By this time of the holiday season, shopping is on a 24/7 loop. So if you get a little loopy, well, you might want to step away from the smartphone, the laptop and the credit cards.

“I saw this charge come through on my PayPal and I was like ‘What did I buy?’ ” said Angela Anter, 50, who admits she’s been known to shop online after a few cocktails with friends.

What she bought in August was a subscription box at $40 a month for snacks that fit into a Keto-friendly diet. So far, she’s spent about $200 on snacks, rationalizing that she doesn’t need to cancel the service because she gets to try new treats every month.

A year’s worth of snacks, though, would mean she’s going to be out $480.

Last Christmas, Anter shopped online to spend about $30 on a necklace with an inspirational message, something like “She believed she could, so she did,” for a young woman on her list.

The problem? Shopping when your inhibitions are down means you’re generally not reading the fine print. The necklace, which she ordered in November, didn’t show up in time for Christmas. It didn’t arrive until February. She didn’t pay attention to details like the necklace was being shipped out of China.

“I would never have done that had I not been drinking,” she said.

All sorts of things can throw you for a loop when it comes to the last-minute crunch for gift buying. The 50% off sales are flashing across every single screen — the TV, emails, online websites. Can you really afford to miss out on the next big sale?

Yes, you can buy too much of a good thing. So here’s a look at what can throw you for a loop and drain your wallet:

Ask yourself: Do I need one in every color?

It’s not quite like signing up for the box-of-the-month. But do you really need gloves in every color?

Maybe you found a nice pair of knit gloves for $20, so you started thinking, “Hey maybe I should get one in black, one in red and another in bright yellow.” Maybe you like the feel of a turtleneck that cost $25. But it’s nothing but an old QVC trick to get you to “buy more, save more“ and pick up two or three different colors.

Soon you’ve spent $100 buying one turtleneck after another.

Ask yourself: Do I need it now?

Sometimes, the one name you need to take off the holiday shopping list is your own.

Some shoppers, not naming names, could save enough to cover the winter gas bill by staying away from searching for the right holiday outfit, the perfect shoes, the next half-off deal on anything.

Retailers cook up a string of shopping “holidays“ — stores that open on Thanksgiving, Black Friday door busters, Cyber Monday deals, Green Monday, Free Shipping Day and on and on. All are really excuses to pick up something for someone — and yourself.

No need to panic. If you miss one of these big sales, you can wait until an item goes on sale again. Big screen TVs? Expect a bunch of sales before Super Bowl Sunday.

You’ll regret shopping while tipsy

Roughly a quarter of Americans admit to shopping under the influence, totaling some 53.4 million people, according to a survey released in March by Finder.com, a platform for comparing financial products and finding coupon codes.

The annual survey involved 2,000 American adults.

Collectively, according to the survey, Americans spent $39.4 billion after shopping under the influence in the past 12 months, up from last year’s $30.43 billion. The average spent was $736. Many times, people will buy food, clothing, cigarettes, DVDs or gamble. Some have booked vacations or bought a pet when they were a tad tipsy.

That wine exchange? It’s a pyramid scheme

Click Here: Germany Football Shop

“If gifting one bottle of wine and receiving dozens in return sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is,“ warns the Better Business Bureau.

The BBB is cautioning consumers that such promotions via social media are pyramid schemes where the wine stops flowing once people stop participating in the exchange. And you don’t get your bottles as promised and are out your initial investment.

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service notes that scammers are now using social media to promote illegal pyramid schemes.

Tip: Never give your personal information to strangers. Doing so could contribute to identity theft and other scams.

“One day only” means hurry up and spend

One-day only sales, some offering 50% off all purchases, only encourage people to hurry up and spend money, according to Terrence Daryl Shulman, founder and director of the Shulman Center for Compulsive Theft, Spending and Hoarding in Franklin, Mich.

“They’re upping the ante,“ Shulman said.

“You don’t want to miss this,“ reads one email for Ann Taylor. “Buy more, save more Flash Sale,“ reads another for Chicos.

While signing up for emails can help alert you to discounts, those same emails also create a sense of urgency and may create way too much temptation for someone on a tight budget, Shulman said.

