 | Forum
Thread | Back in January
at 15:04 28 Oct 2024
I'm about to take an extended leave from work and from this forum.
So I thought I'd share some observations and predictions.
First I predict that when I'm back in the UK, we will have the same manager, making the same post defeat statements and continuing to think that the tree which does not bend in the wind is stronger than those that do.
Second, I predict that by January we will six points.
Third. we will fail to secure a decent striker in the January transfer window.
I was at the Arsenal/Liverpool match this weekend with a small group which included a couple of youth coaches for an East coast USA franchise which hopes to have an MLS team in a season or two. There were a number of instances in which players went down under minimal (if any) contact, screaming their lungs out.
I observed that - to me - looking to con the ref in that way was cheating.
They observed that they would "encourage" the reaction we saw, use it as an excuse to deliver some positive reinforcement, claim that this was just "part of the game", "winning" a foul is a form of victory.
We agreed to disagree and moved on.
Just before the Liverpool second equaliser, one of these guys was buried in his phone which had live statistics from the game. I made the mistake of asking him about them. He was so engrossed in telling me how the game was now all about the numbers, that he missed the goal. I observed that getting lost in statistics, often leads to not watching the game. He refused to be discouraged.
So for me all that is wrong about the PL in particular and football in general is in those two incidents.
I predict it will not change by the time I'm back.
Have a good Christmas and Happy New Year all.
COYR |
| Forum
Thread | Which rules to observe?
at 14:30 28 Oct 2024
I see that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) has been given 18 months for contempt of court. This follows earlier cases where he was given a suspended sentence and then 6 months. It also comes after the incident he is jailed for this time (sharing a film in which he makes false accusations) was aired despite his being under court direction not to.
Can't say he wasn't warned.
In mitigation his brief is saying that the sentence is likely to be spent in solitary and that this causes his client anxiety and panic attacks.
So he wants to make false allegations about people and then spend his jail time in some open prison, protected around the clock by warders.
I would say that as a functioning adult he was aware of the consequences of his actions and should bear them.
I also accept that he can say what he likes and so long as it is true and does not amount to defamation or harassment or bullying,.
It's only when what he says or does crosses the line drawn in the sand by the law does he lose that privilege.
Or am I wrong? |
| Forum
Reply | Why do people deny mass killings?
at 09:46 25 Oct 2024
Mr J.
This looks like a denial to me and exposes a contradiction at the heart of your belief system.
On the one hand you say that because you did not witness the bombing and killing and maiming, then you cannot say for sure it happened and on the other the "evidence" of the faux journalist here should be believed even though you were not in the car with him when he was stopped by police and arrested for harassment.
Selective facts to support your own confirmation bias.
We've had our debates Mr J and for so long as the issues were not what I would describe as potentially dangerous for you or me or the readers, I've been happy to poke fun and point out inconsistencies and I've been happy to take on board your points. That is a healthy debate.
I fear however that a line has been crossed here.
If this post is truly your view and not just another attempt at a wind up, I think that we are going to be at opposite ends of the credibility scale with a gap that cannot be crossed.
I think I'd be wasting my time trying to use logic and facts to overcome your reliance on rumour and fabrication by people with an agenda that is unknown.
I have enjoyed our exchanges but regret that this is the last.
I wish you and your family well. |
| Forum
Reply | Why? Why can't people see it's the owners who need removing?
at 17:20 24 Oct 2024
Stripped of hysteria, an owner can be removed only if they are willing to sell or they are persons thought not to fit and proper to run a football club.
Looking at owners of PL clubs,that "fit and proper" hurdle is clearly very low and anybody who isn't a belly crawling animal can get over it.
Why would they sell now? A season the PL enriches them regardless of results. The parachute payments shelter them.
Selling after the parachute runs out might be viable, but that is three and half seasons away.
Why bother buying out RM's contract? As you say, another manager would want more money anyway, so it's a double hit.
Does SR care if a small number of fans who can be bothered to post here are unhappy? Nah! We make up what, a thirtieth of a full ground.
No, we will continue to vent or unheeded fury to no purpose. |
| Forum
Reply | 1984 and all that
at 17:13 24 Oct 2024
The client is I think beginning to see that the UK authorities are at least as "dangerous" as those in Canada and is apparently reconsidering his choice of new abode.
He is also considerably miffed that if he arrives in the UK with a very large sum of money he will be a) unable to use Can$ to buy his groceries in the supermarket and b) will be "at the mercy" of the banks in terms of exchange rate.
(He has a view that the Can$ is worth more than the roughly 50p the UK banks will give him for it and is frustrated that they are not persuaded by economic analysis despite having exactly NO QUALIFICATIONS in economics).
