Sir Ralph

There is a possibility of this. Also there is a possibility that we get another manager who actually plays in a way that we create fewer chances than we have and our shite strikers have fewer chances to score. If we weren’t creating any chances and were 20th just because we were soft defensively and creating limited chances I would agree with you. To put this another way, if our strikers had done half their jobs we would have 9 points from the last three games and people would be happy I think he needs to be given time to sort this out but I think that’s respectfully where we differ.

Ok so what other stats are there to assess the teams performance when we know Individual errors and missing guilt edge chances are our problem? How else to we quantify overall performance? Or we just say bollocks to it, not enough points because players are making mistakes so sack him. That’s what we have been doing for 4 years and it isn’t working! To me Still isn’t the root cause of this problem, the players are mainly to blame and it mainly shite strikers and dumb defensive mistakes and that supports it. If you sack him will another manager make sure that Armstrong and archer finish their chances? Do you honestly think that?

I think your posts makes some reasonable points. However I think that being overly empathetic is why we have some of the issues we have now. Empathy is a good thing in principle (obviously) but blind empathy is naive. The reason why we have illegal immigration issues, a bloated welfare state and social issues linked to the prevalence of trans matters and other Woke promotion (BLM etc) is because of an over sensitivity and being overly empathetic to people who promote hard agendas around these issues and benefit from them. What we should have is a more balanced view which is empathetic yet takes a real world view to the potential implications of excessive adherence to these philosophies without challenging them and the negative social impact that they can have. That is one of the key reasons why people are kicking back and are minded to vote for Reform because there is a cultural disconnect between voters and the main parties in respect to a lot of these issues. I’m pretty certain that if the Woke agenda hadn’t gathered so much attention and support among some on the left (including the media) Farage would not be performing half as well as he is doing.

I agree - I don’t think changing him will help. This is Spors fault for not getting a striker (downs doesn’t count as a player) and the players like Armstrong and archer for not finishing

This explains that Still isn’t the problem but the players are and recruitment

The worst option of all the parties. Absolutely mental. Polanski is an 'eco-populist' and whilst he might think his policies are cool, the capitalist market that the western world works within will not. The markets will freak out if he gets in and that is bad news for all of us and our national debt. If he ever got in, I think very, very quickly, without him even doing anything, people will realise it was a bad move. There is a reason why its mainly kids with a lack of life experience that are supporting them (mainly supported by under 24's). On the face of it, their policies are lovely and I can see why people might thinks its a great idea to vote for them but we live in the real world. The saying is 'if it seems too good to be true, it probably is' applies to them. https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/

I appreciate this is a considered response but I can quote people who might suggest the current government falls within some unsavoury categories. Your conclusion seems to suggest that anyone to the right falls within this category but parties to the left dont, which I cant agree with. So far we can only go on Labour's record to date and even you are saying they havent been great - I think they have been pony, so record to date is all we can go on. The Greens have mad policies that would be destructive economically and for our reducing status in the world (I might as well vote for the Monster Raving Looney party). The Lib Dems have limited experience in Government and I'm not sure how they are any more credible than Reform in terms of experience. The fact is the three you have mentioned are shite, as are the rest of the parties. They all have shortcomings and its essentially voting for the least shite one which aligns with your values.

A bad apple should be somebody who throws their passport or ID away. It shows bad faith from the start and a commitment to play the system. Currently we just have to accept these characters. If that happens it should be immediate deportation to a third party country or island.

The legal system is creating lots of problems which mean that the bad apples are taking advantage. This leaves the genuine asylum seekers being naturally tarred with the same brush. You need to change the legal system otherwise the grouping of people will and is occurring. Those wanting to protect the existing system and its huge associated problems will actually likely cause the discrimination of the genuine claimants. The bad apples need to be dealt with in a robust and speedy manner (as part of a new system) for people to differentiate between them and the genuine claimants.

The actions of an uncivilised country is to allow rape, murder and harassing of it’s citizens to continue without attaching importance to it by addressing the cause.

