Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at least
it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing some
cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two games
had been far from certain.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>games had been far from certain.

I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
day two - with the match presumably finishing on Tuesday - or if the
match will be abandoned. I imagine that rearranging it for later in the
month would be impractical, if only because of the difficulty of
arranging for the necessary stewards and catering at short notice. If
it's abandoned, the ECB will be badly out of pocket, as not only will
all those who bought tickets have to be refunded but presumably the
buyers of the TV and radio rights too.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 6:19:39 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at least
> it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing some
> cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two games
> had been far from certain.

Hopefully it will be dry but cloudy tomorrow as we're bowling first.
Brook gets his debut. RSA make 4 changes, Jensen who shouldnt
have been left out, is back plus Kayazondo who is the son of the
RSA chief justice. At 32 hes been waiting a while for his chance.
Mulder and Rickelton come in having scored heavily in the CC.

mike

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 9:19:44 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
> >least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
> >some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
> >games had been far from certain.
> I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
> the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
> play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
> day two - with the match presumably finishing on Tuesday - or if the
> match will be abandoned. I imagine that rearranging it for later in the
> month would be impractical, if only because of the difficulty of
> arranging for the necessary stewards and catering at short notice. If
> it's abandoned, the ECB will be badly out of pocket, as not only will
> all those who bought tickets have to be refunded but presumably the
> buyers of the TV and radio rights too.
> --

totally ridiculous decision IMHO. They took all the progs off air for
endless dull stuff about QE2. I was looking forward to seeing the
athletics finals from zurich. Surely having the first day rained off is
enough disruption. I hope those with tickets sue the ECB.

mike

In message <86f14fe7-0942-4cf4-b65e-8dd30c6be354n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 9:19:44 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>> >Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>> >least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>> >some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>> >games had been far from certain.
>> I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
>> the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
>> play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
>> day two - with the match presumably finishing on Tuesday - or if the
>> match will be abandoned. I imagine that rearranging it for later in the
>> month would be impractical, if only because of the difficulty of
>> arranging for the necessary stewards and catering at short notice. If
>> it's abandoned, the ECB will be badly out of pocket, as not only will
>> all those who bought tickets have to be refunded but presumably the
>> buyers of the TV and radio rights too.
>
>totally ridiculous decision IMHO.

It seems to be in line with what most other professional sports events
are doing.

> They took all the progs off air for
>endless dull stuff about QE2. I was looking forward to seeing the
>athletics finals from zurich. Surely having the first day rained off is
>enough disruption. I hope those with tickets sue the ECB.

Since they will be getting a refund, I'm not sure whether they would
have the grounds to do that, though I suppose many will already have
paid for hotels and train tickets and be badly out of pocket. But so
will those who hoped to see today's play which was rained off.

Given the weather forecast there might not have been much play tomorrow
anyway, so having it called off might actually improve the chances of
getting a result, assuming that the lost day is reinstated at the end of
the match.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <86f14fe7-0942-4cf4...@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 9:19:44 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> >> In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> >> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >> >Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
> >> >least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
> >> >some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
> >> >games had been far from certain.
> >> I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
> >> the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
> >> play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
> >> day two - with the match presumably finishing on Tuesday - or if the
> >> match will be abandoned. I imagine that rearranging it for later in the
> >> month would be impractical, if only because of the difficulty of
> >> arranging for the necessary stewards and catering at short notice. If
> >> it's abandoned, the ECB will be badly out of pocket, as not only will
> >> all those who bought tickets have to be refunded but presumably the
> >> buyers of the TV and radio rights too.
> >
> >totally ridiculous decision IMHO.
>
> It seems to be in line with what most other professional sports events
> are doing.
> > They took all the progs off air for
> >endless dull stuff about QE2. I was looking forward to seeing the
> >athletics finals from zurich. Surely having the first day rained off is
> >enough disruption. I hope those with tickets sue the ECB.
> Since they will be getting a refund, I'm not sure whether they would
> have the grounds to do that, though I suppose many will already have
> paid for hotels and train tickets and be badly out of pocket. But so
> will those who hoped to see today's play which was rained off.
>
> Given the weather forecast there might not have been much play tomorrow
> anyway, so having it called off might actually improve the chances of
> getting a result, assuming that the lost day is reinstated at the end of
> the match.
> --

but that might not be good news for england, if saturday is the 2nd
[or is it 1st day now], as it might be fine and good batting conditions
etc, not what stokes expected when he put RSA in on thursday.

mike

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:54:55 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <86f14fe7-0942-4cf4-b65e-8dd30c6be354n@googlegroups.com>,
>mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 9:19:44 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>>> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>> >Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>>> >least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>>> >some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>>> >games had been far from certain.
>>> I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
>>> the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
>>> play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
>>> day two - with the match presumably finishing on Tuesday - or if the
>>> match will be abandoned. I imagine that rearranging it for later in the
>>> month would be impractical, if only because of the difficulty of
>>> arranging for the necessary stewards and catering at short notice. If
>>> it's abandoned, the ECB will be badly out of pocket, as not only will
>>> all those who bought tickets have to be refunded but presumably the
>>> buyers of the TV and radio rights too.
>>
>>totally ridiculous decision IMHO.
>
>It seems to be in line with what most other professional sports events
>are doing.