He has said such emails can be “like crack,“ and suggests that those facing financial hardships or dealing with compulsive shopping need to unsubscribe to them.

Shulman, who counsels recovering shopaholics and shoplifters, said compulsive shopping is becoming a growing problem for many people.

Many shopaholics are men, as well, buying DVDs, electronics and other items often online, he said.

“Guys have gotten the bug too,“ he said.

Sometimes, a shopping addiction crops up after a loss, maybe the loss of a job, a death or a bad breakup. Maybe someone is bored with their job or doesn’t have the energy that they used to have in the past.

They may feel more isolated and welcome a chance to interact by shopping.

“Our computers and our phones are our best friends,“ Shulman said. “It’s really pouring gasoline on our addictions.“

One-day and two-day delivery promises can feed a shopping rush too, and, in some, cases the boxes might arrive before you have second thoughts about the order.

“A lot of people don’t like returning something once they’ve got it,“ Shulman said. “They want to get it to you quick before you can change your mind.“

Susan Tompor writes about personal finance for the Detroit Free Press.

In another sign that the true damage wreaked on the lives of ordinary Americans by the Trump administration takes place in the deeps of government agencies, the National Labor Relations Board has just issued a decision significantly narrowing the right of franchise workers to force big companies to take responsibility for their working conditions.

The chief beneficiary of the decision — possibly the only beneficiary — is McDonald’s, which has been fighting for years against the notion that it bears any such responsibility for the more than 800,000 workers on the front lines and the back-of-the-store grills of 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants, almost all of which are owned by franchisees.

On the surface, the decision handed down Thursday affects only 20 McDonald’s workers who were the subject of unfair labor practice complaints the NLRB filed against the giant company in December 2014. But it gives McDonald’s a major victory over the threat that it might share a duty to franchise employees, or that workers might have an easier path to unionization.

NLRB member Lauren McFerran (in dissent)

Of the 20 workers directly affected, three said they had been illegally fired and 17 others said they had been suspended or had their hours slashed because of their activity on behalf of the Fight for $15 movement, which aimed to pressure McDonald’s into raising the wages of its restaurant workers.

But the Obama-era NLRB had originally broadened the case to allege that McDonald’s and numerous franchisees had broken the law by “threatening employees, …interrogating them, and surveilling” their legal union organizing activities.

The NLRB’s goal at the time was to classify McDonald’s as a “joint employer” with its franchisees, which would make the company jointly liable for the labor law violations of the franchise owners.

Under Trump, the NLRB ended the cases with a series of settlements with franchisees providing for back pay for the workers who were fired or had their hours reduced. The workers shared a settlement fund of $171,636, and the franchisees were required to establish another $250,000 fund to cover future violations. But the settlements didn’t impose joint liability on McDonald’s.

When the settlements came before the NLRB administrative law judge overseeing the cases, she balked. Among other points, she found that the agreements didn’t “in any way approximate the remedial effect” of a joint-employer finding, the Obama-era NLRB’s main goal.

The NLRB today comprises four members, with one seat vacant. Three are Trump appointees and the fourth, Lauren McFerran, an Obama appointee. The McDonald’s ruling was decided 2 to 1 with McFerran dissenting and board Chairman John F. Ring not participating.

In its decision, the Trump majority overruled the judge, fully buying into the argument posed by McDonald’s and its franchisees that the latter are “small businesses with limited resources…unjustly embroiled in costly and time-consuming litigation” merely because of the former board’s determination to establish McDonald’s as a joint employer.

In an emailed statement, McDonald’s told me it was “pleased” by the decision, which it said “allows our franchisees and their employees to move forward, and resolves all matters without any admission of wrongdoing.”

The impact of this decision on workers at McDonald’s or similar franchise businesses can’t be overstated. As McFerran observed in her dissent, “a finding of joint-employer status…would have important collateral consequences for McDonald’s, in both unfair labor practice proceedings involving its franchisees and…if workers employed at McDonald’s franchisees sought to organize” (that is, unionize).

The big company claims that it has virtually no control over the franchisees wage rates or workplace conditions, even though any McDonald’s customer knows from the nearly identical customer experience nationwide that McDonald’s must exercise rigorous control over the individual restaurants.

