RoverAndOut

Pretty sure whenever there's an attack like this in Britain it's front page news, regardless of the victim or the perpetrator's motive. We have very little information just now about anything so jumping to conclusions is pointless and divisive. If what you say is true, then I imagine instead of being a right wing ideologue, he's probably mentally disturbed, as one might hope we could all agree anyone who goes out in the street and attacks someone they don't know must surely be, whether they're white or Asian, Christian, Halibut, atheist. There's no need for anyone to make hay out of this, whether she survives this or not. LOL. Oh okay, so you'll be condemning Obama and Shrillary when they falsely blame Trump for this? No I don't think so. The people who were calling for "restraint" after 50 gay clubbers died, 130 rock fans died, etc. etc. etc. will be exercising ABSOLUTELY NONE when some no-name Labourdork gets killed. Their usual "restraint" is about cowardice in the face of Islam. No need to be cowards about anti-Islam campaigners, just round em all up and put them in the gulag! I expect Trump and possibly, I dunno, Pamela Geller, to be in federal custody by midnight and possibly extradited to England for IslamoStalinist show trials by next week. If any of that happens feel free to say I told you so. But frankly I don't think Brits could give two shits what the American presidential candidates have to say on this, and I'd suggest they have more important issues with each other than to argue over the shooting of a British MP. Who exactly are we going to put in this gulag? All the white people? All the neo nazis? Anyone who's ever flirted with UKIP? Talk some sense. Keep Calm and Carry On, that's the British way. I started writing this before I got to the bottom of your response. Silly me. Yawn. Clearly you're not for real.

Pretty sure whenever there's an attack like this in Britain it's front page news, regardless of the victim or the perpetrator's motive. We have very little information just now about anything so jumping to conclusions is pointless and divisive. If what you say is true, then I imagine instead of being a right wing ideologue, he's probably mentally disturbed, as one might hope we could all agree anyone who goes out in the street and attacks someone they don't know must surely be, whether they're white or Asian, Christian, Halibut, atheist. There's no need for anyone to make hay out of this, whether she survives this or not.

Like I said, haven't watched it, nor do I plan to. It just seems that everyone's keen on the guilty until proven innocent idea. And with a dead man, it's rarely even contestable. I'm not saying he's innocent, in fact it looks likely from the brief amount I've seen that he's probably got a case to answer, but can you imagine that front page of the Mail for a live person? Or even - somewhat cynically - for an accused Tory (again, Lord Bramall, Ted Heath). This fits nicely into the Mail's thread on dodgy Lib Dems (Cyril Smith, Jeremy Thorpe) so naturally they took the 'brave' decision to make it front page news. As for the widow apologising, yeah that's definitely fishy, but playing devil's advocate what legal recourse or personal will has an 89 year-old woman got to fight the machine? Anyway, it's just another part of history that can be airbrushed. Maybe it would be quicker just to leave the history books blank in terms of light entertainment and politics between 1950 and 1990 and pretend they never happened. I think I'll lose all faith in humanity if it turns out Nicholas Parsons is dodgy, though at least the tabloids won't have to search far for a picture linking him to that shadowy world: he and Freud were long-time colleagues on Just a Minute of course. Yeah, this is definitely the break in the case they've been looking for. Ive been pretty quick to condemn the witch hunts that have been carried out in the name of 'Justice' Ive previously stated that Tarbuck was put through the mill on the back of a shit allegation and, in all probability, Sircliff may well find, after being dragged into the gutter, that the CPS wont be allowing the Police to charge him. Ive also been preety unambiguous in my dislike for trial by Press/Media and the whole circus that pushes the famous into the Ring yet allows the accusers to hide, forever, behind the curtain. We all know, such has been the biggest sexual scandal of several generations, the whole emphasis has changed to Guilty until proven innocent. Having said all of that, as much as im uncomfortable with the kind of headlines that has seen Freud 'outed' you have to be VERY generous to believe that the allegations are weak let alone untrue. Disclosure has just started on the TV, Im watching it, if you don't, you cant have an opinion. Accepted.