It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
state dies in office very often in any country.

It seems entirely appropriate to me that the day after the head of
state dies should be devoted to respect/mourning, in that heads of
state are supposed to in some way symbolise the whole nation, and if
nationhood means anything at all, then a nation should pay its
respects as we do when our parents die.

It's the polite thing to do.

And I can understand her going now too. After appointing Doris Johnson
as the new PM, she probably lost the will to live.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6urasm20ii96hn7tlvp@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
>arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
>inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
>state dies in office very often in any country.

The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
have an elected one. That would inevitably bring politics into it, and I
think there's a big advantage in having a non-political head of state,
as it avoids the risk of those with different politics disrespecting
whoever it is. It will be interesting to see if Charles can walk the
tightrope of never making a political pronouncement with as much skill
as his mother.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:06:51 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6u...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
> >arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
> >inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
> >state dies in office very often in any country.
> The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
> have an elected one. That would inevitably bring politics into it, and I
> think there's a big advantage in having a non-political head of state,
> as it avoids the risk of those with different politics disrespecting
> whoever it is. It will be interesting to see if Charles can walk the
> tightrope of never making a political pronouncement with as much skill
> as his mother.
> --
> John Hall
> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/the-utilitarian-case-for-the-monarchy/

The utilitarian case for the monarchy

Robert Henderson

The utilitarian case for the monarchy is not about pageantry, deference or the vulgar belief that it is worth keeping because it acts as a tourist magnet. It is not about the cost of the monarchy compared with a president. It is not about whether the individual members of the Royal family are worthy beings or if its very existence is an insult to ideas of politically correct equality. The utilitarian case is purely political: our monarchy underpins Parliamentary government.

In resisting the abuse of the many by the few, Britain begins with the great advantages of a parliamentary system and an in practice non-executive head of state chosen by a means utterly outside political manipulation short of the outright criminality of murder, blackmail, illicit threats and bribery, namely birth. These provide a massive barricade against a Prime Minister who would be a despot. He cannot act without the support of an elected parliamentary majority. His cabinet in practice must be overwhelmingly drawn from elected politicians. He may change his cabinet but he cannot do so without regard to a cabinet member’s status and popularity within the party on whose support he depends.

Most importantly, the prime minister (or any other politician) cannot become head of state. This is of central importance, because whether the powers of a president be executive or ceremonial, the mere existence of the office of president provides an avenue for those who would subvert parliamentary control of the executive. The example of De Gaulle in France
in the early years of the Fifth Republic demonstrates how easily a President’s powers may be extended by the overtly democratic means of a referendum against the wishes of a Parliament. As things stand, a would be British dictator would have to do one of two things. The constitutionally legitimate path would require him to first persuade Parliament to
adopt the idea of an executive presidential system and then win the backing of the electorate for a change to a presidential system either through a referendum or an electoral mandate. His illegitimate path would consist of either a referendum put to the country against the wishes of Parliament or an outright coup backed by the military and police.

This is not to say that a prime minister equipped with a large majority cannot have a great deal of freedom and personal power. Both Thatcher and Blair achieved this. But however big their majority or great their personal authority they could not routinely make policy without some regard to the wishes of their ministers, backbenchers and the electorate. Whatever dark thoughts Thatcher may have had about mass immigration or membership of the EU, she was in practice hamstrung in doing anything about it by the opposition of powerful ministers such as Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe. Tony Blair’s desire to severely reduce the welfare state was thwarted over many years by his Chancellor Gordon Brown. To those leashes on their dictatorial desires can be added the fact that both Thatcher and Blair left office before they wanted to as a result of dissent amongst their parliamentary parties. Had either been an elected president operating outside parliament, neither would have been removed before the end of their term of office.

A parliamentary system such as that of Britain has other restraints on abuses of power. First-past-the-post elections based on constituencies means that MPs are not solely beholden to their party elite s as is the case with a party list system, and general elections, at least since 1945, have normally produced a single party with a majority in the House of Commons.
This latter fact means that the vast majority of modern British government have not been able to fail to honour their manifestos on the grounds that they were part of a coalition.