Placing workplace responsibility where it belongs — with the deep-pocketed parent — has been a goal of worker advocates and union organizers for good reason.

A 2014 decision by Richard Griffin, then the NLRB general counsel, designating McDonald’s a joint employer, was seen as a harbinger of decisions that would impose workplace responsibility on parent companies not merely of other fast-food chains, but cleaning companies and other firms that relied on temp agencies or other subcontractors. This would give labor regulators a valuable tool to fight workplace abuses.

Griffin’s ruling was celebrated by labor advocates. “It gives workers a significant legal tool in their fight for a $15 hourly wage in fast food and is likely to have a domino effect across the subcontracted, temporary, outsourced, and franchised economy,” observed labor historian Erik Loomis. “Corporations have spent decades coming up with shady labor practices in order to avoid responsibility for workers, leading to rampant exploitation of workers with no hope of rising toward a middle class.”

The most important decision in this battle came in 2015, when the NLRB ruled that Republic Services, the owner of a landfill and recycling center in the Silicon Valley town of Milpitas, was the joint employer of a couple of hundred sorters and other blue-collar workers who were nominally employed by a labor outsourcing firm, Leadpoint. The ruling is known as Browning-Ferris, after the original operator of the facility.

The board found that Republic’s control of the workplace was indisputable, despite the claim that Leadpoint was the employer. Republic dictated the Leadpoint workers’ training and qualifications, required hirees to pass its drug tests and reserved the right to force Leadpoint to fire any worker the senior company didn’t like.

Corporate lobbyists predictably vented their outrage. The pro-employer Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, predicted that the decision would have a “devastating impact on American employers and employees” by hurting “anyone who now benefits from flexible work arrangements.”

Just as predictably, the advent of a GOP majority on the labor board placed Browning-Ferris in danger. The campaign against the joint employer standards by the Trump NLRB soon assembled a discreditable history. As McFerran, the lone Democrat on the current NLRB, observed in dissenting from the McDonald’s decision, current General Counsel Peter Robb “has been unrelenting…in his attacks on Browning-Ferris.”

Robb, a Trump appointee, had spent much of his career as a management attorney. He played a significant role in the Reagan administration in breaking the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or PATCO, the air traffic controllers union, during its strike in 1981. On Dec. 1, 2017, after taking office as general counsel, he issued a lengthy memo signaling his intention to roll back several Obama-era pro-labor initiatives, including Browning-Ferris.

Only two weeks after that, the now-majority Republican board overturned Browning-Ferris in a ruling known as Hy-Brand, after the construction company that was its target. But the board had to vacate that ruling after its inspector general ruled that board member William Emanuel, also a Trump appointee, committed an ethics violation by failing to recuse himself, since he had been a member of the law firm that represented Browning-Ferris.

When Hy-Brand was decided a second time, also in favor of the company, the ruling did not involve the joint-employer rules.

Labor organizations challenged Emanuel’s participation in the McDonald’s case, on grounds that his former law firm had worked with McDonald’s and franchisees to counter the Fight for $15 campaign. The board found that because no party in the case was a former client of Emanuel himself, he was not bound to recuse himself.

Click Here: pinko shop cheap

NEW YORK — 

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hospitalized while serving his federal prison sentence.

Manafort, who is serving more than seven years in prison after being convicted as part of the special counsel’s Russia investigation, was moved to the hospital last Thursday from a federal prison in Pennsylvania, his attorney confirmed Tuesday.

The attorney, Todd Blanche, said Manafort’s family and friends are “extremely concerned about his health and still do not have a full understanding of his medical condition or well-being.”

“We were relieved to learn this afternoon that Mr. Manafort’s condition is stable, and we are hopeful that he makes a speedy recovery,” Blanche said in a statement.

Manafort, 70, is suffering from a heart-related condition, two people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Tuesday. They were not permitted to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Blanche slammed the federal Bureau of Prisons, which he said refused for days to provide any information about his client’s condition, citing privacy and safety concerns, other than to say that Manafort was “safe.”

Manafort was among the first people to be charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, which examined possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election campaign.