That’s what you took from my post?! I didnt see those reports. He then went missing for a number of days despite it being splashed across the national press. What a lovely paedo. I mean are you serious? Are you defending the bloke and the shitshow of a legal system? your response isnt normal in the context

I understand why he has been paid in the context of the current system to avoid additional costs. The key point is how is this fucker allowed access to a system which protects him to the extent he can try to disrupt his deportation and mean that we have to pay this wanker £500. The legal framework (including the ECHR) that facilitates this is therefore perverse and I would go as far as to say, immoral. Surely you can see why people have the hump, are fed up and want a change to the legal framework that facilitates this? If you agree that this is wrong, by virtue of this you would have an isue with the legal system that allows it

My comment relates more to the legal system that means that we have to pander to them. A legal system is allegedly fair and just. This is not which is why it’s such a politically charged topic How can someone arrive illegally, break the law, run from jail and the legal system has so little teeth that we have to pay this bloke £500 to leave. And people laugh at people saying we need to leave the ECHR and other legal entities- it’s not bloody surprising!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9rxlvp85o Brilliant. It’s just astounding. Illegal imigrant, touched up kids, runs from jail, give the guy £500. What a joke. That proves how fucked up our legal system is that defines these people as legal. The fucked up system can call them what it wants and we can have legal interpretations all day long. In short they shouldn’t be here.

Ok legally they are not illegal but morally they are.

It’s the same thing. It’s semantics if you want to get into the legal interpretation you are technically correct but essentially the majority of people shouldn’t be here when they arrive as they aren’t fleeing from risk of life or persecution so most people see them as illegal, rather than using the technically correct terms. If my gran from Bolivia came here and tried to claim asylum I would describe her as illegal because she has no reason or right to enter the country’s shores coming from a safe country

My periods come every Friday afternoon and when I’m hungover

Why arent we recalling him from loan? We need a physical striker

Let me know if you can help me with the two questions above though as it maybe that we find common ground on these two points.

Thats fine - I have my doubts about Reform and their ability to govern too. The question is who is a credible alternative. Labour are not.

Its ok - I copied and pasted it for you. If you think that guy is a serious journalist then good luck to you. If you want to take your opinions from people like that then its legitimate to question your opinion on such matters as they are informed by dunces.

I said I dont believe it has significant merit because of the source. If I quoted a Daily Mail article I suspect you wouldnt read it (and I agree with that). Having read it its very sarcastic so I believe the author is biased. Its also quite subjective. If the Telegraph wrote this I would take the same view. Its childish journalism. The authors Wiki page is here and he sounds like a BSer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Crace_(writer) The only discernible information about him is the following so he has an anti - Reform agenda before (I'm not necessarily a Reform supporter), which further supports my view aout the quality of the Guardian if it lets people like this write in it: In July 2019, The Guardian retracted statements by Crace implying that right-wing political journalist Isabel Oakeshott had obtained confidential files by having sex with Nigel Farage and Arron Banks. His article included the claim that Oakeshott only got confidential emails if Farage and Banks "slips it to her". Following the threat of legal action by Oakeshott, the text was amended to: "leave it conveniently tucked under her pillow". This second revision was then removed, with the final version stating: "if he or Arron Banks leave it conveniently to one side for her". Oakeshott stated: "It gives me great pleasure to teach ⁦John Crace⁩ and The ⁦Guardian a little lesson about casually slurring women whose politics they dislike".[8]

I havent read the article and dont know enough about the subject to be honest. Its a very sarcastic article which leads me to believe the author is biased on the matter. Its not very balanced. The Guardian is biased, as is the Telegraph, on such matters which is why I take what it says with a bit of a pinch of salt and wouldnt quote either when making a point.

Ok I understand that you aren’t defending Reeves. In the context that we are both looking at this in the same way ….. 1. how has the government policies helped to reduce interest rates;and 2. What policies has it introduced to encourage business? In respect of the latter I assume you agree with me that there is no discernible policy we can both think of where they have encouraged business and we agree this is a huge failure on their part? As a side point I don’t think you address the deficit by increasing public sector day to day spending which they have. That has the opposite effect

.