Jump to content

The_godfather

Members
  • Posts

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

The_godfather last won the day on January 10 2020

The_godfather had the most liked content!

About The_godfather

  • Birthday 28/05/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

The_godfather's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/12)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Dedicated
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

127

Reputation

  1. This is obviously all total waffleyboll0cks that is completely divorced from reality. For those interested, I'm going to explain it to you. Phil, I don't expect you to agree with it, or change your mind about it, but this is the actual situation. The ECHR (court) is a legal mechanism, to help manage a legal framework (European Convention of Human Rights). The framework is not quite the same thing as the mechanism. This framework is an internationally agreed treaty to help safeguard agreed basic human rights that was agreed a long time ago. To be clear, it has nothing to do with illegal migration and it has nothing to do with people smugglers. It cannot, and is not trying to resolve that problem. The government is absolutely loving this, because it gives them the chance to do what they do best - NOTHING to help you whatsoever, but everything to start a new argument and blame someone else for their own epically vast shortcomings. To address your points in the post above: 1) The UK government is not restricted in any way by the ECHR, so in that sense, you are wrong. Unless by constrained, you mean that they have to follow the international laws that they have signed up to? In kind of the same way that you are restricted, by the law, to not killing people. This law, as a reminder, concerns Basic. Human. Rights. As in, things like don't regard people from elsewhere as inferior and treat them as such. 2) The fact that the ECHR is even involved in the process should be a bit of a red flag. As in, SWAT smashing through your living room window. The whole policy is a catastrophe - morally, economically, legally. It doesn't make sense, it wouldn't achieve anything even if it was enacted 100% as planned and you would still have exactly the same complaints in 2 years time. 3) Further, the fact that the ECHR are even involved completely refutes your point about "countries like Saudi, Qatar, Pakistan, China etc." Based on the evidence, we certainly do need to be part of a framework of governance, because the slaphappy morons in charge are so intent on trying to subvert the rules that apply to everyone. We don't need reform, we just need to treat people - some of the most marginalised and desperate people - with a bit of decency and respect, like the rules say. Just to be absolutely crystal f*cking clear on 2 points: 1) You cannot stop migrants from trying to enter 'illegally'. If you are angry about it, speak to your MP and ask what the govt has been doing for the last 12 years and why their beloved Brexit hasn't fixed it. The notion that this somehow attacks the business model of the criminals, from the most notorious criminal cartel in the country, is laughable. The smugglers still get their money, and send the people over - it's just then on the authorities in the UK to sort it out. The moronic argument that Rwanda is somehow a great place to go, therefore we are dissuading people from coming here, because we are sending them to this great place, beggars belief. 2) If you can't see that this affects you, I don't really know what to say. The pattern of behaviour could not be any clearer. Government tries ridiculous policy, obviously fails due to <insert reason here>, they throw their hands up and say - "see, we tried, but they stopped us. Give us more power, and we will sort it out." For an example of this, see - the bill that has severely restricted your right to protest against anything. It is naked authoritarianism, centralising power in the executive, and then saying - well, it's democratic, we won the election. I can 100% f*cking guarantee you if Labour win the next election, the Tories will be screaming that the government is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, etc etc.
  2. This is proper through the looking glass stuff. Proper "it's 1850 and Britannia rules the waves" vibes. I'm honestly not sure which part of this word salad to address first: The assumption that we would somehow be negotiating on 'equal terms' with the world's biggest economy in any trade deal (we wouldn't) The insane thought that the USA would somehow enter those talks in good faith, seeing what the UK is actively doing themselves right now The laughable and offensive assertion that it is the EU, and not the UK government leveraging something (the troubles) which had nothing to do with the EU, and which to a large extent, the UK government caused in the first place. The equally laughable reference to the 'annexation of part of our nation', by which you mean sovereign territory, firstly, which again was the result of the so called excellent agreement the UK government made, and secondly, on that basis you will presumably agree was sovereign to someone else before it was forcibly divided. As usual, you have zero nuance to add to the debate. It's F#$^ing prehistoric stuff. Me good, you bad. Being able to acknowledge that you make mistakes is one of the key signs of growth, which is why the UK is heading backwards. Difficult to tell where - the 70's, the 40's, who knows at the current rate.
  3. He was a decent servant for the club, and we should only feel pleased for him!
  4. He's not even the strongest leader in his own family.
  5. It's a good move for Harratt - local, right level, great person to learn from (don't forget how good a player Hughes was!) Few people being a bit too romantic about things - the loan system is a purely transactional, self-interested system where clubs higher up are trying to get the most out of it. We should just target different players that we think will do the job for what we need.