If a demand for a president arose in Britain there would be an opportunity for those pressing for such a change to seek an executive president with the executive removed from Parliament on the grounds that it was “more democratic” and provided a check on the power of the executive.. . Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should look at the American experience where the powers of the president are constrained by a division of powers outlined in a written constitution administered by a supreme court. The President appoints his cabinet subject only to the agreement of the Senate, the President’s nominees being normally accepted. Supreme Court judges are also nominated by serving presidents and vetted by the Senate. These nominations meet more Senate opposition, but most of those nominated are passed and if one is rejected, the President still gets to nominate an alternative. That means a president will broadly speaking get a judge into the court who is sympathetic to the president’s political views. As Supreme Court judges are elected for life, a president
who is able to get even two new judges onto the court may affect its political bias for decades.

Even if a supposedly non-executive president was adopted with the executive remaining in Parliament, the relationship between the prime minster and head of state would be different. If the president was elected, there would be a second font of democratic authority regardless of the president’s powers. This would mean that there would be a constant temptation for a powerful politician to get themselves or a stooge elected to the presidency and then use their control of Parliament to increase the president’s powers. If the president was simply appointed by politicians a prime minster with a large majority could either take the presidency themselves and use his parliamentary control to increase his powers or place a stooge in as president, use Parliament to increase the presidential powers then control the stooge.

None of this is to pretend that the British system of government is perfect for the executive has found many ways of thwarting proper parliamentary oversight and control . The way it does this is fivefold (1) the entanglement of Britain in treaties, most devastatingly those related to the EU, which remove sovereign power from not only Parliament but Britain; (2) the increasing grip of party elites on the selection of candidates for Westminster seats, something of particular importance with the rise of the career politician who has never done
a job outside of politics; (3) an ever swelling use of secondary legislation, particularly statutory instruments, which provide much less opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation; (4) the increasing appointment of peers as ministers and non-politicians as “Tsars” for particular policy areas and (5) the use of the Royal Prerogative by prime ministers.

There are ready cures for these ills. Treaties could be repudiated to regain sovereignty; the power of selection of Parliamentary candidates invested solely in local constituency parties would greatly reduce the power of party elites; a requirement that a Parliamentary candidate should have ten years work experience unconnected with politics before being able to stand for Parliament would end the career politician; withdrawal from the EU would greatly reduce the amount of secondary legislation and increased time to scrutinise what was left and the use of peers and non-politicians banned.

That leaves the Royal Prerogative which represents a particularly danger to democratic control because the powers exercisable under it are large. This is because of the long, organic
development of the relationship between Parliament and the Crown, the powers and rights of the Crown are little circumscribed by law, although most, and all the important ones, are now invested in practice in the office of PM.. The dissolution or proroguing of Parliament and the calling of elections are by the prerogative. The PM and his ministers are appointed by
the Crown. In principle, the monarch could appoint a Government in which none of its members sat in Parliament. No Bill can become a law without the monarch’s signature. Treaties and the making of war and peace can and are made without the assent of Parliament. All foreign relations are in principle within the monarch’s remit. Justice is the monarch’s. The Monarch can do no wrong. Many senior state appointments such as appointments to the higher judiciary and bishoprics are one by the prerogative. The monarch is head of the armed forces. There is prerogative power which allows the Crown to expropriate or requisition private property (with proper compensation) in time of war or apprehension of war. The Crown has limited powers of legislation under the prerogative, principally as respects the civil service and UK dependent territories. This legislation is made by Orders in Council, ordinance, letters patent and royal warrant. A ragbag of other rights such as treasure trove and bona vacantia (the reversion to the Crown of property where there is no inheritor) and arcane rights such as the monarch’s right to (most) swans also exists.

On 2022-09-09, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
> have an elected one. That would inevitably bring politics into it, and I
> think there's a big advantage in having a non-political head of state,
> as it avoids the risk of those with different politics disrespecting
> whoever it is. It will be interesting to see if Charles can walk the
> tightrope of never making a political pronouncement with as much skill
> as his mother.

unlikely I'd have thought

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:01:50 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6urasm20ii96hn7tlvp@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
>>arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
>>inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
>>state dies in office very often in any country.
>
>The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
>have an elected one.

Tell that to the Germans, the Italians and anywhere else where the
parliament appoints the head of state.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:15:47 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>>least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>>some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>>games had been far from certain.
>
>I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
>the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
>play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
>day two

.... or day three.

The problem with extending to Tuesday is that the SA squad have plane
tickets for Tuesday, and making alternative travel arrangements may be
very difficult given the chaos in the air travel sphere.

