Sam-AVFC

2 hours ago, villalad21 said:

If we can't beat a 10 man historically weak Arsenal team which of the top 6 sides are we supposed to beat?

Norwich lost to Burnley and Crystal Palace in the 2 games before beating Man City.

The problem against Arsenal was decisions (or lack thereof) in the second half causing us to sit deeper and deeper as players tired. We showed in the first half we have more than enough ability to give them a good game, we just need to stop dropping so many points from winning positions.

Also worth noting that the "historically weak Arsenal team" is ahead of three of last years top 6. Not too shabby to only be trailing Man City and Liverpool from that group. The only other team ahead of them, Leicester, are third in the form table since Rodgers took over (pretty sure this was the stat).

2 hours ago, MotoMkali said:

Completely disagree with Elmo's crosses. Elmo puts in one good cross every two or 3 weeks other than that they are all floaty and shit. At least Guilbert's crosses are hit hard so if a player gets a touch on it there is a good chance they will score. 

I think Elmo is a great crosser of the ball, but the problem for me is that he is only ever sending in crosses to the head from around the edge of the box. This isn't ideal when Wesley doesn't seem to have great heading ability.

I don't think I've ever seen him running towards the byline and whipping one in low like Guilbert did for the goal (and Targett did for the disallowed goal) which is something I've wanted to see from our FBs for years.

53 minutes ago, useless said:

I've never predicted us to lose on this website, and never predicted a scoreline either way, for one of our games, so not sure why I'd be predicting us to lose 3-0 or 4-0 to United. That said people talk about it being too early to make a judgement on our season but then do the very same thing with other teams, by the time we play United they could very well have turned their season around, I'd be suprised if they're not top six by the end of the season.

Difference is teams drop fewer points at that end of the table so it's that much harder to play catch up.

21 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, I admire your resolve.

I guess the real test is when you have no job, they’ve taken your car, the mortgage can’t be paid and the kids need medicine and there’s no NHS and no benefits.

Voting for the party that thinks its natural that jobs drift east, against the party that says they will reopen the logging plant, that’s some strong moral compass.

I’m not disagreeing, it’s just never as black n white as 50 second news bites can make it sound. I think the guy is an absolute horror, but there’s different context, there isn’t the safety net for many over there that we have here. Albeit, our safety net has wider and wider holes in it.

You have to wonder, if life was so fair and equitable under the Democrat Presidency, how the hell did they lose to such a turd of a man? It really wasn’t because half the country hates women.

The first couple of paragraphs are why I said think because you’re quite right that it’s easy to take a moral stand from a theoretical point of view but you don’t know unless you are actually in that situation. I completely accept that assumption comes from a place of privilege.

But it still relies on believing a man like Trump would prioritise the ‘man on the street’ in contrast to pretty much everything he’s done.

There are definitely issues in developed countries worldwide with people feeling disenfranchised and the rise of opportunistic populism. As you allude to, the solution is for the political class to engage with these people rather than deride their voting decisions.

24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s not just moral deficit that causes people to vote for Trump.

I know most wouldn’t have voted for him because of that, but I don’t think I’d be able to excuse voting for someone like that regardless of how well their policies align with my beliefs/needs. 

It also relies on people actually taking him at his word and many of those examples scream to me of a man who can’t be trusted.

On 27/09/2019 at 09:33, tonyh29 said:

yeah bit of a brain freeze moment , i meant they didn't find  him "guilty" or whatever you call the outcome of an impeachment  even though he was bang to rights  , so it's unlikely they'd get a conviction on Trump

You say Clinton was bang to rights and they’re unlikely to get anything on Trump, but considering the two charges for Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice I’m not sure why you think this.

Trump WILL lie under oath if he ever testifies and actually answers questions and they could already pursue the obstruction route if they wanted to.

Ultimately I think it will be academic as I’m expecting much worse shit than either of these to come out soon enough. 

I’m sure he’ll have plenty of support anyway as the sort of people with enough of a moral deficit to vote for this man won’t give a shit. I find it amazing that some people are only now saying they can no longer support him. Newsflash - if sexual violence against his ex, various racial discrimination cases lost, Trump uni, Central Park 5, births risk, numerous rape allegations (and language by Trump suggesting he has that mindset) etc didn’t stop you voting for him then distancing yourself now does not make you a good person!

