RoverAndOut

Explain. I'm pretty sure when this thread was created it was in the general Deathlist Forum and someone has since taken his suggestion on board and moved it to Extra-Curricular, since it's not really all about deaths. And since I'm posting in this, here's my contribution: four teenage boys got lost in the Box Caves in Wiltshire (a series of labyrinthine interconnected caves) after entering in search of Pokemon. They found no monsters, but did - somewhat miraculously - find phone signal, and called for help. Bet the Grim Reaper must be getting pretty sick and tired of all these false alarm phone calls... Have they got lost AGAIN since I posted the story on Saturday morning? Careless. Apologies. But I wouldn't put it past them.

Explain. I'm pretty sure when this thread was created it was in the general Deathlist Forum and someone has since taken his suggestion on board and moved it to Extra-Curricular, since it's not really all about deaths. And since I'm posting in this, here's my contribution: four teenage boys got lost in the Box Caves in Wiltshire (a series of labyrinthine interconnected caves) after entering in search of Pokemon. They found no monsters, but did - somewhat miraculously - find phone signal, and called for help. Bet the Grim Reaper must be getting pretty sick and tired of all these false alarm phone calls...

All fairly explanatory though. Obviously it's not surprising that it could happen three times since the 90s given the increases in life expectancy, especially given the healthcare available to ex-Presidents. The 1861-62 one is a little more surprising but not so much when you dig beyond the names. Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan all served a single term of office, which obviously reduced the distance in time needed. Comparing the actual lengths of time the presidencies cover is interesting. Van Buren took office in 1837, Tyler died in 1862, so at that point 6 presidents covering 25 years were alive (2 more in that period had died as well!) Nixon took office in 1969 and died in 1994 so at that time, 6 presidents covering 25 years were alive again. Ford took office in 1974 and Reagan died in 2004, so 6 presidents were alive covering 30 years. Assuming Bush and Carter make it to 2017, at that point 6 presidents would be alive covering no less than 40 years and counting, further emphasising how much longer people are living. Of course, Carter is significantly inflating that stat, once he dies we jump down 12 years for Bush, and a further 4 for Clinton once he goes. We'd need a couple of single termers in quick succession to get back up to 6 anytime soon. And 7 looks beyond us unless the next president is swiftly dispatched of (though not through death of course). Anyway msc, I'm sure you knew all that already...

I hope they make it. Numbers keep changing 50+ in critical condition Hollande said 50 are hanging between life and death, and are described elsewhere as critical. Around half of those are on life support, which is closer to the 18 originally stated. I'm guessing most of those on life support were included in the original 18. The rest are critical, which is obviously still very serious but not necessarily immediately life-threatening. Think the death toll could still rise to around 100 though.

I've been doing a little basic background reading on this given the events of tonight. I found this quote relating to the 1997 military coup (the last time it happened) when they removed the sitting Islamist Prime Minister, from one of the generals who organised it: Cevik Bir, the man who gave the above quote, was arrested by the government in 2012 for his role in the 1997 coup. Incidentally, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was Mayor of Istanbul at the time of the '97 coup and was arrested soon afterwards and banned from politics for 5 years, during which time he formed the AKP.

Plenty of support on the streets for Erdogan. Seems the military have possibly run into more opposition than expected from the public. Hardly surprising given how well the AKP did in last year's elections. Concern is that if the coup is subdued it only strengthens Erdogan's hand and allows him to seize ever more power in the name of a 'state of emergency'. Can't see this ending well, but I think the government will hold on.

Depends on which Kurds you talk about.The PKK are labelled terrorists by Erdogan and he broke a ceasefire with them last year. Turkey has hardly been warm towards the Kurdish forces fighting ISIS either. Guess they could be persuaded to support the coup, but honestly this is not something I'm an expert on.

Actually going out there later this year. Already a bit concerned about the security situation after the new government and bombings - this is hardly reassuringGot family going in the morning! Not sure it's a great idea. Massive queues at ATMs and garages. Guessing bread and raki will be next.Hopefully be sorted before longEU sources say it seems well organised. Control much of Istanbul. Seems to be a large section of the army, not a couple of errant colonels. Suggestions given the success so far they're unlikely to just give up now. But Erdogan's not going to give up either. According to Twitter he's either fled the country or massing troops. Total chaos.

Actually going out there later this year. Already a bit concerned about the security situation after the new government and bombings - this is hardly reassuring Got family going in the morning! Not sure it's a great idea. Massive queues at ATMs and garages. Guessing bread and raki will be next.Hopefully be sorted before long EU sources say it seems well organised. Control much of Istanbul. Seems to be a large section of the army, not a couple of errant colonels. Suggestions given the success so far they're unlikely to just give up now. But Erdogan's not going to give up either.