Cheers,

Mike

On 9/9/2022 2:46 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:06:51 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6u...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>>> It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
>>> arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
>>> inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
>>> state dies in office very often in any country.
>> The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
>> have an elected one. That would inevitably bring politics into it, and I
>> think there's a big advantage in having a non-political head of state,
>> as it avoids the risk of those with different politics disrespecting
>> whoever it is. It will be interesting to see if Charles can walk the
>> tightrope of never making a political pronouncement with as much skill
>> as his mother.
>> --
>> John Hall
>> "Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
>> But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
>> Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
>
> https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/the-utilitarian-case-for-the-monarchy/
>
> The utilitarian case for the monarchy
>
> Robert Henderson
>
> The utilitarian case for the monarchy is not about pageantry, deference or the vulgar belief that it is worth keeping because it acts as a tourist magnet. It is not about the cost of the monarchy compared with a president. It is not about whether the individual members of the Royal family are worthy beings or if its very existence is an insult to ideas of politically correct equality. The utilitarian case is purely political: our monarchy underpins Parliamentary government.
>
> In resisting the abuse of the many by the few, Britain begins with the great advantages of a parliamentary system and an in practice non-executive head of state chosen by a means utterly outside political manipulation short of the outright criminality of murder, blackmail, illicit threats and bribery, namely birth. These provide a massive barricade against a Prime Minister who would be a despot. He cannot act without the support of an elected parliamentary majority. His cabinet in practice must be overwhelmingly drawn from elected politicians. He may change his cabinet but he cannot do so without regard to a cabinet member’s status and popularity within the party on whose support he depends.
>
> Most importantly, the prime minister (or any other politician) cannot become head of state. This is of central importance, because whether the powers of a president be executive or ceremonial, the mere existence of the office of president provides an avenue for those who would subvert parliamentary control of the executive. The example of De Gaulle in France
> in the early years of the Fifth Republic demonstrates how easily a President’s powers may be extended by the overtly democratic means of a referendum against the wishes of a Parliament. As things stand, a would be British dictator would have to do one of two things. The constitutionally legitimate path would require him to first persuade Parliament to
> adopt the idea of an executive presidential system and then win the backing of the electorate for a change to a presidential system either through a referendum or an electoral mandate. His illegitimate path would consist of either a referendum put to the country against the wishes of Parliament or an outright coup backed by the military and police.
>
> This is not to say that a prime minister equipped with a large majority cannot have a great deal of freedom and personal power. Both Thatcher and Blair achieved this. But however big their majority or great their personal authority they could not routinely make policy without some regard to the wishes of their ministers, backbenchers and the electorate. Whatever dark thoughts Thatcher may have had about mass immigration or membership of the EU, she was in practice hamstrung in doing anything about it by the opposition of powerful ministers such as Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe. Tony Blair’s desire to severely reduce the welfare state was thwarted over many years by his Chancellor Gordon Brown. To those leashes on their dictatorial desires can be added the fact that both Thatcher and Blair left office before they wanted to as a result of dissent amongst their parliamentary parties. Had either been an elected president operating outside parliament, neither would have been removed before the end of their term of office.
>
> A parliamentary system such as that of Britain has other restraints on abuses of power. First-past-the-post elections based on constituencies means that MPs are not solely beholden to their party elite s as is the case with a party list system, and general elections, at least since 1945, have normally produced a single party with a majority in the House of Commons.
> This latter fact means that the vast majority of modern British government have not been able to fail to honour their manifestos on the grounds that they were part of a coalition.
>
> If a demand for a president arose in Britain there would be an opportunity for those pressing for such a change to seek an executive president with the executive removed from Parliament on the grounds that it was “more democratic” and provided a check on the power of the executive. . Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should look at the American experience where the powers of the president are constrained by a division of powers outlined in a written constitution administered by a supreme court. The President appoints his cabinet subject only to the agreement of the Senate, the President’s nominees being normally accepted. Supreme Court judges are also nominated by serving presidents and vetted by the Senate. These nominations meet more Senate opposition, but most of those nominated are passed and if one is rejected, the President still gets to nominate an alternative. That means a president will broadly speaking get a judge into the court who is sympathetic to the president’s political views. As Supreme Court judges are elected for life, a president
> who is able to get even two new judges onto the court may affect its political bias for decades.
>
> Even if a supposedly non-executive president was adopted with the executive remaining in Parliament, the relationship between the prime minster and head of state would be different. If the president was elected, there would be a second font of democratic authority regardless of the president’s powers. This would mean that there would be a constant temptation for a powerful politician to get themselves or a stooge elected to the presidency and then use their control of Parliament to increase the president’s powers. If the president was simply appointed by politicians a prime minster with a large majority could either take the presidency themselves and use his parliamentary control to increase his powers or place a stooge in as president, use Parliament to increase the presidential powers then control the stooge.
>
> None of this is to pretend that the British system of government is perfect for the executive has found many ways of thwarting proper parliamentary oversight and control . The way it does this is fivefold (1) the entanglement of Britain in treaties, most devastatingly those related to the EU, which remove sovereign power from not only Parliament but Britain; (2) the increasing grip of party elites on the selection of candidates for Westminster seats, something of particular importance with the rise of the career politician who has never done
> a job outside of politics; (3) an ever swelling use of secondary legislation, particularly statutory instruments, which provide much less opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation; (4) the increasing appointment of peers as ministers and non-politicians as “Tsars” for particular policy areas and (5) the use of the Royal Prerogative by prime ministers.
>
> There are ready cures for these ills. Treaties could be repudiated to regain sovereignty; the power of selection of Parliamentary candidates invested solely in local constituency parties would greatly reduce the power of party elites; a requirement that a Parliamentary candidate should have ten years work experience unconnected with politics before being able to stand for Parliament would end the career politician; withdrawal from the EU would greatly reduce the amount of secondary legislation and increased time to scrutinise what was left and the use of peers and non-politicians banned.
>
> That leaves the Royal Prerogative which represents a particularly danger to democratic control because the powers exercisable under it are large. This is because of the long, organic
> development of the relationship between Parliament and the Crown, the powers and rights of the Crown are little circumscribed by law, although most, and all the important ones, are now invested in practice in the office of PM. The dissolution or proroguing of Parliament and the calling of elections are by the prerogative. The PM and his ministers are appointed by
> the Crown. In principle, the monarch could appoint a Government in which none of its members sat in Parliament. No Bill can become a law without the monarch’s signature. Treaties and the making of war and peace can and are made without the assent of Parliament. All foreign relations are in principle within the monarch’s remit. Justice is the monarch’s. The Monarch can do no wrong. Many senior state appointments such as appointments to the higher judiciary and bishoprics are one by the prerogative. The monarch is head of the armed forces. There is prerogative power which allows the Crown to expropriate or requisition private property (with proper compensation) in time of war or apprehension of war. The Crown has limited powers of legislation under the prerogative, principally as respects the civil service and UK dependent territories. This legislation is made by Orders in Council, ordinance, letters patent and royal warrant. A ragbag of other rights such as treasure trove and bona vacantia (the reversion to the Crown of property where there is no inheritor) and arcane rights such as the monarch’s right to (most) swans also exists.
>
> The simplest thing would be to cancel all prerogative rights which have a serious political dimension. This would reduce greatly the power of the PM and consequently pass power to Parliament. Such powers as are left to the monarch should be laid down clearly in law. That would do a great deal to increase the power of Parliament and the ordinary member.
> However, more could be done without producing a situation which would leave a Parliament with an executive unable to act. I would ban the whipping of MPs, restrict the size of government to reduce the government “payroll vote” ( modern governments draw in more than 100 MPs) and make the justice system truly independent by removing the political officers – Lord Chancellor, Attorney-General and Solicitor-General – from the process of justice.
>
> The banning of whips would not mean a government with a working majority was constantly defeated because most party members will vote for their party programme. Governments would have to get used to accepting the odd defeat on even important policies as a fact of life not a cause to call a motion of confidence. The reduction of the “payroll vote” would lead
> to more independent minded backbenchers who would see being a backbencher as an honourable and worthwhile end it itself. The removal of the politicians from the process of justice is necessary to observe natural justice.
>
> Two other things would be s desirable as a check on the executive: a written constitution designed not to promote a political agenda but to protect democratic control and prevent governments from undertaking anti-democratic policies or reckless behaviour which self-evidently will be damaging to the country.

