chrisp65

On 04/04/2016 at 13:57, BOF said:

 There are seemingly spatial awareness differences between the sexes. 

over 50% of all our current immigration is already non EU, so that's hardly a restriction at the moment. I think there are something like 1.2 million non EU immigrants in the UK? Yet we can't find a competent american goalkeeper.

But is the number of american goalkeepers we can have more of a UEFA thing than an EU thing? I don't know, not a clue. But would Russian and Swiss teams be restricted by the same foreigner rules as a footballing not EU regulation? 

Personally, I'd change the rules to a maximum of less than 1 american goalkeeper per team. I think that would help us.

18 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

That'd get confusing for me as I usually have a mid-tug snack.

could you imagine the loop you'd end up in, needing a mid wank snack that you then need to work off that you then need a snack to get through that......

or as I call it: working from home

5 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

did you vote for him  ?

(I seem to recall Chris said similar about his MP , a Tory ... but didn't vote for him either) it's why I despair of people being allowed to vote sometimes  ...

Off topic really for this thread, but by coincidence there's a letter in the local paper today (it wasn't me!) that lists his local campaigns and platitudes and compares them with how he votes in parliament.

He's a wrong 'un.

In the interest of balance, the labour guy was also a wrong 'un and a party puppet. But also a bit scruffy, a bit slow and quite sulky.

26 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

did you vote for him  ?

(I seem to recall Chris said similar about his MP , a Tory ... but didn't vote for him either) it's why I despair of people being allowed to vote sometimes  ... arguably it's only floating voters that ,on paper , are making an informed choice  rather than making decisions because of someone they disliked 35 years ago

 I'd vote for an MP in my area that did a damn good job regardless , I voted Lib Dem once as he was a good local candidate  (in fact I've voted Lib Dem as many times as I've voted Tory , mind you I've only voted twice  )

Awol, my local MP did a superb job of lobbying on our behalf and giving us the contacts to fight and win a court case against the FAW. It's not that we wouldn't have won the case without him, we wouldn't even have been able to get it to court, we wouldn't have known what to do. When he comes to the footy (which he still does, love him), I say hello.

On other non footballing matters, he has since gone on to criticise a local foodbank, stating free food makes people lazy. He has also taken a six figure salary plus six figure expenses and then voted to reduce disability benefits. Literally this week I have discovered that when he was a Welsh Assembly member, he received expenses to have a flat in Cardiff Bay as his commute between constituency and assembly was unduly arduous. Eleven Miles. Eleven. 

Now in parliament and now promoted to Wales Secretary, he does what he is told by the tory leader and tory whips. I didn't vote for him and looking at his voting record since, I was damn right not to. But that's the Westminster party system for you.

38 minutes ago, Awol said:

If you've got an argument to make then great, let's hear it and debate it. There is no need for the other crap, besides which you're confusing me with Tony...

I'd written a similar response and then decided life is too short to squabble on the internet.

Look, if my views or lack of passion for the freedoms Westminster offer aren't your cup of tea, I won't be offended, do feel free to use the ignore function.

But genuinely, whilst your contributions are obviously considered, I think they are easily countered. There is no more fact to debate in your understanding of freedom than in my half arsed contradictions and counters. If you want to post up grand eloquent speeches on the freedoms hard won by Ghandi or Robert The Bruce and now offered to us by Westminster, that's fine, that's an interesting perspective. Personally, I'm not convinced. Whilst I'm not convinced, I think the majority of voters could be.

One thing is for sure, after the referendum, life will carry on, and I will have about as much influence on Westminster as I have on Brussels. 

5 hours ago, Awol said:

But but, The Tories! Mates in The City! 

See above reference puerile caricatures.

Calm down love.

There's a chance there are caricatures on both sides of this fact free debate.

We both know that.

1 hour ago, Awol said:

No no no! The EU protects the little guy, does not encourage oligopolies through massive regulation buttressed by armies of lobbyists from big business, does not install Goldman Sachs graduates as replacements for democratically elected leaders, does not represent the interests of big capital, respects democratic referenda and is the bringer of peace and goodwill to all men.

Whats more if you don't agree you're probably a white supremacist who'd vote Trump given the chance.*

*other equally puerile caricatures of the leave campaign are available in this thread.

Rest assured that the protection of the little guy will be enhanced by the tory party should we vote leave. They will put an end to looking after your chums in the city and they will stop money buying influence.

1 minute ago, blandy said:

But it is trivia, Mike. As Frankie Boyle said, we're having a referendum to decide the next leader of the tory party.

No, no, no, you are wrong.

It's hardly trivia to be able to produce goods we can sell to europe that no longer have to meet european standards. Once we are out we will be able to make stuff to whatever standard we like and sell it to them.

Also, once we are out we will be allowed to sell stuff all over the world, which at the moment would be illegal.

Once out we will be able to stop all those indians, south africans, americans, pakistani's, kiwis and australians from coming over here. They'll have to go and live with the tens of thousands of Brits in France, Spain and Cyprus.

Once out of europe we can stop taking in all these refugees. In Wales alone we've already taken in up to 11 families. Enough is enough.

Once out, we can spend money on our borders and our police and customs, which I guess at the moment we can't be allowed to.

Hardly trivia.

12 minutes ago, Mantis said:

How is that even relevant? All I'm saying is that I think it's very far-fetched that the Secret Service or elements of it would conspire (either directly or indirectly) to have President Sanders killed.

Would Sanders be a target? Of course, but no more so than Obama and Bush.

It's relevant because sometimes some state employees can end up doing some very odd things.