Mass shootings in California in the last 6 or 7 months which is one of the most "liberal" states so they have some of the toughest gun laws: San Bernadino, 14 dead, December 2015 Recent mass shootings in France where they have "no guns": 130 dead in Bataclan theater, Paris November 2015 Can we maybe try and use some proper numbers instead of numbers that suit the argument you're making? San Bernadino attack: conference centre banquet room, about 80 people inside, 14 killed (17.5%), 22 wounded (27.5%). Orlando attack: packed nightclub, about 320 people inside for 'last call' at 2am, 49 killed minus the gunman (15.3%), 53 wounded (16.6%). Bataclan attack: packed theatre for a rock concert, around 1500 people inside, 89 killed (6%) not 130 - that was overall for the night (and if you want to include them all, then basically you're including the entire population of Paris since the rest took place on the streets), the wounded numbers are tricky for the Bataclan, as they killed most of the 100-or-so hostages they took. Those are three similar-style attacks that you cited and those are the raw numbers. You had a significantly better chance of surviving in Paris than you had in Orlando or San Bernadino. And furthermore, Paris was co-ordinated attacks, which everybody knows causes chaos and confusion (see 9/11, 7/7...) Orlando was one guy walking into a club and opening fire. He bought the gun legally, without any significant hindrance and went and shot a load of people. I'm a Brit, so what do I know, but a quick bit of reading suggests Florida has very loose gun laws - no background check, no need for a licence and - better still - the right to conceal and carry. If it's so easy for everybody to get a gun, and if the world's a lot safer when guns are easy to obtain, then why weren't there a load of armed-to-the-teeth guys and gals in that nightclub ready to kill the man? Because whether easy or not, most people don't WANT a gun, and the people that do overwhelmingly want to cause harm (plus is a handgun much good when the guy on the other side has a semi-automatic assault rifle?) Trevor Noah had it right in his response to Orlando: the right wing now want us not to focus on the terror caused by guns but by the people causing the terror - the Islamic fundamentalists. That's fine, but on 9/11, instead of using guns, they used aeroplanes and back then, nobody's first idea was the blame the Islamic fundamentalists over the planes they used, instead we said 'how can it be so easy to hijack and passenger plane and fly it into a building?!' and the regulations regarding air travel were TIGHTENED. And there hasn't been such an attack since. So why - when mass shootings occur on a routine basis in America (President Obama has responded to 16 mass shootings and, by comparison, has only hosted 12 state dinners) - can the same logic shown after 9/11 not be applied to gun safety laws in America? What possible civilian use is a re-badged M-16? Ignoring the 'well-regulated militia' bit of the 2nd amendment which everybody knows doesn't really exist anyway, I'll look instead to the rest of the article: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' This is the sovereign right espoused by the gun lobby: "It's our constitutional right." But the constitution doesn't specify any limits on armaments. So why can't you buy chain guns at your local gun store? Rocket launchers? Mortars? Cannons? Because even the gun lobby accepts there are limits on what is right and proper to be owned by the citizenry. So actually, the line isn't arbitrary, it's fluid, so how about we all agree that guns can be used by hunters, sportsman, the police and armed forces and that anyone else who wants one should probably be checked out pretty thoroughly before they're let anywhere near one. Thought not...