You DO realize this isn't even remotely close to the right fuckng thread? Even for this place, that is monumentally cuntish of you.You should be effing ashamed. I'm still puzzling over why he thinks a thread about terrorists is an unsuitable place to post about something that is probably a terrorist attack. I assume he thought it should be in the General non-school massacre thread. That's where I thought it would be. But as said above it hardly matters. Saw on the 6 o'clock news that some people, including police, tried to stop him before anyone was hit, but they couldn't open the door and he accelerated away. Wondering if, given the weaponry inside the truck, this was a Plan B, because he thought his attack had been rumbled so he just killed as many as possible using the truck. Either way it was devastatingly effective and almost wholly unpreventable. We live in scary times, made scarier by prize buffoons like Donald Trump trying to make hay out of people's fears.

Speaking right now...who else is going to win it? After the last three weeks I am not making any predictions. We don't know what the political landscape will look like by 2020 and she still has to get there. She inherits Cameron's slender majority. Who do we think are going to get the top jobs in her cabinet? She does not seem to have a cabal of pals around her. Dominic Grieve might succeed her as Home Secretary. If she is feeling generous then Andrea Leadsom might get Business I suspect Philip Hammond will stay put and Gove might become Chancellor unless he is seen as Damaged goods now. I think she will take the opportunity to sack Hunt from Health and I hope that Whittingdale goes from Culture. Who can she afford to leave on the backbenchers? May is clearly good at keeping her cards close to her chest so any suggestions on her cabinet picks are largely guesswork. I assume tomorrow will be the handover and she'll appoint her cabinet on Thursday. Osborne is out of the Chancellor's job, but will probably get something significant instead, probably Foreign Secretary as it's the only other job he really wants. That would mean Hammond leaving, and I've seen suggestions from the political commentators that he could be her safe pair of hands in the Treasury, so basically a job swap with George. I can't see Gove getting Chancellor, best he can hope for is to keep his Justice position, but she and Gove have never got along (some history on that here) so he may even be out on his ear. He's not even trusted by his colleagues after his backstabbing act on Boris, so she'd have good reason to ditch him. Hunt will go from Health as she seeks a fresh start with the junior doctors, at least cosmetically. I think she may play 'good cop' and announce a halt to the plan to introduce the new contracts in order to conduct some new talks. Who replaces Hunt is debatable. Home Office is a big place to fill, Laura Kuenessberg said she likes her second-in-command at the Home Office, James Brokenshire and may promote him. After all, she knows him and she trusts him and he's been there as long as she was there, so it allows her to maintain some level of control over the department after she's left. Boris will probably get a role if he wants one, maybe DCMS from Whittingdale, as it doesn't upset the Brexit balance, and is a relatively frivolous department. Leadsom will probably get a cabinet role, but probably a junior one. She's also said she's going to create a Brexit Department to deal with all of that, so that will maybe go to Chris Grayling, who backed Leave, but not as prominently as some other options, and also managed her leadership campaign, thus guaranteeing himself a reward at the end of it. Here's my thoughts (changes in italics): Office Cameron May Prime Minister David Cameron Theresa May Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne Philip Hammond Home Secretary Theresa May James Brokenshire Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond George Osborne Brexit Secretary N/A Chris Grayling Justice Secretary Michael Gove Dominic Grieve Defence Secretary Michael Fallon Michael Fallon Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabbe Stephen Crabbe Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt Justine Greening Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling Priti Patel International Development Secretary Justine Greening Anna Soubry Education Secretary Nicky Morgan Amber Rudd Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin Patrick McLoughlin Business Secretary Sajid Javid Sajid Javid Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers Theresa Villiers Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Liz Truss Liz Truss Communities and Local Government Greg Clark Greg Clark Wales Secretary Alun Cairns Alun Cairns Culture, Media and Sport Secretary John Whittingdale Boris Johnson Scotland Secretary David Mundell David Mundell Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd Andrea Leadsom Many of these are shots in the dark. I think she'll go for continuity wherever possible, to show stability, so the national offices will stay the same, so will most of the lower cabinet, plus Stephen Crabbe's only been in the DWP 6 months so I expect him to stay. I assume she'll try to promote more women, so I can see Justine Greening getting a promotion (crudely put, her homosexuality admission gives her extra brownie points in the Tory party) and though I dislike Priti Patel as much as you Biblio, I think she'll be promoted to the full cabinet. I put her as Leader of the House because the thought of her somewhere consequential like Education, Health or Energy terrified me. Hunt may get a job, but he did say he thought Health would be his last big post, so he may go to the backbenches. I've promoted Leadsom to the head of the department she's currently a junior minister in, but that's no given. I liked your idea of giving Dominic Grieve a role, but he's a defender of the Human Rights Act, which she'll try and scrap so that may be wishful thinking. Anna Soubry to International Development may be equally optimistic, but she may choose to keep Greening there. In total, of 21 Cabinet positions, I've left 9 the same, reshuffled 6 and promoted/demoted 6. Notable absentees are Hunt, Morgan and Gove who may well stay, perhaps in different departments. Thursday will tell us more.

