Jump to content

The_godfather

Members
  • Posts

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by The_godfather

  1. 12 hours ago, philpvfc said:

    We are totally restricted by them, cannot enforce any law to restrict illegal immigrants and it’s not as if we are going to become a new Saudi. Should never have signed up to it and should leave asap. The ECHR have not come up with anything to reduce illegal migration or clamp down on the illegal people smugglers, complete and utter waste of time, countries like Saudi, Qatar, Pakistan, China etc. the countries which need human rights reforms need something like ECHR, we certainly don’t.

    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.

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Regal Beagle said:

    Easy.

     

    If we bend over for the EU then there's no way we can negotiate on equal terms with USA. The treaty with the EU is a joke, they were proper scummy with the way they leveraged the troubles to gain political capital and so we should stick the agreement right up their backsides.

     

    We voted for brexit to be rid of their ludicrous governance not to let them annex part of our nation just so they can feel like they're teaching us a lesson.

     

    Can someone explain why anyone would support the EU in all of this?

    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.

    • Like 4
  3. 1 hour ago, Packmoor_vale said:

    My name says where I am 👍 

    Boris is the strongest leader out there 

    He's not even the strongest leader in his own family.

  4. 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.

    • Like 6
  5. 18 hours ago, Joe B said:

    352 is so deliciously balanced if you get the personnel right.

    You get your two strikers to stretch defences. Three in the midfield so you don't lose that battle. Three centre halves which can easily switch to a back 4/5 if a wing-back drops in. Wing-backs with energy and pace provide width. If the players are right, there aren't any weaknesses/

    It's hard to argue we're one of the most individually talented team in the league. The system, and signing players specifically to fit it, was key. 

    A 10, a ball-playing RCB, and a young, athletic wing-back are the best ways to take it to the next level.

    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.

  6. 4 hours ago, Guitar Ray said:

    We will need more pace, and more quality throughout the side.  A quicker CH, midfielder and forward as a bare minimum.  You can probably make those plurals.  It’s not panicking, we’re in the process of trying to recruit better players to improve the playing squad, just like every other team, Fleetwood and Morecambe included.  If we don’t improve the squad and first 11 we will all be left with egg on our faces.

    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!

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  7. 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. 

  8. 15 hours ago, For Us All said:

    No,his foreign policy to increase the Pentagon budget to $717 billion,an increase of $82 billion from the previous year.Biden's 'progressives' want to reduce the budget and use the money for their green agenda.

    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.

  9. On 29/03/2022 at 23:17, Packmoor_vale said:


    funny u guys are

    I ain’t that botheread either way I know life ain’t changed that much to even begin to worry about it but my comment was on the the government banning the b word 

     

    September 2020

     

    December 2021

     

     

  10. On 01/04/2022 at 20:55, Osh said:

    One other thing - at the Vale-Bristol Rivers game, wouldn't be great if we got the singing going along with Rovers of us singing Daryl Clarks Black and White Army and they reply Daryl Clarks Blue and White Army and we keep replying to each other for as long as possible.

    They idolised Clark - as do we, and it would be great to reach out to them to ask them to do this and put revelry aside for a short while.

    Keep that going for 10 mins and it will be on the news!!

    I want this just to royally piss off Joey Barton.

    • Like 1
  11. 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!?)

    • Like 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Emile said:

    Is there any way to report this directly to the FA or someone else? Ref's need to be held accountable for their actions and I would love to hear the justifaction for this decision??

    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...

  13. On 29/03/2022 at 05:48, Conrad said:

    I’m on holiday in Cornwall end of May, just hope I don’t miss the play off finals.

    4.5hrs one way, 4.5 weeks in the doghouse.

    A small price to pay...

    • Like 2
    • Haha 3
  14. 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. 

    • Like 1
  15. It's games like this that will determine where we finish in the league. For me, it's must-win, and absolutely, not-lose.

    Broadly, you would think we will have similar results to the teams around us against the bottom half - and we can't rely on teams dropping points. If we can win against those around us, it has that double effect, particularly while we still have 1-2 games in hand on most. I'd still rather have points in the bank than games in hand, so the sooner we can get on a winning run and get back up in that top 3 mix, the better.

    Their games seem to be pretty tight and low scoring. Hopefully we can nick it.

  16. Some (slightly edited an hour later )thoughts for you on the game fellas.

    You would have to consider it 2 points dropped, after being a goal up. Until Angol came on, Bradford were pretty dreadful going forward, Vernam apart. Their midfield was non-existent although they were effective in stopping us playing. We used the ball poorly, particularly in forward areas out wide, and especially on over/underlapping runs where opportunities were ignored. We had a couple of decent long range efforts, but not much in terms of clear cut chances. Robinson probably had his best game for Vale.