Went a bit off tangent there...

Bloody hell, that is insane. Must be some people making serious cash out of that.

57 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

Hologram tours.

Dead artists raking in cash for their family I presume. Not a chance I'd pay to see a hologram of someone 6 foot under. **** weird.

I wouldn't have a problem with going to a big show that uses holograms along with real acts. You could see the likes of Disney using it to tart up their shows.

I'm with you though that it is baffling people go to these concerts to watch a hologram. Do you have any idea how ticket prices compare to the live acts?

8 hours ago, A'Villan said:

Saw the news of impeachment briefly on the discussion panel of an ABC current affairs program. Haven't got up to date with it so can't really comment anything of worth..

But my initial and uneducated impression is that there will be a loophole somewhere along the line of discussion that means he will not face the full consequences.

And it will be because it is "In the best interests of the American people".

The 'loophole' is that the Republican Senate would have to vote to impeach him. Not gunna happen.

Matt Gaetz was even on TV Yesterday admitting a group of Republicans had already been to the White House so they could be briefed on what would be released and to get their talking points straight.

Have you guys checked out the old aerial images on Google Earth?

You can't do it direct from the Google website, but if you use Google Earth and click this button you can roll back the satellite view to see historic images.

The ones I find interesting were taken by planes in 1945. I've assumed this would be to 'take stock' at the end of the war, but I'd be interested if anyone knows another reason these would have been taken.

Unfortunately the 1945 picture of Villa Park hasn't quite lived up to my expectations, although it is interesting when compared to the current footprint.

30 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the transcript has been released   ..... i've seen "nothing wrong and proves no pressure was put " to " it's how a mafia boss would talk" 

if they didn't impeach the serial adulterer lair I can't  see them being able to impeach over this   .... but nothing in politics surprises me nowadays

But they did hold impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Maybe but think this squad lacks egos which helps

Too many guaranteed starters who couldnt cut it in big tournaments like Gerrard 

It is interesting when you hear that generation talk about the national team and how they were never able to get on as the PL rivalries were so heated. It seems that Fortnite has now solved this problem for us!

7 minutes ago, Zatman said:

This England team would beat the Capello team. Maybe not better players on paper but better team. 

People forget Capello took over England that failed to qualify Euro 2008

Sounds like a job well done by Southgate to me

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but I still don't see any airlines adopting it until consumers demand it

Unfortunately I think that is always going to be the case.

Even companies with really comprehensive CSR policies only do it as they know a growing number of young people are engaged with these issues so it could improve income.

My dissertation was actually on the profitability of sustainability (particularly from a real estate perspective) looking at factors that were easy to quantify, as well as those that are more difficult. The reality is any corporation will be willing to reduce energy usage as it's a cost saving, whereas more wide-ranging green policies will be decided based on their target market.

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

i went to the trouble of quoting the headline they used  for you "my proudest moment"  .. it's definitely them that deserves the flack

I know you did in your post before last, but let's be honest it took a bit of wrangling!

Originally these are what you said:

Quote

Hale already called her article 50 decision something like the greatest day of her life

Quote

i thought her article 50 comment was widely known

I know you said she said 'something like' which is fair (and valid to not bother with a direct quote), but it looks like the papers embellished the whole thing and she never said anything like this. I always find it odd how one paper makes a statement like this then they all follow on with the same mistake.

Maybe she did say something like that seperately, but it was off the record so they have to paraphrase.

12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

tbf  you should probably direct your thoughts on this to the source that linked me to the guardian article 

But again in that article they also attribute her saying it's one of her proudest moments to the same quote - they just removed the "I'm proud of the Miller case", which was a direct quote, and replaced it with '[She said it was] one of her proudest moments'. 

I can't see any news source that actually puts the statement in quotation marks and they all seem to link it to the same quote which definitely doesn't say what that.

Quote

Lady Hale is quoted as describing the ruling in Miller as one of her proudest moments. ’It was a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do,’ the newspaper quotes Hale as saying. ’It was reminiscent of the 17th-century battle between parliament and the king. We were reinforcing principles that had been established then.’

I'm definitely unimpressed with the journalists being misleading, but you take the flack as you're the one who brought it to my attention in this thread!