OK, let me re-phrase my esteemed colleague Rad Guy's basic point: Trump has 1545 delegates. 1237 are needed for the nomination, so unless something fundamentally changes between now and the convention then Trump will be the nominee. He has been declared the Republican nominee by Reine Priebus (the Republican National Committee Chairman), Paul Ryan (the Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives) and Mitch McConnell (the Republican Majority Leader of the US Senate). He has even been acknowledged to be the nominee by 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who can't stand the man, but sees no path to stop him getting the nomination. Hillary has 2219 pledged delegates (the ones from states' primaries) and 581 superdelegates (party officials) giving a total of 2800 delegates. 2383 are needed for the Democratic nomination, so she is also clear with room to spare. She has been declared the nominee by President Obama, Vice President Biden, Elizabeth Warren and various other significant party figures. Even Bernie Sanders has said he looks forward to talking to Clinton about how they can defeat Donald Trump in November. The only way Hillary will not be the nominee is if she was to be indicted over her emails and all the evidence says that this will not happen. She may have been reckless, elitist or even 'crooked' as the Donald would say, but there is no 'smoking gun' that will lead to her indictment. Without that, she will be the nominee come July. Furthermore, above all else, the candidates consider each other to be their respective parties' nominees, they are looking for Vice Presidential nominees on the basis that they are their parties' nominees and the media are holding their discussions on the basis that they are their parties nominees. It doesn't really bother me whether we close this and start a new thread or continue on this until the convention, or even until November, just let me know where I can discuss Trump's U-Turn on guns, Mitt Romney's near-endorsement of Gary Johnson and the inevitable torrent of back and forth there will be between now and the conventions.

Gutted for Albania, deserved a point tonight against France. France don't look that good, but keep winning matches, which everybody knows is how you win a major championship. We manage the first bit (looking shit) but not the second (winning matches) which is why we'll go out in the quarter-finals.

Like I said, haven't watched it, nor do I plan to. It just seems that everyone's keen on the guilty until proven innocent idea. And with a dead man, it's rarely even contestable. I'm not saying he's innocent, in fact it looks likely from the brief amount I've seen that he's probably got a case to answer, but can you imagine that front page of the Mail for a live person? Or even - somewhat cynically - for an accused Tory (again, Lord Bramall, Ted Heath). This fits nicely into the Mail's thread on dodgy Lib Dems (Cyril Smith, Jeremy Thorpe) so naturally they took the 'brave' decision to make it front page news. As for the widow apologising, yeah that's definitely fishy, but playing devil's advocate what legal recourse or personal will has an 89 year-old woman got to fight the machine? Anyway, it's just another part of history that can be airbrushed. Maybe it would be quicker just to leave the history books blank in terms of light entertainment and politics between 1950 and 1990 and pretend they never happened. I think I'll lose all faith in humanity if it turns out Nicholas Parsons is dodgy, though at least the tabloids won't have to search far for a picture linking him to that shadowy world: he and Freud were long-time colleagues on Just a Minute of course. Yeah, this is definitely the break in the case they've been looking for.

Like the sufficient evidence that saw Ken Barlow and Dr Fox walk free? Even DLT was cleared on nearly every charge. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just saying what they've got does not necessarily constitute proof. Nor does it excuse this front page of tomorrow's Daily Fail: Which contains the following in its first two sentences: For a newspaper that railed against the treatment of Ted Heath and Lord Bramall, can you imagine a front page like this for someone like, for instance, David Owen or Norman Tebbit, i.e. those still living? I have no juice on either of those people by the way, they were the first random names that came to mind as prominent 80s politicians who are still breathing. I know trying to insert logic into a discussion on the Daily Fail is pointless but still. I didn't see the programme, nor am I likely to, and I'm not suggesting these women aren't necessarily telling the truth, but what evidence do we have besides these two ladies' words? There won't be a trial, there may not even be a report. And even if there was, and he was somehow found innocent, are the Mail going to retract their front page? Hmmm...

Cracking result. Biggest shock so far and fully deserved. Zsa Zsa will be proud.

Don't think they'll be given as much space by Belgium or Italy though. In theory, aye, though I fear the Italians are going to have a shit tournament. Looks like their best chance will be Belgium after tonight's match. That was great fun. Although, if Italy beat Sweden next, they'll be qualified before they face Ireland, so that might help the Irish. On the flip side, next up the Irish face a Belgian side wounded and needing a morale-boosting performance. If they turn it on (and stop playing like a bunch of potentially very talented individuals like they did tonight) then Ireland could be in danger of a thumping. Alternatively, Belgium could crash and burn in this tournament. They were so wasteful tonight. As for Italy, I think that's the best performance I've seen from a side thus far in the competition, especially when you compare oppositions.