Click here to read the complete article

In message <NFESK.121827$vSy3.68994@usenetxs.com>, johnson
<root@example.net> writes
>On 2022-09-09, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>> The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
>> have an elected one. That would inevitably bring politics into it, and I
>> think there's a big advantage in having a non-political head of state,
>> as it avoids the risk of those with different politics disrespecting
>> whoever it is. It will be interesting to see if Charles can walk the
>> tightrope of never making a political pronouncement with as much skill
>> as his mother.
>
>unlikely I'd have thought

I'm inclined to agree.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In message <6j9mhh5amdijsha1puf5kvaurlq9pij4r2@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:01:50 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6urasm20ii96hn7tlvp@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
>>>arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
>>>inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
>>>state dies in office very often in any country.
>>
>>The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
>>have an elected one.
>
>Tell that to the Germans, the Italians and anywhere else where the
>parliament appoints the head of state.

Aren't they effectively elected by the members of those parliaments? And
of course those members of parliament have themselves been elected.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In message <okgmhh5asg2h4joaljkq4fvs2r7h6u1r08@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:15:47 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>><john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>>Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>>>least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>>>some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>>>games had been far from certain.
>>
>>I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
>>the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
>>play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
>>day two
>
>... or day three.
>
>The problem with extending to Tuesday is that the SA squad have plane
>tickets for Tuesday, and making alternative travel arrangements may be
>very difficult given the chaos in the air travel sphere.