  6. It looked great against that narrow Mansfield system, but we saw other teams counter it quite effectively earlier in the season, and we struggled to adapt. (I actually think having Taylor fit, who could have been that more natural replacement for Conlon in the attacking third, would have made a difference in this respect). We will need a Plan B in League 1. A little bit ironically, one of the things that people were previously a bit critical of Clarke about - his tinkering, changing of formations - was something we didn't do much of, other than the switch to 3-4-3, which wasn't very successful, and our best form came back once we returned to the tried and tested 3-5-2.
  7. I tend to agree with this. I don't think that it is being negative, just realistic. We will need 3, probably 4 new quality starters throughout the team, to significantly raise the level. I do think we have some good players, a good blend, and plenty that could play in League 1. But we need quality on top of it. It's not like we romped the league, and played teams off the park every week. I am pretty sure that Clarke is very unsentimental though when it comes to this; it won't matter what the current crop have done, if he doesn't think they are right for League 1, they won't be here. There will always be clubs that underperform that we can look to exploit, and there will be those (like Accrington) that continue to overperform. But look at some of the sides that people haven't mentioned much - Oxford, Ipswich, Charlton, Lincoln, Wycombe, Plymouth; those are tough games. For those saying we beat Burton, Accrington, played well against Rotherham, we would need to do that every game for 46 games, which is a little different. We should be aiming for a season of consolidation, out of danger, 12th-15th. I think that will take some going!
  8. Anyone saying get rid of Anderson & Broad is nuts. Sure, manage their workload if you need to, but don't install a new captain, then chop him off at the knees by giving him a bowling attack with no experience, and no-one to offer a sounding board to for opinion. Stokes needs to be able to embrace that x-factor role that he has now in my opinion - bat 6, bowl enough to impact when required, but not too much, and not try to do too much. That will give him the headspace to be able to cope with the rigours of being the captain. Try and make him do too much and he'll be ruined, and out altogether in 18 months.
  9. I don't know why I bother, but still. Increasing the military budget is not foreign policy. It's actually got nothing; nada, zilch, to do with foreign policy - unless you think foreign policy = invading other countries. Foreign policy is about having a coherent philosophy, strategy, and execution to your relationships with other countries. It's executed through diplomacy, trade agreements, collaborating with partners with similar objectives, and occasionally, through the threat of military intervention. The American obsession with military and the enormous military-industrial complex which creates jobs/money, and lines the pockets of lots of big companies is what drives the expenditure. Trump likes to think he is some kind of strong man, so loved to talk about the military, wanted parades like China/North Korea, etc. That's all there is to it - nothing else. Trump doesn't have a coherent thought in his head, and isn't interested in any kind of policy, let alone foreign. If the budget was cut in half, which it probably could be from an actual military perspective in terms of requirements, it would have an enormous impact on jobs, etc. The problem now is that the investment is so large, such an industry in and of itself, that if you reduce it, it screws up the existing investments. Particularly love the way that you talk about Biden - one of the most centrist in the whole Democrat party - and 'his' 'progressives', as if they are not critical of much of what the government does. You do know what progressive means, right? Looking/moving forward, not back.
  10. September 2020 Boris Johnson bans cabinet ministers from using the word 'Brexit' | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK December 2021 Civil servants have been BANNED from saying 'Brexit' | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK
  11. I want this just to royally piss off Joey Barton.
  12. Love listening to the pod, especially the grades. For the last few games have really been enjoying: Jonny - describes the player's game, gives a grade. Second person - "I agree - can't really add anything to that." *Proceeds to talk for the next 2-3 minutes about said player.* Can't believe that inplayman's tip of the week isn't Jonny to say: "I love Harry Charsley. I just love everything about him." (which I assume also means his facial hair!?)
  13. If you freeze frame it on 22 seconds, when Charsley is going past him, his right arm is out, and it looks like his hand may have come into contact with the Hunter's face. Completely accidental, very light, embarrassing reaction. But if there was contact, it gives him a reason to give a free kick if he thinks was an impediment in any way...
  14. 4.5hrs one way, 4.5 weeks in the doghouse. A small price to pay...
  15. Boys, re. possession data, I remember hearing Duncan Alexander from Opta once talking about how they measure it only from the number of passes, not duration or anything like that. So you can play 10 quick passes between the centre backs, and it would count the same as a 10 pass move that forwards, sideways and backwards. It's one reason why Barca's possession stats always looked so crazy - yes, they did have more of the ball, but the quick 1-2-3-4 type passing added a padding effect to it.
×
×
  • Create New...