I'm hoping the problem will resolve itself.
If not, my next move is to quote him a huge fee and hope he looks elsewhere. |
| Forum
Reply | 1984 and all that
at 16:19 24 Oct 2024
Can I ask Mr J, when do you consider that an "unborn" has a "life"?
Many of the more enlightened "liberal" societies based this on when a baby might be viable if born. Whilst this can vary in different countries, some will say that this is up to 20/22 weeks.
Some US states following the demolition of Rowe v Wade will allow abortion up to 6 weeks and not after that.
Some US states of course have banned abortion, meaning that women travel elsewhere for the procedure if that is their choice.
So is your stance to protect the rights of he unborn once they are viable births or earlier?
(Worth noting a survey at a recent Trump rally in which over half those questioned said that they believed California allowed the killing of a baby from an unwanted pregnancy could be carried out up to two weeks AFTER birth. IN other words that state law allowed murder of a living person. They believed this because certain individuals in the US Republican party had said it and would not rescind even when shown the appropriate law) |
| Forum
Reply | Desperate Tories - or tactical masterstroke?
at 15:15 24 Oct 2024
I used to be a a civil servant. I work with civil servants nearly every day.
I can't say that I've encountered any more who are decidedly left or right than in any other group of people.
I know that Liz Truss thought that pretty much everybody in the civil service was part of the "deep state" with an agenda which frustrated her obvious genius economic plan (which anybody with a mortgage continues to pay for) but hand's up anybody who thinks Truss was sane enough to be trusted in power? |
| Forum
Reply | Why do people deny mass killings?
at 15:11 24 Oct 2024
And let's face it the world of conspiracy is painted in a rainbow of colours whilst the rest of us are in black and white.
One the more risible theories I've seen recently is that Trump planned to first assassination attempt (in which somebody was killed) as part of his campaign.
SO we are asked to believe that a hobby shooter was able to hit a very small target (his ear) from 200+ yards, on a windy day, knowing that he would have at best 30 seconds before the trained marksmen of the guards "neutralised" him. Just because Trump needed a boost in his ratings?
No. Whatever drove the shooter to attempt the assassination it was not part of a plot to improve the polls.
But I've probably seen three or four attempts to claim this. |
| Forum
Reply | Why do people deny mass killings?
at 13:45 24 Oct 2024
Mr DorsetIan is correct.
The defence of nested conspiracies will always give those who choose to believe a certain thing an escape route.
So do those of us who are either prepared to believe the evidence of our own eyes or place some trust in news sources or have been successfully duped by one of a number of bodies apparently vying for world domination (take your pick) have any obligation to challenge or seek to persuade others as to our version of the truth?
Probably not unless we see that as a sport or enjoy goading the gullible. |
| Forum
Reply | Why do people deny mass killings?
at 08:59 24 Oct 2024
I have read the decision of the Court and the pleadings made on behalf of the victims and the alleged journalist.
I've read the fact that he stalked victims - used what were at best shoddy analytics - was selective in what materials he claimed to believe and which not.
I think narcissist is actually being kind to him. I could have used some of the words that his victims used such as deranged, delusional, parasite.
Let me ask you a direct question Mr J.
Do you think a bomb went off in the Manchester Arena and that 22 people were killed and many more injured? |
| Forum
Thread | Why do people deny mass killings?
at 16:11 23 Oct 2024
The BBC reports today that a former TV producer who claimed to be journalist - and was therefore able to act in the public interest - was guilty of harassment against two survivors of the Manchester Arena attack.
Said alleged journalist claimed that the attack never happened; that many of the alleged victims were already dead by the time of the attack or were outside the UK; that his "analysis" was based on sound principles; that his tracing of victims of the attack to "check that they acted consistently with the injuries claimed" was reasonable; that the multiple videos and book he produced were not based entirely on a falsehood.
There are charges about breach of data protection which will be decided later.
This has echoes of the Sandy Hook mass killing in the USA which Alex Jones - a person with some right wing views - denied ever happened. He has been whacked with a huge fine and a promise of jail time if he does not pay.
I don't know what sanction the UK denier will get.
What drives these people?
Do they really think that it was possible to "stage" the bombing in Manchester in the middle of a concert attended by tens of thousands? Does he think that a public enquiry and ample evidence of life changing injuries to people are all false?
Or is this really all about him. He's a desperate narcissist who was never going to amount to much and so chose notoriety?
If I were young enough to retrain, I'd be interested in doing a PhD in how and why these people think as they do? |
| Forum
Thread | City v football v PL
at 08:41 23 Oct 2024
The war of legal words between City and the PL intensified yesterday.