Yes, it's apparently now been decided that Monday will be the last day,
making it effectively a three-day Test, which is a shame (even though
the first two Tests seemed to be making a case for 3-day matches).
Because of the time lost to rain on day 1, they will notionally be
playing 98 overs per day, but even if the light allows them to play till
seven each day I can't see them all being bowled.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:41:08 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <6j9mhh5amdijsha1puf5kvaurlq9pij4r2@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:01:50 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6urasm20ii96hn7tlvp@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>>It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
>>>>arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
>>>>inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
>>>>state dies in office very often in any country.
>>>
>>>The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
>>>have an elected one.
>>
>>Tell that to the Germans, the Italians and anywhere else where the
>>parliament appoints the head of state.
>
>Aren't they effectively elected by the members of those parliaments? And
>of course those members of parliament have themselves been elected.

It tends not to be an actual election in any recognisable form. Since
the job is ceremonial and supposed to go to someone above the
political fray, it's stitched up by the leaders of the parliamentary
factions as someone mutually acceptable to everybody. Such powers as
they have consist of being the referee if someone thinks there should
be an election, so it's in everyone's interest to have someone as near
to absolutely neutral as possible. Having identified some neutral
people, they then consider which one they think would present the best
image when attending meetings for heads of state and their funerals.

It's political in a sense; what it isn't is partisan.

It's nothing like electing an executive head of state such as they
have in France or the USA, which is a dreadful system.

Cheers,

Mike

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:57:11 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 16:41:08 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <6j9mhh5amdijsha1puf5kvaurlq9pij4r2@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 10:01:50 +0100, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <l3pkhh1vkg0avff6urasm20ii96hn7tlvp@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>>><spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>>>It doesn't happen often in countries which have more sensible
>>>>>arrangements for appointing a head of state, and although it's
>>>>>inevitable if the office is hereditary, it's not as though the head of
>>>>>state dies in office very often in any country.
>>>>
>>>>The only alternative to a hereditary head of state would seem to be to
>>>>have an elected one.
>>>
>>>Tell that to the Germans, the Italians and anywhere else where the
>>>parliament appoints the head of state.
>>
>>Aren't they effectively elected by the members of those parliaments? And
>>of course those members of parliament have themselves been elected.
>
>It tends not to be an actual election in any recognisable form. Since
>the job is ceremonial and supposed to go to someone above the
>political fray, it's stitched up by the leaders of the parliamentary
>factions as someone mutually acceptable to everybody. Such powers as
>they have consist of being the referee if someone thinks there should
>be an election, so it's in everyone's interest to have someone as near
>to absolutely neutral as possible. Having identified some neutral
>people, they then consider which one they think would present the best
>image when attending meetings for heads of state and their funerals.
>

Des Higgins best wee president ever. He spoke to me at Malahide,
Ireland V England match. He said hello and gave a polite nod and
smile. I was surprised and managed 'alright boy' in reply.
Tip: Des is short in height and his sidekick is a huge big military
guy in uniform - try not to stare and they'll not notice you.

Douglas Hyde was booted out of the GAA because he attended (as Irish
president) an association football match.He was also usurped from the
Gaelic league (which he co- founded) by Pearce in favour of a more
nationalistic and aggressive approach to the organisation.
Being neutral doesn't help when others have decided to neuter your
efforts.

max.it

>It's political in a sense; what it isn't is partisan.
>
>It's nothing like electing an executive head of state such as they
>have in France or the USA, which is a dreadful system.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:57:19 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <okgmhh5asg2h4joal...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:15:47 +0100, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> >><john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >>>Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
> >>>least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
> >>>some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
> >>>games had been far from certain.
> >>
> >>I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
> >>the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
> >>play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
> >>day two
> >
> >... or day three.
> >
> >The problem with extending to Tuesday is that the SA squad have plane
> >tickets for Tuesday, and making alternative travel arrangements may be
> >very difficult given the chaos in the air travel sphere.
> Yes, it's apparently now been decided that Monday will be the last day,
> making it effectively a three-day Test, which is a shame (even though
> the first two Tests seemed to be making a case for 3-day matches).
> Because of the time lost to rain on day 1, they will notionally be
> playing 98 overs per day, but even if the light allows them to play till
> seven each day I can't see them all being bowled.
> --

the guidance on this matter was that no special measures needed to be
taken for mourning her death. i hear the footy fans are very angry
with so many games being cancelled plus those that want to mark
the death were hoping to show that at the next match. What better way
to mark the passing of a monarch than a minutes silence before the
tatooed yobs kick a ball about?

OTOH if england get rolled over by RSA in the time left, we may wish it
had been called off.