Click Here: pinko shop cheap

Manafort, who was prosecuted in two federal courts, was convicted by a jury in federal court in Virginia last year and later pleaded guilty in Washington. He was sentenced in March and immediately hit with state charges in New York that could put him outside the president’s power to pardon.

New York prosecutors accused him of giving false information on a mortgage loan application.

A hearing in New York on Manafort’s state case is expected to go on Wednesday as scheduled, without him in the courtroom. A judge is expected to rule on a defense motion seeking to have the case dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.

A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons said she could not provide the AP with specific information about an inmate’s medical condition because of security and privacy concerns.

The hospitalization was first reported by ABC News.

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden violated secrecy agreements with the U.S. government that allow it to claim proceeds from a memoir he published earlier this year, a judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady in Alexandria, Va., ruled that Snowden is liable for breach of contract with the government because he published “Permanent Record” without submitting it for a pre-publication review, in violation agreements he signed with both the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency. In the book, Snowden explains how he viewed himself as a whistleblower by revealing details about the government’s mass collection of emails, phone calls and internet activity in the name of national security.

Snowden was charged under the U.S. Espionage Act. He now lives in Russia in order to avoid arrest.

O’Grady wrote that under the agreements, Snowden was required to allow the government to review anything he planned to publish “containing any mention of intelligence data or activities, or any other information or material which is … known to be classified.”

“The terms of the CIA Secrecy Agreements further provide that Snowden forfeits any proceeds from disclosures that breach the Agreements. These terms continue to apply to Snowden,” the judge wrote.

The Washington Post first reported on the judge’s ruling.

Snowden’s lawyers had argued that the government had already broken the secrecy agreements by indicating that it wouldn’t give his book a fair pre-publication review. His lawyers have also said the book contains no material that hadn’t previously been made public.

Brett Max Kaufman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Center for Democracy and lawyer for Snowden, said the legal team disagrees with the ruling and is reviewing its options.

“It’s far-fetched to believe that the government would have reviewed Mr. Snowden’s book or anything else he submitted in good faith,” Kaufman said in a statement. “For that reason, Mr. Snowden preferred to risk his future royalties than to subject his experiences to improper government censorship.”

The federal government’s lawsuit didn’t attempt to limit the book’s distribution, but asked the judge to allow the government to collect all the proceeds from the book.

TOKYO — 

A Tokyo court awarded damages to a freelance journalist Wednesday in a high-profile rape case that involves an attacker known for his close ties with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ultraconservative supporters.

The Tokyo District Court ordered former television newsman Noriyuki Yamaguchi to pay $30,150 to freelance journalist Shiori Ito for physical and psychological pain resulting from his alleged sexual assault.

Ito filed a civil suit in 2017, demanding $100,540 in damages for her suffering and seeking an explanation why Yamaguchi was never arrested and prosecutors dropped the criminal case.

Yamaguchi has denied any wrongdoing in published articles and on social media, saying they had sex by consent. He filed a countersuit this year, demanding she pay $1.2 million for allegedly damaging his reputation and trust by publicizing him as a rapist.

The court dismissed Yamaguchi’s claims.

Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey

The #MeToo movement is still only beginning to catch on in Japan, where speaking out often draws criticism rather than sympathy, even from other women.

In Ito’s case, ultraconservative supporters came to Yamaguchi’s defense.

Ito and her supporters said they hope her victory would be a step toward promoting awareness in a society where sexual victims like her wouldn’t have to feel intimidated and isolated.

Judge Akihiro Suzuki said Ito’s attempt to seek the truth in the case and how it was handled, and to promote awareness about social and legal issues surrounding sexual assault victims, is based on her intent to serve the public interest and does not constitute defamation against the defendant.

Ito said that after she became dizzy and passed out in a restroom, Yamaguchi took her to his hotel room and raped her in April 2015 while she was incapacitated. She said that he continued the assault even when she woke up and told him to stop.

Ito visited the women’s clinic the next day to get treated and filed a criminal complaint with the police, though it took weeks to get them to accept it and start investigating. The prosecutors eventually dropped the case, without explaining to her why.

She held a news conference a month later announcing that she had requested a court-appointed citizens’ panel to review the decision to drop the case. The panel in September agreed with the decision not to indict.