City say that their "victory" in the first round means that all of the Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules are legally invalid and cannot apply.
PL says that only a few of these APT rules need to be changed and that this will be done in the next three weeks.
A meeting of the PL clubs was not asked to vote on whether City's view was correct or if they favoured the PL view.
At the same time the City fan groups staged a protest outside the offices of the PL claiming that the PL was under the control of Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs and that the legal witch hunt v City was for the benefit of those clubs.
Ironic really because three of those clubs will be destined to join City in the European super league which is now a lot closer.
This also demonstrates just how hard it is for clubs promoted out of the Champ to gain a toehold in the PL. It seems that the annual amount paid to City by its sovereign funds owners, desperate for the world to forget their human rights record, is probably more than certainly our entire annual turnover and probably a good half the clubs in the PL.
We therefore have a very unequal playing field and inevitably this will mean that the "poorer" clubs will be unable to compete as the "richer" clubs buy all the talent. This can only end with the PL being reduced to either 8 to 10 super wealthy clubs who care nothing about where the money comes from and who send all the wrong messages to the millions of fans or the PL being effectively all the poorer clubs plus some from the Champ.
It also means that the refereeing bias that favours "big" clubs will continue to grow because the cost of an "error" will be enormous. The PL management will cease to exist, TV will focus only on those big clubs and the fans? Nobody cares, they contribute a small percentage of money and cannot see that their clubs are being used to sportswash repressive regimes.
If the PL clubs were offered a vote on keeping the APT rules - as modified - or going the City route which is essentially an unlimited, untested and untouchable "hands off" message to the PL, then Saints would do the right thing for the game and the fans. I do not however have any confidence that they will. Money talks and City and probably Newcastle and others owned by regimes with something to hide, will throw us a few million to keep us in line and because owners are business people first and football fans a very long way back second, they will not care where the game is in ten/fifteen years time.
This is the thin end of a very big wedge that will split the game forever.
|
| Forum
Reply | TRUST THE PROCESS
at 16:20 21 Oct 2024
So that's like 7th in League 1?
Give it a couple of seasons and we can match that. |
| Forum
Reply | Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City.
at 16:19 21 Oct 2024
If the "messing with the keeper" was enough to be foul, then EVERY corner would result in a free kick to the defenders and corners would die out of the game.
Keepers are (in my view) over protected and if you so much as sneeze in their direction it's a free kick.
The controversy could easily be avoided.
Keep the "offside but not interfering" rule if a player is offside outside the box.
In the box, drop the "not interfering" rules. If he's offside, give a free kick. |
| Forum
Reply | " Pig Headed "
at 16:04 21 Oct 2024
I would say that RM has NOT "got to realise", anything.
He is convinced that his style of play is correct and that it's the player's fault.
Until he can convince HIMSELF, we're stuck. |
| Forum
Reply | Money, mouth and missing a world cup
at 14:12 21 Oct 2024
Sadly that is very true.
I've said before that I've refused to act for certain people. Most recently a "sovereign citizen" who wanted me to argue that she should not pay a tax that most people do pay because she was not a "person" who lived in and consumed services within the UK but rather a "human of the world, with freedom of choice".
My argument that her freedom of choice to pay (or not) tax on her income existed but that not paying might see her made bankrupt or worse. At that point she started claiming all sorts of "rights" to stay out of jail - courtesy of the legal system that she says doesn't apply to her.
She even claimed that I had to take her case and had no "right" to walk away.
Delusional and now probably spending more on legal costs then tax. |
| Forum
Reply | Money, mouth and missing a world cup
at 13:04 21 Oct 2024
I'll suggest that a professional player and fan might have different views?
Would a professional player risk damaging a career or possibly breaching a contract for the sake of their conscience?
If we (all of us) are not prepared to do what we can (anything from refusing to buy tickets for a tournament to getting elected and using Parliament as a soapbox) to force change upon a regime we consider to be inhumane or repressive, are we condoning that regime?
There has to be a point at which we make a stand.
These days, most regimes will shrug off political actions and press commentary.
But money talks. So using sponsorships to buy favour works - and so do boycotts which cost money.
If FIFA was unable to sell say 30% of the tickets for the next world cups would that force them to reconsider this sponsorship?
My personal experience here is limited - I've not been able to afford the time or the cost of a world or European cup competition - but I have refused to work for people who I consider to be example of the wrong kind.
And yes that was an entirely subjective, possibly unfair decision that made me feel better briefly but which made almost no difference to the world at large. |
| | saint901
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 127 | | Comment Votes: | 49 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 176 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.