Sometimes, those who's duty it is to protect can actually end up selling military hardware to rogue states and use the profit from that to set up shell companies that fund terrorist campaigns by known drug smuggling gangs. Resulting in the killing, torturing and raping of thousands of innocent people along the way. Whilst believing they are doing the right thing for the greater good.

It's highly unlikely. But it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one person or a small group somewhere in that team could decide that they are serving the greater good to have a president killed. Directly or indirectly.

Or to put it another way, if you found out that there was one single rogue nutjob somewhere in the CIA / FBI / US Military, and that one nutjob wanted to kill a socialist president, would that be utterly mind bogglingly beyond your wildest imaginings?

I don't think it's the most likely thing to happen. Not by a long way. But I also don't think it's very far fetched. 

6 minutes ago, Mantis said:

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. They serve the office not the individual. I expect some people were saying the same things during the height of Bush's unpopularity.

sometimes some people get confused over office / personality / duty / legal / illegal

Cameron and his advisers have created this problem for themselves.

The question was clear, it encompassed his close family, past, present and future.

His first response was to answer only for himself and only in the present. It was explained to his advisers why a partial answer looked bad. So there was a 'clarification' that his kids and wife won't benefit in the future. Which still leaves his mum, and still leaves him potentially having benefited in the past.

If he and his advisers, can't understand the wording, they really shouldn't be running a country and organising an EU referendum.

If they do understand it and are trying to be 'clever' they are going to come unstuck as journalists and opposition will not leave this alone.

If they do understand, have nothing to hide and think the bullish but incomplete answer was sufficient, well then they've done themselves a huge dis service, letting people that suspect politicians anyway, have 2 days of wriggling half answers.

Why not just answer the question properly when it came up? Poorly advised, or poorly prepared, or hiding something.

9 hours ago, Pilchard said:

Surely we haven't sunk so low as to play Bin Laden at right back.

I'm not sure why he was ever in the bomb squad.

to be fair to the Daily Mail if he wasn't white, rich, or didn't have little kids in swimwear with him that they could photograph with a long lense they wouldn't see much of a story in it

I've just been swatting up on saints in case there were more questions (again, I wouldn't have instantly known the dragon slaying thing, but now it's been said, I've got a recollection of seeing a picture / statue of him twatting a dragon with a lance).

Welsh one is great, he was giving a talk to a crowd, not everyone could see him so he made a little hill rise up to stand on. 

ok ok I'm not very good at saints, now I've googled it, yes, I think I 'knew' that now I've read it.

So did the english saint do anything special? Off the top of my head I genuinely can't think what his usp was.

Just now, BOF said:

The whole Saint Patrick thing? ...

errrmmmm....?

I'm supposed to know something here aren't I?

.......off to google.....

I'm pretty sure the adder is the only native poisonous snake in the UK.

They're relatively common as a species, venomous but not deadly (or at least spectacularly rarely), quite a few areas around here have signs up warning of their presence.

None in Ireland? 

8 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Do you have poisonous snakes in Britain?

back of the net!

the question that was put:

Quote

Can you clarify for the record that you and your family have not derived any benefit in the past and will not in the future from the offshore Blairmore Holdings fund mentioned in the Panama Papers?

the answer given:

Quote

In terms of my own financial affairs, I have no shares, no offshore trusts, no offshore funds, nothing like that. And, so that, I think, is a very clear description.

Guardian

What are the odds that at some point in the future we will find our PM picking over the exact wording used?

Will there be some 'debate' over whether a blind trust he doesn't control set up by his advisers for the Cameron kiddies could be included in 'I have'?

Only time will tell I guess. Wonder how the likes of Peter Mandelson are viewing all this?

1 minute ago, Rob182 said:

No, to be worse, he could simply stop putting money into the club to cover the debt, like other owners might not want or be able to do.

If people think that being 20th in the overall pile of English leagues is bad, they'll be in for a shock if we get an owner like the chicken men or Carson Yeung.

No, I'm not in for a shock. I understand the type of people that are out there.

What part of Lerner's record so far makes you think waiting 1 week, 1 year or a decade will make a difference to Lerner's ability to sell to the right person? He is incompetent. He just blagged it this far by somehow spending his millions on covering off incompetence rather than real investment.

Did Lerner speculate to accumulate? No, he spunked it until he flunked it.

Right now, I think Lerner will drive away fans, strangle the infrastructure, drive up debt, wait a few years and then panic and randomly sell to chicken men.

8 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

I have seen other comments about trying to make Randy commit to selling the club.

This, I'm really uneasy with.

Simply passing the ownership to someone else will not resolve all our problems. We could get a MUCH worse owner than Lerner, with worse intentions. We could get an owner who doesn't want to put in any of his own money to cover the ongoing debt we seem to have. Where will that leave us?

We could get a much worse owner.

He could be permanently absent, make every decision too late, make every decision worse than the last one, sack and appoint a couple of managers per year, turn the player budget on and off at random, appoint foreign friends with no nouse and no respect to the board, fail to communicate, get us relegated and break all manner of records we don't won't to be associated with on the way down. He could be incompetent. He could instill a sense of defeat through all the staff from the stewards to the tea ladies to the players and the manager. He could withdraw the biscuits. He could have no plan to stop the rot, no understanding of business, no understanding of fans, no idea how to stop us dropping another level again. He could stink the place out with failure.

If Lerner is still here in another 2 years I'm absolutely confident he will have got us out of the Championship....

Of course, to be worse, he'd have to do something else on top of all that. I guess he could build houses on Villa Park and move the club to Redditch?