Speaking right now...who else is going to win it?

Oh yes. My biggest ever win, by a long way. I'd like to thank the Derby Dead Pool for giving me the confidence to predict what will happen in the future. Nice one DDT. Though I fear she's going to be Mrs T reincarnate, at least someone earns from her elevation. Care to let us in on how many figures this win runs into..?

Only potential challengers need to seek nominations. That's certainly how I'd interpret the rules as put forward to the public. As he said on Andrew Marr last weekend, when Neil Kinnock was challenged by Tony Benn for the Labour leadership in 1988, he had to get the requisite number of nominations as well as Benn. Of course, back then Benn was the outsider and Kinnock was supported by the majority of his party. This time, roles are reversed. Put simply, if Corbyn needs nominating to get on the ballot, it won't happen, unless there are enough guilty consciences to feel they need to do this properly and make it a straight fight. And it is absolutely no coincidence that the Tories have got their shit together: Prime Minister May appoints her cabinet and begins governing, while the Labour party don't even have a leader, let alone a shadow cabinet. Guessing Leadsom's going to be prominent in that cabinet too, has to have been given something for standing down.

Bloody Portugal. Shite all tournament and win the thing. But I think I'm even more angry with France - how the hell could they play that badly?! And what was Deschamps doing? He took Payet off after an hour, brought the dire Gignac on for Giroud and then left Martial on the bench until they were behind with 10 minutes of extra time left. He's got plenty of credit where it's due, now he's going to face plenty of criticism. Bloody Ronaldo, somehow this will still end up being 'his win' even though when push came to shove, it fell to a bloke farmed out by Swansea halfway through last season. And congratulations to Wales on being the only team Portugal were capable of beating inside 90 minutes.

