but many were overcome by smoke inhalation.

Fire regulations should mandate fire doors between floors and stairwells, precisely to mitigate the spread of smoke. They seem pretty uncommon, though.

This game was over from the first 1/4, gutted for Argentinian fans and a bit of joke really, poms made to look fairly average even when playing against 14...

David Campese, is that you?

Three wins from three. Three bonus points. Top of the group and into the quarter finals.

What’s not to like? ^_^

What are these geriatric dinosaurs still doing in parliament? Retirement at 70 should be mandatory.

Flashers, eh? Not impressed. Don't worry, fella, it's the personality that counts!

Re: Fire Safety Codes.

Perhaps compared to the EU or US of A, fire safety standards seem lax. But, is there any building in the world which will ensure safe egress should a maniac armed with gallons of accelerant go rampaging around it ?

Tough break.

The Asahi Shimbun daily reported that the man had lost 13 kilograms over the approximately three weeks since officials noticed he was on a hunger strike.

Okay, quick maths.

1 kilo = 7,200 calories

x13 = 93,600 calories lost

93,600 / 21 = 4,457 calories per day.

The recommended daily calorie intake for men is 2,500 (too many in my opinion), so evening this guy was on hunger strike there is no way he lost 13 kilos over three weeks.

The head of a minor opposition party, whose primary goal is to "crush" Japan's public broadcaster NHK

Suits me.

...solution to overpopulation...

Good point. There are too many people in the world.

...we should just wipe out races that have babies like idiots,...

Oops!

England should have done better against such a poor side.

Glass half empty, eh?

A poor victory shows how well the US played, no?

I disagree. A bonus point win is not a poor victory, but yes, the U.S. committed themselves well.

The US blocking game stymied England and there was an element of dirty play from the US team too.

I felt the U.S. players were frequently offside in the scrums, and the referee should have taken more action against it.

C'mon fellas - that kind of gag is in poor taste.

Johnson and the Privy Council lied about their reasons for proroging Parliament. Isn't that enough? You don't think they should be exempt from misleading the monarch and Parliament?

What you are alleging is a criminal act, and even the Supreme Court (Blair's contrivance, not a fan) did not rule Johnson's act illegal. They argued that it was unlawful.

Personally, I'm not all that taken with Boris Johnson, but there's an awful lot of muck being slung around and I'm not sure how much of it is warranted or even accurate.

Nevertheless, if we assume, for a moment, that the remain position on Johnson is correct: that his attempt at prorogation was dishonest and politically motivated; that he lied to the Queen; and that he is thoroughly unsuitable for high office.

We must then ask what remedies Parliament has in such a situation. The most obvious remedy is a vote of no confidence, and should Johnson lose, his resignation followed by a general election.

That way, Johnson leaves, and we get to assemble a new Parliament.

Yet remainers have not done this, nor do they campaign for it - they dance around the issue, pompously grandstanding and posturing.

I'm sorry to have to say but the remain Ultras are wearing their democratic credentials around their ankles.

That's only three people. The eleven Supreme Court judges were unanimous.

And I raise 17.4 million Leave voters to your eleven judges. Britain is not a kritarchy; the people are sovereign.

Here's a nice summary of the situation for spectators to ruminate over.

The 11 justices have taken it upon themselves to assume the power of Parliament and by common law, make a statute. That is a far bigger constitutional outrage than Boris sending parliament on holiday over conference season. It is and should be a nationwide klaxon that the experiment of a ‘Supreme’ Court is a failure. They seem conversely oblivious that the actual conclusion to their actions is to carry on the farce of the longest sitting parliament for 400 years and to give all power in the land to the Speaker and rogue MPs – who are unconstrained by manifesto promises, a Queen’s Speech or by fear of an election (because they refuse one).

The Supreme Court was created in order to deal with exactly this kind of constitutional issue.

Go on then: what law did the justices cite as precedent for declaring the prorogation unlawful?

A: None, because their is none. For 800 years, prorogation has been taking place and not a squeak out of the courts. Therefore, they're making up the law as they go along ("ultra vires" which English courts are not constitutionally allowed to do).

That that the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and President of the Queen’s Bench Division all disagree with the Supreme Court's decision is more than enough to tell you that the decision was politically motivated.

Aside from the remain Ultras, i.e. those who embrace the idea of a federal European superstate, most of us can see this has implications beyond Brexit.

Prerogative powers, such as the power to prorogue, were un-justiciable; that is to say they were powers upon which the courts could not intervene.

This ruling has made all decisions by the Executive justiciable. It is an outrageous power grab by a group of unelected judges (a third of whom work for the EU), and they have singlehandedly destroyed the separation of powers, set a precedent that in future any wealthy malcontent can challenge government decisions, and finally, installed speaker John Bercow as de facto President.

It’s utterly disgusting.

D’oh. Reading comprehension failure. Must be the koshihikari rice induced thiamine deficiency.

¥13,000 per kilo?

Pull the other one, Farmer Giles.

The only true pizza is the Margherita.

Japanese “pizza” is an abomination.

Pops had better lawyer up.

That child will need a lot of love from now on because you just know he’ll be beating himself up over his father’s death.

Agree with the above posters, but I'll add that I've always thought Osaka to be a flash in the pan.

Meanwhile, Belfast's High Court dismissed on Thursday a case arguing that a British exit from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement would contravene Northern Ireland's 1998 peace accord, saying the issue was political and not for the courts.

So, that chimes with the English courts.

Ya think the Scottish judges might be a teeny-weeny bit partisan?

First world problems.

Let me rephrase that. The occupied 6 counties are part of the UK, through partition, which is still deemed as illegitimate today.

Only for the IRA and their apologists, Toasted Heretic. In their referendum on whether or not they wished to be part of the U.K., Northern Irish chose to remain by no less than 98%, I believe.

You would have the entire United Kindom held to ransom by a small minority of Irish terrorists.

Your opinions on this matter can be safely dismissed.

Until 1832 Members of Parliament from constituencies with no one living in them could claim to be "legitimately" elected as well. Legitimacy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Non-sequitur.

 Going by the result of the party leadership election Boris Johnson represents less than a hundred thousand Conservative Party members.

...which is following the same rules as any other Prime Minister, Conservative or otherwise. Normally we hear nothing about them, so why have the leadership rules become contentious (for some) now?

I might also add that should their be a general election, and should Johnson win, can we expect remainers to respect the result? Of course not - keep on voting until we get the right answer. That's the EU way.