Click:pancake recipe

Click:工作間出租

Here are the stories you shouldn’t miss today:

TOP STORIES

Impeachment Time Draws Nigh

As the House moves toward impeaching President Trump, it’s all over but the long-winded speeches and procedural maneuvering. The vote to impeach is expected to play out along strictly party lines, and the only real question appears to be whether it happens today or tomorrow.

Yesterday, Trump lashed out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the architect of the proceedings, in a six-page letter that veered from grievance to grievance and denied any wrongdoing. “You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans,” the letter reads.

Although Pelosi once said impeachment should be a bipartisan undertaking, she said in an interview with The Times yesterday that the gravity of the president’s misconduct made her willing to push forward without any Republican support. As for how it shapes her legacy, only time will tell.

Meanwhile, Trump is staging a “Merry Christmas” campaign rally in Michigan tonight.

More Politics

— Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, says he provided the president with information that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was impeding investigations that could benefit Trump politically. Within weeks, she was recalled from her post.

— A federal judge has sentenced former Trump campaign official Richard Gates to 45 days in jail and three years of probation, while former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has been hospitalized while serving his federal prison sentence.

— The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said that the FBI provided “unsupported” information when it applied to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign advisor and directed the bureau to report back by next month on what steps it was taking to fix the problems.

— With funding for the federal government set to expire this weekend, the House has taken the first step in approving a deal on a $1.4-trillion spending package that would bolster election security, increase funding for fighting wildfires and, for the first time in more than 20 years, pay for gun safety research.

— Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles is back on track after a labor dispute there was ended. Plus: Why does Pete Buttigieg bug so many progressive activists?

China Rising in the Mideast

As Trump has made moves that critics say strengthen Russia’s position in the Middle East, there’s another U.S. rival rising there: China. It now stands as the region’s largest investor and expects to cement that status with Belt and Road, a sprawling, $1-trillion infrastructure project meant to revive the ancient trading routes of the Silk Road.

No Escape From the Past

Growing up, Garry “Twin” Dorton was a leader of the Rollin’ 40s Crips gang. In recent years, Dorton used his street cred to mediate between rival gangs and mentor young people. “But there is a hard truth to gang-banging,” writes reporter Cindy Chang in today’s Column One: “You can never leave it behind, no matter how cleanly you live.”

Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times.

Newsletter

Get our Today's Headlines newsletter

FROM THE ARCHIVES

Eleven years ago this week, a certain New York real estate developer sued Rancho Palos Verdes — the culmination of a years-long battle with the city over his golf course there, and in particular over the reviews required for him to build on the landslide-prone site. The Times reported at the time:

“When Donald Trump came to Rancho Palos Verdes six years ago with plans for a world-class golf course, he was welcomed with open arms. Then came the dispute with the city over his plan to name a street after himself. And then came the battle with neighbors over his 12-foot-tall ficus trees.

“Now the mogul is suing the small town, and suing big. He wants $100 million from a city with an annual budget just shy of $20 million.

“In a lawsuit filed this week, Trump accused the city of fraud and civil rights violations, contending that the city was refusing to allow improvements needed to maintain the ‘Trump image.’ … But city leaders and some residents said the lawsuit was just another attempt by the real estate mogul to bully the community and avoid playing by the rules.”

The story also quoted Trump as saying that he “had conducted a private poll of area residents and found he had an 88% approval rating. Trump declined to give details about the poll, saying he is planning to use it in litigation.”

CALIFORNIA

— Bankrupt utility giant PG&E Corp. has removed a requirement that California Gov. Gavin Newsom sign off on its settlement with wildfire victims, trying to buy more time for its restructuring plan.

— Where in California might a massive earthquake wreak the worst havoc? We mapped where it would cause the most shaking and destruction.

— The Long Beach breakwater won’t be removed. The Army Corps of Engineers says changes would be too costly and could hinder port operations and recommends rehabbing the reef.

— Many Latin American consulates in L.A. are led by women. The #MeToo movement is just one reason why.

HOLLYWOOD AND THE ARTS

— A talk-show host risked his career to interview the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. It’s now streaming for the first time.