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...So why not trigger it thenBasically... let those who demand you press the button, press it themselves. Aye, he's thinking legacy and the fact this shit comes up to mug your political retirement; he gets to argue he had principles and make disparaging comments on the gorms who shouted loudly about Brexit and then fucked off before they had to do any real work. Bet he's looking at Blair fighting desperately today for his place in history and reckoning the morning after Brexit resignation was a good move. David Cameron is a F U C K I N G arse. He said he would trigger article 50 in this situation and then after he lost the argument he reneges on what needs to be done. Thus brings about uncertainty and starts to undermine the econemy. "look... I told you the markets would crash.." Arse hole. He should have stepped out of number 10, on the following morning to the referendum, told the press he had appointed Boris as the deputy prime minister, then gone to see The Queen to tender his resignation.Job done, let the rest play out. Basically disagree with everything you've said there. The general premise of my disagreement can be summed up simply as 'the Brexiteers got us here, it's their mess to sort out, but as was clear during the campaign, there isn't anything remotely like a unified Leave agenda which is why we're in the mess we're in.' Why should Cameron trigger Article 50? As far as I can see (though I have admittedly not looked especially hard and am happy to be proven wrong), the most Cameron ever said about it was that, in the event of a Leave vote, Britain would be leaving the EU via the Article 50 provisions, in effect ruling out using the referendum to blackmail Brussels into giving us a better deal so we'd stay. He never said he'd trigger it, or that it would be triggered immediately. Of course, it would be perfectly fair to argue he should have triggered it if there was a clear majority of Brexiteers who wanted it to be triggered, but there isn't. To give an indication of the disparate views on offer: Andrea Leadsom thinks we should trigger Article 50 immediately. Liam Fox says we need a 'period of reflection' before we trigger Article 50. Chris Grayling says Article 50 should only be invoked once Britain is ready to negotiate. Boris Johnson says there is 'no need for haste' in triggering Article 50 and nothing should change in the short-term. Michael Gove says Article 50 should not be triggered until at least next year. Douglas Carswell says Article 50 won't be triggered until January 2017, after informal talks from September. Nigel Farage thinks the British government shouldn't spend too long in triggering Article 50. Teresa May (the likely next Prime Minister and the only Remainer quoted here) says we need to secure better deals BEFORE we trigger Article 50. That's 8 different views (they are all distinct in their own way) on when Article 50 should be triggered, from 8 notable figures from the campaign. I'm happy to provide the sources that I found all these views from too by the way if necessary, but safe to say all come from post-referendum speeches and comments made on the subject. I'm also pretty sure I've heard someone say in the past fortnight that we may never invoke Article 50 at all and that if we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act (which took us in in the first place) then we're automatically out, but I can't find where I saw that or who said it. Anyway, if Cameron had walked out on June 24th and unilaterally announced he would be invoking Article 50 at the EU Leaders Summit on Tuesday June 28th the Leave camp would have cried holy hell. And the idea that invoking Article 50 cuts out the uncertainty...it's not about when we trigger Article 50 that is causing the uncertainty, it's what happens post-Article 50 that's causing the uncertainty. Not one person can say, even broadly, what the terms of 'Brexit' will be. Will we be (do we want to be) in the single market? Some say yes, some say no. Will we have (do we want to have) free movement of people? Some say yes, some say no. Will we have some form of restrictions on goods, services and people? Some say yes, some say no. Do we want to be Norway? Some say yes, some say no. And on and on and on it goes. Triggering Article 50 would probably - if anything - increase panic, at least in the short term, because the clock is ticking, the country has no Prime Minister and nobody knows what the negotiating position is, or what the outcome will be. Until Article 50 is triggered, nothing changes materially, which is the closest thing to stability the markets have right now. Finally, to the Boris suggestion. I will agree with you on one point: the fact that the Tory party does not have a Deputy Leader, and that the country does not have a Deputy Prime Minister is criminal. But if we play through your scenario, then we end up back where we started anyway. Let's say Cameron doesn't invoke Article 50 on the steps of Downing Street, because it is not his place to do so. He does, however, appoint Boris Johnson, as you suggest, to be the new interim Prime Minister until the party has its leadership contest. First, the Tory party cries foul. Cameron has anointed Boris his successor (something he'd never do by the way), putting him far ahead of Teresa May or any of the Brexiteers in the leadership race. It's essentially a coronation. Second, Boris, upon assuming temporary office, does what he says above, and tells us all that there is 'no need for haste' in triggering Article 50, and that nothing should change until Britain has an elected new Prime Minister - exactly the same position Cameron took (we know this is what he thinks - he said so the day after the vote). Thirdly, Michael Gove still has his epiphany (I'll be kind and suggest that after 40 years of knowing Boris, he hadn't realised he wasn't fit to be Prime Minister until 3 days after the vote) and announces his intention to run for the leadership of the party as Boris is 'unfortunately unqualified for the job'. Boris' haphazard conduct over the post-Brexit week have left many others with similarly unvoiced concerns and support for Boris craters (as it did). A crestfallen Boris declares that 'it cannot be me' and Britain is left with another caretaker Prime Minister until the Tory Party election. No government in this situation would conduct any meaningful business until a new leader was in place. We all knew Cameron was out in the event of a Leave vote. We all knew that a new Prime Minister would be months in the electing. That's why everyone said there'd be chaos if we left. There will be no Brexit government until at least September, and frankly whatever the politicians say and whatever the shitstorm it would cause (because it would be chaos and, almost certainly, a hung parliament) I don't see that a Brexit government has any legitimacy without a general election. This whole 'we all voted last year for the Tories' did not give them a mandate to make decisions on our leaving the EU. The country's constitutional position has altered immensely and we need confidence that the government of the day speaks for the will of the people. At present, the lead contender to be the next Prime Minister didn't even vote to leave (if we assume she voted as she campaigned). Who says we even want the Tories to be negotiating for us? Granted, right now, nobody in their right mind would vote for the Labour party, but when we won WW2, we voted Churchill out of office. This is a similarly major event and you can't just assume support based on what went on in an election held under completely different circumstances. Anyway, that part is just my personal opinion, I feel most of the rest is a fairly rational argument about why Cameron had no place invoking Article 50 or in appointing BoJo as Prime Minister. One final note: since 1945, there have been 6 changes of Prime Minister during a party's term of office. In the cases of Eden and Brown, they were the expected successors and were so-appointed with a minimum of fuss. In the cases of Callaghan and Major, they were the favoured successors and were similarly appointed. In the days of Macmillan and Douglas-Home, there was no leadership election per se, the Queen was simply informed who was expected to be able to command the majority of the house, and with advice, they were invited to form governments. The point I'm making is that at no point in any of those changes in leader has there been an 'interim' Prime Minister in the way there are often 'interim' Leaders of the Opposition (such as Beckett or Harman). The serving Prime Minister announces their intention to resign, a new leader is appointed by whatever method consistent with the time and party, and then - only then - does the Prime Minister resign their office. What Cameron is doing is perfectly ordinary, it just so happens the situation causing this is extraordinary. But nothing could prevent that, short of a Remain vote on June 23rd. Sorry for the essay.