Judging by the tributes by various bigwigs around the world, QE2
had much more respect and even affection than any of our
rubbish politicians.

mike

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:00:30 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:57:19 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <okgmhh5asg2h4joal...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>> >On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:15:47 +0100, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>> >><john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>> >>>Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>> >>>least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>> >>>some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>> >>>games had been far from certain.
>> >>
>> >>I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
>> >>the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
>> >>play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
>> >>day two
>> >
>> >... or day three.
>> >
>> >The problem with extending to Tuesday is that the SA squad have plane
>> >tickets for Tuesday, and making alternative travel arrangements may be
>> >very difficult given the chaos in the air travel sphere.
>> Yes, it's apparently now been decided that Monday will be the last day,
>> making it effectively a three-day Test, which is a shame (even though
>> the first two Tests seemed to be making a case for 3-day matches).
>> Because of the time lost to rain on day 1, they will notionally be
>> playing 98 overs per day, but even if the light allows them to play till
>> seven each day I can't see them all being bowled.
>> --
>
>the guidance on this matter was that no special measures needed to be
>taken for mourning her death. i hear the footy fans are very angry
>with so many games being cancelled plus those that want to mark
>the death were hoping to show that at the next match. What better way
>to mark the passing of a monarch than a minutes silence before the
>tatooed yobs kick a ball about?
>
>OTOH if england get rolled over by RSA in the time left, we may wish it
>had been called off.
>
>Judging by the tributes by various bigwigs around the world, QE2
>had much more respect and even affection than any of our
>rubbish politicians.
>
>mike

You got that right. I was listening to Joe Duffy live line show on RTE
Radio and almost all of his callers were stressed to the hilt on
Wednesday and today they were calling in and relating QE2 experiences.

max.it

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:38:31 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:00:30 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:57:19 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> >> In message <okgmhh5asg2h4joal...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
> >> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
> >> >On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:15:47 +0100, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
> >> >><john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
> >> >>>Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
> >> >>>least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
> >> >>>some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
> >> >>>games had been far from certain.
> >> >>
> >> >>I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
> >> >>the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
> >> >>play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
> >> >>day two
> >> >
> >> >... or day three.
> >> >
> >> >The problem with extending to Tuesday is that the SA squad have plane
> >> >tickets for Tuesday, and making alternative travel arrangements may be
> >> >very difficult given the chaos in the air travel sphere.
> >> Yes, it's apparently now been decided that Monday will be the last day,
> >> making it effectively a three-day Test, which is a shame (even though
> >> the first two Tests seemed to be making a case for 3-day matches).
> >> Because of the time lost to rain on day 1, they will notionally be
> >> playing 98 overs per day, but even if the light allows them to play till
> >> seven each day I can't see them all being bowled.
> >> --
> >
> >the guidance on this matter was that no special measures needed to be
> >taken for mourning her death. i hear the footy fans are very angry
> >with so many games being cancelled plus those that want to mark
> >the death were hoping to show that at the next match. What better way
> >to mark the passing of a monarch than a minutes silence before the
> >tatooed yobs kick a ball about?
> >
> >OTOH if england get rolled over by RSA in the time left, we may wish it
> >had been called off.
> >
> >Judging by the tributes by various bigwigs around the world, QE2
> >had much more respect and even affection than any of our
> >rubbish politicians.
> >
> >mike
> You got that right. I was listening to Joe Duffy live line show on RTE
> Radio and almost all of his callers were stressed to the hilt on
> Wednesday and today they were calling in and relating QE2 experiences.
>
>
> max.it

I didnt realise until now that the Oval is owned by the duchy of Cornwall.
I think KC3 should have told them to play on chaps, business as normal,
keep calm and carry on, that sort of thing

mike

On 10/09/2022 11:06, mike wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:38:31 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:00:30 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:57:19 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <okgmhh5asg2h4joal...@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
>>>> <sp...@jackalope.uk> writes
>>>>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 21:15:47 +0100, John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <WZzUsCCWPiGjFwEX@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
>>>>>> <john_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>> Having today's play rained off was tough luck on the crowd, but at
>>>>>>> least it means that Sunday's crowd should have a good chance of seeing
>>>>>>> some cricket, which going by the abbreviated nature of the first two
>>>>>>> games had been far from certain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wrote that before I'd heard about the death of the Queen. Apparently
>>>>>> the ECB have now decided that, as a mark of respect, there will be no
>>>>>> play tomorrow. It's not yet been decided whether Saturday will now be
>>>>>> day two
>>>>>
>>>>> ... or day three.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with extending to Tuesday is that the SA squad have plane
>>>>> tickets for Tuesday, and making alternative travel arrangements may be
>>>>> very difficult given the chaos in the air travel sphere.
>>>> Yes, it's apparently now been decided that Monday will be the last day,
>>>> making it effectively a three-day Test, which is a shame (even though
>>>> the first two Tests seemed to be making a case for 3-day matches).
>>>> Because of the time lost to rain on day 1, they will notionally be
>>>> playing 98 overs per day, but even if the light allows them to play till
>>>> seven each day I can't see them all being bowled.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> the guidance on this matter was that no special measures needed to be
>>> taken for mourning her death. i hear the footy fans are very angry
>>> with so many games being cancelled plus those that want to mark
>>> the death were hoping to show that at the next match. What better way
>>> to mark the passing of a monarch than a minutes silence before the
>>> tatooed yobs kick a ball about?
>>>
>>> OTOH if england get rolled over by RSA in the time left, we may wish it
>>> had been called off.
>>>
>>> Judging by the tributes by various bigwigs around the world, QE2
>>> had much more respect and even affection than any of our
>>> rubbish politicians.
>>>
>>> mike
>> You got that right. I was listening to Joe Duffy live line show on RTE
>> Radio and almost all of his callers were stressed to the hilt on
>> Wednesday and today they were calling in and relating QE2 experiences.
>
> I didnt realise until now that the Oval is owned by the duchy of Cornwall.
> I think KC3 should have told them to play on chaps, business as normal,
> keep calm and carry on, that sort of thing