— Milos Forman, Ivan Passer and their 73-year friendship: meeting in childhood, escaping Czechoslovakia and conquering Hollywood. Also, Passer gives a storyteller’s account as a witness to Czechoslovakia’s history — its tragicomic absurdity and stubborn humanity. Plus,
the story behind the story.

— Being a Jewish woman comes with baggage. From “Broad City” to “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” what you see on TV just scratches the surface.

— We got Eddie Murphy, Robert De Niro, Antonio Banderas and three other actors together for a conversation about guerrilla filmmaking, movies that misbehave and more.

— “Hustlers” director Lorene Scafaria writes about the dance she had to do for money to make her movie about a band of strippers who scammed their clients.

NATION-WORLD

— When it comes to climate change, more and more scientists are rejecting the idea that researchers should just stick to the data. Instead, they’re speaking publicly about the risks.

— Pope Francis has abolished the use of the Vatican’s highest level of secrecy in clergy sex abuse cases, responding to mounting criticism in a move victims’ advocates cheered as long overdue. “The carnival of obscurity is over,” one said.

— When Iran blocked the internet, tech experts in the U.S. tried to hack a solution. Here’s why they couldn’t.

— How a new law moves India closer to being a Hindu country.

BUSINESS

— Meet the small cocoa farmers taking on Big Chocolate.

— Here’s why so many gas pumps still have less-secure credit card readers.

— Organizations representing freelance journalists are mounting a legal challenge to a AB5, a new California law that aims to rein in companies’ use of independent contractors by placing certain restrictions on contract work.

SPORTS

— Angel Stadium could sell this week for a lot less than first advertised.

— Drew Brees versus Tom Brady: Who’s really thrown more touchdown passes?

OPINION

— Now that the Supreme Court has sent the message that homelessness is not a crime, L.A. city and county officials should focus not on prettifying the streets but on building more shelters and creating permanent support housing, The Times’ editorial board writes.

— Protecting our elections from cyberthreats requires long-range planning and investment, not a one-time rescue, writes Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary under President George W. Bush.

WHAT OUR EDITORS ARE READING

— How black women are saving black mothers’ and babies’ lives by helping one another have healthier pregnancies. (Politico Magazine)

— “I always said that when my time came I’d want to go fast. But where’s the fun in that?” Art critic Peter Schjeldahl on the art of dying. (The New Yorker)

— Prison costs taxpayers $80 billion a year. It costs some families everything they have. (The Marshall Project)

ONLY IN L.A.

To understand why Porto’s is L.A.’s most beloved bakery, all you need to do is eat a potato ball, a divine sphere of fluffy mashed potatoes filled with spiced meat and fried to tawny brown, as columnist Lucas Kwan Peterson lovingly details. But each location’s Saturday-at-Disneyland crowds are a clue too. As we told you earlier this week, the chain’s co-founder Rosa Porto has died at 89. Over the decades, her empire adapted to L.A.’s changing demographics and dwindling Cuban population and in so doing became the quintessential L.A. restaurant — and an incredible story of American success.

If you like the Today’s Headlines newsletter, please share it with friends. Comments or ideas? Email us at [email protected].

Click Here: Cheap FIJI Rugby Jersey

While Messi takes centre stage, Al Hain-Cole sees better value in backing the in-form Uruguay international to fire past Zidane’s men at Camp Nou

Like every Real Madrid manager taking on Barcelona in recent years, Zinedine Zidane will have spent the majority of his preparation for Wednesday’s El Clasico wondering how to stop Lionel Messi.

The six-time Ballon d’Or winner has scored 26 goals in 41 matches against Los Blancos, although he has failed to get on target in his last two encounters with the old enemy.

Nevertheless, he remains 888Sport’s 3/1 (4.00) favourite to open the scoring at the Nou Camp, and priced at just 7/10 (1.70) to strike anytime.

However, Messi is certainly not the only in-form attacker at Ernesto Valverde’s disposal, with Luis Suarez having found the net 12 times in 16 starts this campaign.

Considering he has scored 11 goals in 15 games against Madrid, the Uruguay international looks like solid value at 57/50 (2.14) anytime odds.