Side note - I think lots of kids are words removed, but don't really see it as my place to comment as an adult. Just because a particular child is in the public eye it doesn't add any more justification to slating them.

1 hour ago, Genie said:

I was wondering why the media put these children on a platform? Why not a scientist or professor with 50 years experience and data instead?

The science is out there already though and people still choose to ignore it. Covering school protests adds a human element reminding people that it's their kids' future that will be affected.

It's pretty easy to dispassionately read a scientific paper without giving any thought to the human element, whereas it's harder to ignore your child when they ask why you don't care about their (and their childrens') future.

The whole thing is no doubt opportunistic, but I see no problem with that when the cause is good and the scientific consensus doesn't seem to have done a great job at waking people up.

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

you are being stupid   as this court case was nothing to do with Brexit  ...   this case was all about constitutional issues  , as per the verdict they gave down which stated "something like "   their view was it  had the effect of  preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification

 

I used the words "something like"  in my sentence  but  i've read it, and she actually said one of my proudest moments  and not the greatest day of her life  , I'll admit that was a poor use of words from my side

I think we're on the same page with your first paragraph; my whole point was that it seems to be the constitutional precedents that excite her as opposed to anything to do with Brexit. It still astonishes me that anyone can be outraged by a decision that something has to be 'reasonably justified'.

Pedantic I know, but it also doesn't look like she said the second bit. That was The Guardian paraphrasing the following quote that I was referring to in my last post:

“I’m proud of the [article 50, Gina] Miller case because it was a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do,” Hale explained. “It was reminiscent of the 17th-century battle between parliament and the king. We were reinforcing principles that had been established then.”

I know it might seem petty, but to me "one of my produest moments" is much easier to see as a political declaration (albeit still only be implied) than "I'm proud of".

6 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Seeing him play.

Doesn't look natural and comfortable in that dm role at all. Nakamba played miles better in that role.

Luiz looks better when getting further up the field.

I don't disagree with your opinion, just wondered what 'supposed to' meant as it looks like hes mostly played as a DLP.

There is definitely an argument his attributes suit box to box better though and I'm hopeful that our coaches will train and play players in the position they feel they are best suited for rather than stubbornly sticking to a role because it's what they bought a player to play.

10 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Luiz is supposed to be a box to box midfielder. So i would very much think that's exactly his game.

Based on?

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

As i understand it there was nothing wrong with the evidence it was just that it was prepared by a legal team and given to the witnesses  , the evidence itself wasn't a lie ( see previous link to the broadcast)

I've missed something here, but what exactly is the evidence? I don't see how evidence can be true if it's being fed to people without first hand experience.

Surely there are two types of evidence:

1. Documents (emails, recordings, financial records etc)
2. Witnesses (I saw/heard something happen)

You can't say that something happened so the evidence is true, the person being asked to make the statement simply didn't witness it happen. If a witness to an event is not willing to speak up there is no evidence, just hearsay.

Please do set me straight if I've got mixed up as I'm not sure exactly what evidence you're all talking about!

Edit - I appreciate the link you posted may explain this. Sorry if it does and I'm asking you to paraphrase but I wont be able to listen for a few hours.

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

no real need for the last sentence , i thought her article 50 comment was widely known , it was along similar  lines  to her 1611 comments ... but here is a link to the article

She didn't call it the "greatest day of her life" then, which changes the tone quite a bit!

In the quote you posted she said she was proud of the case as it was fighting constitutional issues with principles established around the time of the English Civil War.

Am I being stupid, or is there absolutely nothing in that quote that has anything to do with the actual issue of Brexit?

9 minutes ago, sne said:

3 years in the Championship and the only academy players to really make any sort on dent into the senior squad is Grealish and to a lesser extent Davis who has 4 goals in 48 appearances.

We've certainly been doing something wrong.

Green? I know he didn't do as much as we would have hoped, but I'm not sure how much Davis outperformed him.

I do agree that it's still not good enough if it's those three.

Edit: wasn't Davis about 18 when he joined anyway?

16 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

All or nothing, No deal or Remain.

We'll be here another 10 years negotiating a deal and getting one through parliament as being allowed on the ballot.

 

I'd prefer waiting another decade than to still be negotiating our way out of WTO terms with some countries in three!