Surely that would be down to the new duke.

--
David North

In message <6304d60d-b801-467e-8f0c-beacfae91107n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>I didnt realise until now that the Oval is owned by the duchy of
>Cornwall.

Yep. I think Surrey have it on a 99-year lease - which IIRC they renewed
a decade or two ago - so they aren't really restricted by not owning it.

> I think KC3 should have told them to play on chaps, business as
>normal, keep calm and carry on, that sort of thing

Given that two days have already been lost, the umpires did seem rather
eager to go off for bad light. Mike Atherton on Sky felt that the light
was still perfectly adequate.

Still, it seems pretty certain that there will now be a result. Though
England are probably still favourites, they are in nowhere near as good
a position as when they went off for that brief shower. I suppose it
gave SA a chance to regroup, and another strange innings by Stokes
didn't help England's cause. He was back to the Lord's Stokes, when I
wanted the Old Trafford Stokes.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:07:05 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <6304d60d-b801-467e...@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >I didnt realise until now that the Oval is owned by the duchy of
> >Cornwall.
> Yep. I think Surrey have it on a 99-year lease - which IIRC they renewed
> a decade or two ago - so they aren't really restricted by not owning it.
> > I think KC3 should have told them to play on chaps, business as
> >normal, keep calm and carry on, that sort of thing
> Given that two days have already been lost, the umpires did seem rather
> eager to go off for bad light. Mike Atherton on Sky felt that the light
> was still perfectly adequate.
>
> Still, it seems pretty certain that there will now be a result. Though
> England are probably still favourites, they are in nowhere near as good
> a position as when they went off for that brief shower. I suppose it
> gave SA a chance to regroup, and another strange innings by Stokes
> didn't help England's cause. He was back to the Lord's Stokes, when I
> wanted the Old Trafford Stokes.

At 84-2, england seemed heading for a biggish lead, but a few t20 shots
later it all changed. i guess with all the time lost, they felt the need to
go for it but together with the rain break it has let RSA back into the match.

RSA last 4 wkts added 82, ours only 25, its a problem that wont go away.
chasing anything over 150 batting last will be challenging against
the 3 safy quicks on this wkt.

mike

In message <fd4e6191-827d-43ee-9599-24590e92ec04n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>At 84-2, england seemed heading for a biggish lead, but a few t20 shots
>later it all changed. i guess with all the time lost, they felt the
>need to go for it but together with the rain break it has let RSA back
>into the match.

SA's second innings followed a similar course to England's first -
without the T20 shots, of course. I wonder how things might have gone
had Elgar reviewed his lbw decision, where the ball was missing leg
stump by a substantial margin. The umpiring in this match has been
pretty good (decisions on when to go off for bad light aside), but that
decision was a bit of a shocker. Elgar didn't help his cause by seeming
to walk even before the umpire's finger went up.

>
>RSA last 4 wkts added 82, ours only 25, its a problem that wont go
>away.

Not with our current last four batsmen, it won't. But in English
conditions, the three quicks chosen are clearly our best - at any rate
given that neither Woods nor Archer is fit - and had it been a normal
Oval pitch Leach would have been needed.

> chasing anything over 150 batting last will be challenging against the
>3 safy quicks on this wkt.

Luckily we didn't have to chase that many, but England's opening
partnership has proved surprisingly successful. I don't think South
Africa's bowlers used the conditions quite as well as England's, and Lee
in particular needed a fair amount of luck. Crawley played as well as
he's done for quite some time. Perhaps given the licence to be
hyper-aggressive freed him up. Today it was more swing rather than
yesterday's seam movement that the bowlers were getting, and perversely
in SA's second innings there seemed to be more swing after about 20
overs. England setting off at such a pace means that, though they have
97 on the board, their innings is still only 17 overs old.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)