    For us, Gibbons looked one of our liveliest players, looking to drive forward at every opportunity, but wasn't involved much in the 2nd half until late on. Worrall was very quiet but grew in influence as the game wore on and helped. The midfield didn't seem balanced to me today - Conlon clearly had the class, but didn't get it enough in the right areas to consistently hurt Bradford; when he did, he made things happen. Pett was tidy, but that's all you could say, and Garrity had one of those days where his energy was evident but didn't bring any returns. 

    For them, Threlkeld should have gone for those 2 fouls, in the first half, and then really, the whole game changed once Angol came on. The first thing he did was be aggressive in a challenge with Jones, and that set the tone - Bradford suddenly had a focal point to play off and they made the most of it. Good header for the goal, Covolan could never have saved it. Smith's mistake really - not only did he give it away with some strange outside of the boot punt, he then chased out to try and close down, was still nowhere near, and wasn't in the middle to deal with the incoming cross (which was decent).

    Wilson's goal was fantastic - great turn and pass from him out wide, then sprinted 60 yards to get on the end of some comical defending.

    The subs clearly struggled, but I didn't really blame them to be honest. Taylor was energetic and trying to get involved in the game, but once Wilson went off, we seemed to sit deeper, and just launch it forwards at Lloyd and Rodney. Neither did much, but they weren't exactly offered great service, one excellent Worrall cross fizzed across the 6 yard box aside. At first glance, I thought Conlon's through ball to Lloyd for his great chance was slightly behind him to be honest, and his first touch took him back in to the defence. At least with the competition, Politic will be straining at the leash next week.

    Regarding the ref, when the crowd got on his back late on - the keeper's challenge on Rodney was clumsy rather than malicious. He knew he would probably get Rodney on the follow through, but Rodney slightly slipped into it, and it probably made it look worse than it was. The Canavan elbow on Lloyd after was worse - the kind of sly dig that is deliberate, and that you couldn't get away with in the Premier League with VAR, but you can a lot at this level. 

    If Bradford are in the playoffs come May, Adams deserves to be Manager of the Year.

  17. 15 hours ago, Davebrad said:

    i don't know why i should be 300yrs old? as to the deaths and diseases fair enough, but just possibly in fighting of local tribes etc would have occured... i still say name any country now that is the worst for our having been there. Law, government,  infrastructure, education, medicines,

    Dave, I understand the point that you are trying to make, and this is a little off topic from this thread, but please try to consider this:

    The view that you seem to be taking - that British involvement in other countries during the colonial period, was overwhelmingly good, i.e. the examples you gave (Law, government,  infrastructure, education, medicines), is looking entirely through a British telescope at it. In doing that you, you are making the assumptions that:

    1) linear progress towards Westernized conceptions (i.e. how you view these things) of things like law and govt was inevitable, and Britain "just initiated it".

    2) The people subject to these changes in these countries would find them to be favourable to them. Which is clearly not the case. Colonial and indeed post-colonial history has shown over and over again that access to much of the above didn't necessarily make life better for ordinary people.

    To give an example of what I mean - it would be wrong to claim that there was no system of law, or government or education in Africa prior to colonial times - it just looked very, very different to the systems that we were used to in Britain at the time. It was relevant, and specific to the lives that people led at the time. Why need formal 'laws', if there are known and understood informal traditions that form a substitute that work just as well? Why need medicine to treat certain illnesses, or diseases, if some of those diseases didn't exist in the first place (i.e. they were imported there)?

    At a base level, it comes back to the "my law is better than your law" which is entirely the basis of colonialism. At best, a paternalistic "we will bring civilization to the uncivilized", at worst, a naked power grab.

    Anyway apologies to all for sidetracking. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  18. 12 hours ago, geosname said:

    That's a bit left wing... don't like what someone says so cancel.

    Whether you read my answers or not they will still be there.

    Tolerance and respect, the well-known bastions of the right wing.

    Free will in individual actions, the well-known enemy of conservative and libertarian philosophies.

    It's like watching a dog, trying to bite its tail.

  19. 6 hours ago, sunny boslem said:

    Like I’ve said before we don’t know if they are desperate refugees and it’s not just a few mate there coming in illegally in there thousands and we’re doing nothing about it 

     

    What are you talking about? Priti has been very strong and condemnatory in her language, appointed someone as the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander, and considered the use of wave machines to repel boats.

    I can't believe that hasn't done the trick - it was very clear to everyone, and that includes refugees who don't speak English, that Brexit means Brexit.

    • Haha 1
  20. 6 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

    Like Mr Trump??

    Like every Republican president prior to 2016.

    Like every Republican that ever voted against party lines.

    Like any Republican who ever thought against party lines.

    Like any Republican who doesn't think that all Democrats are leftist, wokeist, Social-Marxian hippies who will eat your babies, steal your houses, ban your BBQ's, and make Mr Potato Head transgender.

    You know, standard stuff.

     

×
×
  • Create New...