If they'd held on then it would have been a cracking result, especially given the other two teams they both have to play. Problem now is if Sweden can nick a win against one of the others Ireland would need to do the same. Might reassess after tonight's match if Italy do turn out to be pretty useless. Just heard that Pelle was top scorer in qualifying with 3. Hardly suggests world beaters...

So...not content with a season of misery playing in defence for Aston Villa, Ciaran Clark takes it upon himself to score an own goal that denies Ireland a win in their first group game at the Euros. I know it's mean but this amused me. The guy must've expected this to be his chance to relax after a season from hell...apparently not.

they should stop races there's obviously a massive safety risk thats endangering their lives. Racing should resume once the problem is fixed. In 2013, 785 people died in car accidents in the UK. Let's ban cars. no problems need to be investaged. If they found a serious fault in a certain model of cars then they are required by law to reposse the car until the problems are fixed. But there are no faults with the bikes. They're not breaking the law, they're all certified safe to ride and the drivers are all physically fit. The only thing that went wrong is they lost control and crashed, which they all knew was a risk going in. I too think too many people die during the TT meeting, but there's no real way to stop it happening. The risk is reasonable, and known going into the event. F1 drivers died or suffered life changing injuries a couple of times a season well into the 80s and no one seriously suggested F1 should be banned.

Regardless of whether the guns were legal or not (and if they were then he hadn't committed a crime until he opened fire) I must say, personally, the headline 'People Shot Dead in USA' carries far too little shock value anymore, which should be a suggestion that there's a bit of an issue. And amidst all the 'Donald Trump was right' rhetoric, I'll note that these 50 people died in the USA, where guns are legal. Apparently the only reason lots of people died in Paris, according to Trump, is because we Europeans have tight gun laws. Your right to bear arms didn't seem to help the 50 people in that club last night.

Is it wrong that the only reason I know Gordie Howe is because he provided the face of 'Woodrow', Edna Krabappel's romantic pen pal in a classic Simpsons episode..?

Yes it could but it could equally be gone in a month. Those Lords look pretty topplesome to me. I think that is part of the tension. It might even outlive by-election bingo. I made this point on submission. It's been hard trying to decide which Doctor Who actors might die because I'm not sure if we're talking 6 months, 1 year or 3 years. Bernard Cribbins is clearly in fine fettle but he could suffer some kind of setback early next year and suddenly he looks a good pick. Or it might not be relevant because the game's already over! I reckon this will go longer than we think (those Lords have a surprising propensity to longevity). Unique picks may be the saving grace, three deaths that somehow everyone else avoided and boom! We're done.

You might want to rephrase that. Fair point, but however you want to put it, I reckon there's a decent chance the one-legged, blind, bedridden, 99-year-old open chequebook will still be drawing breath by June 2017.