11/20. I haven't watched it properly since I was about 10, but the parents still do. I used to read the round-ups in the TV magazine at a weekend (I like a good quiz and this sort of stuff often comes up) so I might have done better if I'd known who some of the characters were rather than the faces. I do remember Rita nearly dying of carbon monoxide poisoning. And nearly being killed in the tram crash. And Ashley Peacock being crushed in the same tram crash. Like time I also know how Ernest Bishop died, but unlike time (I presume) I wasn't around to see it happen.

You've no 1923 names.

Goddammit, you go out for the evening and when you return the BBC have finally provided Noel Neill with a death notice and you've lost some of your best names! Anyway, here goes. My team is now named 'The Spirit of YoungWillz' since 3 of these names were originally his before his hissy fit. 1920: John Paul Stevens, Marsie Taylor 1921: John Glenn, Liz Smith 1922: Milos Jakes, Doris Day 1923: Chuck Yeager, Queen Anne of Romania 1924: George HW Bush, Lys Assia 1925: Hal Holbrook, June Whitfield (because I've just seen the Ab Fab movie and she's finally starting to look old) 1926: Jerry Lewis, Cloris Leachman 1927: Bhumibol Adulyadej, Gina Lollobrigida 1928: Joe Jackson, Ethel Kennedy 1929: Roger Bannister, Joan Plowright Finally: Welcome to the game Handrejka, of course you can still join (if I understand the rules correctly?), and some new names ripe for the stealing come the time! But I am slightly confused by 1922 - they both sound like female names and given your ordering I assume Mary Allen is meant to be a bloke...or else you've misunderstood the rules (one of each sex per year). I googled Mary Allen but could find no one born in 1922 of note. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Guess that means even more Matt Baker in Rio. Joy.

Unforgivable for Italy not to win a penalty shootout where Germany miss 3 of the first 5. That said, two of the Germans' were saved and the other hit the post. Zaza's and Pelle's were dire. Germany deserved it for me.

Since there'd be plenty of bitching on the main thread about such a miss, it falls to me (since I had no role in creating it this year) to chastise the Crowdsourced Deathlist on their failure to include Caroline Aherne on the list. According to the stats, she was among the 'just missed out' group. I'm not surprised she died, given her seemingly constant battle with one kind of cancer or another, but I'm shocked to discover she wasn't a hit on either the main, or crowdsourced, DL.

To support Portugal or Wales for a place in the final? It's an impossible decision...

I don't do this 'professionally' either, though I am attempting to keep a few lists of notables, with the intention of maybe overreaching myself in the entry stakes this new year (I'll have been a member about 18 months by then). I did up to about the 1990 intake of the Lords for Biblio's Scavenger Hunt, but there were so many I lost interest. I entered the first one of these late in the day, and some of them were nigh-on impossible to find someone who'll get an obit who hadn't already been picked, so when the picks were open I nabbed a few notable names I liked, particularly some of yours. And since you're not entering I'll update my list to make the following changes: Muriel Pavlow out, Liz Smith in; Cicely Tyson out, Lys Assia in (love me a bit of a Eurovision) and a cheeky extra one because I can, Lassie Lou Ahern in for Marsie Taylor. The first two were previously messaged to Shaun, the third one I've just decided on. Hope all are alright with this and I'll edit my list accordingly. Christ, what a palava...

I too have been most confused for much of the day, and think YoungWillz has clearly been wronged, as Shaun himself has since noted. With this in mind, I submit my entry below without touching any of Willz original picks: 1920: John Paul Stevens, Lassie Lou Ahern 1921: King Michael of Romania, Liz Smith 1922: Milos Jakes, Lilianne Bettencourt 1923: Chuck Yeager, Queen Anne of Romania 1924: George HW Bush, Lys Assia 1925: Hal Holbrook, Margaret Rhodes 1926: Jerry Lewis, Jean Alexander 1927: Bhumibol Adulyadej, Gina Lollobrigida 1928: Bruce Forsyth, Jean Kennedy Smith 1929: Roger Bannister, Joan Plowright In the event that Willz decides not to re-enter (I am giving him the opportunity to do so, since he technically already has once this round) then I have PM'd Shaun with a couple of (2) alterations I would like making to my team if Willz's picks are available. If anyone disputes this, that's fine. Hope Willz enters, if not, I'm stealing his old folk.