Having scored a more modest seven goals in 21 fixtures this season, former Atletico Madrid star Antoine Griezmann is a less tempting 6/4 (2.50) shot to come back to haunt his old neighbours.

In contrast, there is no doubt over who will be bearing the brunt of the goal-scoring burden at the other end of the pitch, where Karim Benzema has scored at least nine more league goals than any of his team mates.

On the scoresheet 10 times in his last 10 appearances, the Frenchman is priced at 7/1 (8.00) to break the deadlock and 41/20 (3.05) to score anytime.

Benzema has been particularly important considering Luka Jovic’s disappointing form since joining in the summer, with the 21-year-old unlikely to attract much attention at 47/20 (3.35) anytime odds after scoring just once so far.

On the other hand, teenage prodigy Rodrygo could be a tempting longer shot at 10/3 (4.33) considering he has worked his way into the team with six goals in nine starts this season.

Suarez to score anytime at 57/50 (2.14) for a 1.5pt stake with 888Sport

Alors qu’Emmanuel Macron lançait le grand débat national mardi 15 janvier à Grand-Bourgtheroulde, entouré de 600 maires, une éditorialiste politique de BFMTV a retoqué le président de la République sur l’une des phrases qu’il a prononcé. Apolline de Malherbe s’est ainsi attirée les foudres des défenseurs du chef de l’Etat.

Apolline de Malherbe joue-t-elle à un jeu dangereux ? L’éditorialiste politique de BFMTV s’en est pris au président de la République sur la chaîne d’information, mardi 15 janvier, alors que le chef de l’état, empêtré dans la crise des gilets jaunes donnant de lui (et de son épouse) l’image d’un représentant de plus en plus loin de la réalité des Français, lançait le grand débat national, à Grand-Bourgtheroulde (Eure). Après avoir écrit une lettre ouverte à tous les Français, il a répondu au coeur du gymnase de cette ville normande pendant sept heures aux questions de 600 maires. C’est sur une phrase prononcée lors de cette journée que l’éditorialiste reprend le président.

“Les gens qui sont en situation de difficulté on va davantage les responsabiliser car il y en a qui font bien, et il y en a qui déconne”, a-t-il annoncé. Apoline de Malherbe, dont la quatrième grossesse avait été révélé par un proche d’Emmanuel Macron, l’interprète ainsi : “Sous-entendu je suis là pour responsabiliser ceux qui sont en situation de difficulté et qui déconne”. Pour elle, que le président se place dans une telle posture, ça ne passe pas. Elle estime cette phrase “provocatrice, comme s’il ne pouvait jamais s’en empêcher, à un moment ou à un autre de provoquer, de piquer, de faire un peu le kéké”, avant d’ajouter : “franchement je n’ai pas d’autres phrases”.

On avait plutôt pour habitude d’entendre les journalistes qualifier de kéké un autre collaborateur d’Emmanuel Macron : Christophe Castaner. Quand il a été nommé secrétaire d’Etat chargé des relations avec le Parlement et porte-parole du gouvernement, celui qui est aujourd’hui le ministre de l’Intérieur assumait et s’amusait ce côté “grande gueule” et “frimeur”. Mais est-ce que cela passera avec le président ? Certains journalistes ont par le passé regretté ce genre de petites phrases. Du temps de Nicolas Sarkozy, le présentateur du journal télévisé de TF1 Patrick Poivre d’Arvor avait été remercié après une entrevue. “Vous aviez l’air excité comme un petit garçon qui rentre dans la cour des grands”, lui dit-il, évoquant son comportement lors de son premier G8, en 2008. Le “petit garçon” ne passe pars pour le grand Nicolas Sarkozy, qui a toujours réfuté avoir demandé le départ du journaliste. Espérons qu’Emmanuel Macron saura sûrement se montrer plus clément.

Crédits photos : Pierre Perusseau / Bestimage

Laura Tenoudji a eu sa petite fille Bianca à tout juste 40 ans. Depuis ce jour d’août 2017, son bout de chou est devenu le centre de sa vie.

Le 4 août 2017, Christian Estrosi et Laura Tenoudji deviennent parents pour la première fois. Une joie infinie. Ils ont alors partagé leur bonheur sur les réseaux sociaux, comme lors du premier anniversaire de leur petite fille, qu’ils ont décidé de nommer Bianca.