Excellent analysis. Is California really that close? (CarolAnn care to volunteer anything you've heard?) All I would add is that I'll accept Bernie (and his supporters') argument that superdelegates are unconstitutional, or undemocratic, or whatever his beef is with them this week. Furthermore, I'll remove every last superdelegate from the contest. Can't say fairer than that. In that event, that brings the number of delegates needed to a little over 2000 (around 2026 if you want to be exact). Hillary is currently on 1811 pledged delegates. Which means a further 200 from tomorrow's contests would give her a majority of the pledged delegates. With California having 475 pledged delegates, even if we roughly split them 50-50, then that still gives Hillary the 237 she needs to clinch the nomination. Oh, and since we can't do this and the superdelegates have to count, we'll do the only thing Bernie actually expects, which is that superdelegates of states he's won vote for him on the first ballot. Perfectly fair request to make (though not one that Hillary asked for, nor expected in 2008). So let's do that. States Hillary has won: Iowa (8 superdelegates), Nevada (8), South Carolina (6), American Samoa (5), Arkansas (5), Georgia (15), Massachusetts (24), Tennessee (8), Texas (29), Virginia (14), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (5), Northern Marianas (5), Florida (32), Illinois (26), Missouri (13), North Carolina (14), Ohio (17), Arizona (10), New York (44), Connecticut (16), Delaware (10), Maryland (24), Pennsylvania (21), Guam (5), Kentucky (5), Virgin Islands (5) and Puerto Rico (7) = 389 superdelegates States Bernie has won: New Hampshire (8 superdelegates), Colorado (12), Minnesota (16), Oklahoma (4), Vermont (10), Kansas (4), Nebraska (5), Maine (5), Dems Abroad (4), Michigan (17), Idaho (4), Utah (4), Alaska (4), Hawaii (10), Washington (17), Wisconsin (10), Wyoming (4), Rhode Island (9), Indiana (9), West Virginia (8) and Oregon (13) = 177 superdelegates. So Hillary has a net lead of 222 superdelegates even if they vote according to state lines. In that scenario, Hillary starts tomorrow night on 2200 (rather than 2359) and needs a further 183 delegates tomorrow night, again eminently reachable even with less than half of California's stockpile. Furthermore, Bernie won binding caucuses in both Nebraska and Washington, while Hillary won non-binding primaries in both those states. Add the numbers together and you get something interesting: Nebraska caucus for Hillary (14340) + primary for Hillary (42665) = 57005 votes. Nebraska caucus for Bernie (19120) + primary for Bernie (37705) = 56825 votes. Washington caucus for Hillary (7140) + primary for Hillary (416463) = 423603 votes. Washington caucus for Bernie (19159) + primary for Bernie (378364) = 397523 votes. In both states, over both contests Hillary polled better but Bernie won the delegates. So: Hillary has more votes than Bernie (13.2 million-10.2 million), Hillary has won more contests than Bernie (29-21), Hillary has won 8/10 of the biggest states (Bernie won Michigan, California votes tomorrow), Hillary has more pledged delegates than Bernie (1811-1526), Hillary has more superdelegates than Bernie (548-46) and even if we distribute the superdelegates 'fairly' (i.e. how Senator Sanders would like them distributed) she would still get more, and even if there were no superdelegates, she'd be on the cusp of the nomination anyway. The game isn't rigged, you simply played it and lost! Finally: What?! You're telling me 17% of US Virgin Islands Democratic voters don't get a voice at the convention?! What kind of democracy is this?! Tomorrow night's speech by Bernie will be enormous.

Ah don't say that. She was a possibility for my Doctor Who list on Biblio's new Scavenger Hunt but I saw her appear in Florence Foster Jenkins at the cinema last month and she looked great so I took her out of the running. Think she's still got a few years left in her yet old Mavis.

And as has been asked elsewhere, Where on Earth is Magere Hein? Muhammad Ali is a major hit on his eponymous deadpool. And I'm not sure he's really surfaced since that game began, but having only just started it, one assumes his absence was not intended...

Obviously the race is still for 2nd and 3rd (and just generally to see how many peg it before June 21st) but I'm more interested to see if any of our 21 (now 20) are still breathing to enter Maryport's Midsummer Madness 2017. As the proud enterer of Zsa Zsa, I'd lay even odds I'll be able to use her again next year, as illogical as that statement sounds.

Gazza to be charged with racially aggravated abuse following one of his shows after a joke made about a black security guard. Yet more stress.

RIP Ali. I kinda had a feeling that this was one battle too far and so it proved to be. He was arrogant SOB but had the talent to back it up and also had a wicked sense of humour, never taking himself too seriously. His decline over the past 30 years has been sad to see. After seeing him at the 2012 Opening Ceremony I'm frankly amazed he's lasted this long. A huge death in a year of huge deaths and for sheer force of personality a bigger sporting death than Johan Cruyff, although both were masters of their profession who changed their sports forever. Not yet 6 months in, I fear there are some other shocks to come. Rest in peace GOAT.

Hate to point this out, but having too much time on my hands I've noticed Deathray appears to only have 4 cricketers.

Is this a hint that he doesn't expect to make it to a 50th anniversary bash in 2019? Odd to have a big event marking 47 years since the moon landing.