Whilst the shootings in America are undeniably tragic, it's perhaps notable that two killings of media people in a foreign country renowned for its gun crime get huge coverage whereas the shooting of some travellers and a policeman, in nearby France get almost no coverage at all.
If America can take no action after children are shot in cold blood, why would the latest victims give them cause to change their minds?
Someone made that point yesterday and I have to agree. If, as a culture, you can find a way of justifying no change after children are massacred then a couple of people who get shot on TV is just a bit of a blip.
Another point made yesterday was: why did the UK media lead with this shooting as if it was the biggest news story in the world. It was dramatic but it was far from that.
BT Sport and Sky are both doing away with most of their magazine programmes so all you're left with are genuine highlights shows - of the no-talk dirt-cheap kind - and live sport, often with long intros to cover all the news/interviews stuff.
The only exception to that I can think of is Sky's promotion of The Verdict but even that only exists as a direct follow on from one hour of highlights.
... There are now 111 Lib Dem peers and eight MPs,
With rather shows up the absurdity of it all. There are now 826 Lords compared to 650 MPs. Democracy, eh?
Nobody from Ukip, Green, SNP or anyone else gets in this time. But Douglas Hogg, who claimed moat cleaning on expenses, is now a Lord. We can but hope he remains as diligent at claiming as before. Nobody wants a peer with a dirty moat.
Would anything stop Saints, Wigan, Warrington and anyone else who wanted in throwing a small tournament, chairman dip into there pockets to put a modest winner takes all prize pot together to give it some spice.
Would it be covered by insurance, who would ref it etc etc?
Not saying it couldn't be done just that there are probably a fair few 'hidden' things that would need to be sorted.