Depuis, Christian Estrosi et Laura Tenoudji ne ratent rien de la vie de leur bébé. A chaque étape ses photos, à chaque moment ses sourires. Dernier en date : lors de l’épiphanie, quand Bianca a mangé sa première galette des rois. Et si l’histoire ne dit pas si elle a eu la fève, on sait qu’elle était la reine de la journée. Bianca portait une superbe couronne qui a rendu jalouse toutes les petites filles ! Partageant un cliché sur son compte Instagram, Laura Tenoudji a écrit ces quelques mots d’amour : « Bianca tire les rois à la petite maison #vivelareine ».

Des moments privilégiés qui lui font oublier les critiques qu’elle avait reçues lors de sa grossesse et même peu de temps après. Alors qu’elle montait les marches de Cannes en mai dernier, de nombreux internautes avaient critiqué son physique et sa tenue. Mais tout s’oublie avec le sourire d’un enfant.

Crédits photos : Piovanotto Marco/ABACA

Click Here: United Kingdom Rugby Shop

C’est une scène qui s’est déroulée en 1982, mais qui interroge aujourd’hui, alors que la sécurité de la famille royale est en question. Un intrus s’est introduit dans le palais de Buckingham, allant même jusqu’à la chambre de la reine Elisabeth II. Qu’il aurait surpris en robe de chambre. Ou presque…

Elisabeth II surprise en petite tenue, dans sa chambre du palais de Buckingham… Cette scène – qui s’est déroulée dans les années 1980 – a de quoi poser des question sur la sécurité de la famille royale. Or, celui qui s’est introduit dans le palais a de nouvelles révélations à faire, qu’il a délivrées à la gazette d’Islington. Michael Fagan, qui avait 33 ans à l’époque, raconte la façon dont il entré dans le palais où vit la famille royale. Après que sa femme l’a quitté, ce peintre et décorateur sans emploi erre dans les rues de Londres. Escaladant les murs du palais, il se serait ensuite faufilé par une fenêtre ouverte.

Il se serait alors promené pieds nus dans les couloirs du palais, qu’il décrit comme décoré assez simplement, voire même “poussiéreux“, avec “du parquet qui grince“. Il se souvient d’une pièce remplie de cadeaux pour William, la princesse Diana venant à l’époque tout juste d’accoucher. Mais il ne trouve pas de toilettes, lui qui en aurait pourtant bien besoin… Pour finir sa déambulation, Michael Fagan se retrouve dans la chambre de la reine. Comment est-il arrivé là ? Il aurait tout simplement suivi les tableaux accrochés au mur. Une fois dans la chambre, il se serait même assis sur la lit de la reine. Celle-ci, assoupie, lui aurait demandé : “Que faîtes-vous ici?”, avant qu’il ne détale, sous le coup de la peur.

Il vient donc d’admettre qu’il avait légèrement trahi la réalité, quand il avait annoncé il y a 36 ans que la reine portait une robe de chambre. En réalité, il n’a pas pu remarquer les vêtements d’Elisabeth II. Il avait donc rajouté ce détail croustillant pour donner de la couleur à son histoire. La tenue d’Elisabeth II dans l’intimité de sa chambre reste donc toujours mystérieuse. Mais le récit rocambolesque ne s’arrête pas là, puisqu’un valet de pied aurait surpris le visiteur, puis lui aurait servi un verre de whisky avant l’arrivée de la police…

Une plainte aurait été déposée, avant d’être retirée. Une alarme aurait bien détecté l’intrusion, mais la police n’aurait pas été vigilante, et aurait pensé qu’il s’agissait d’une erreur. L’intrus, plutôt instable, a été envoyé par la suite dans un hôpital psychiatrique, puis emprisonné pour avoir attaqué des policiers en pleine rue. Ce récit pose la question de la sécurité de la famille royale, alors que Meghan Markle aurait une tendance paranoïaque, et alors que sa garde du corps vient de démissionner. Un ancien garde du corps de lady Diana a récemment critiqué un dispositif de sécurité défaillant.

Victor Nicolas

Crédits photos : Bestimage