Frank's cousin

Its tricky, because in those countres where its been banned, its been done so, because morally they see no difference - its classified a violent act and or abusive. I think the point about comparisons say with domestic violence, was more a criticism of the law i nsome respects, in that we have laws that quite rightly mean you cannot hit another adult, mark or no mark, yet teh law allows no mark hitting of children - the question I guess remains, is this morally right? The remark Turkish likes to keep coming back to was my comment on abuse of children being cyclic - he took it out of context as usual, but it was merely a comment on how there is very strong evidence that shows a cycle to these behaviours and indeed similarly with those that use smacking - or maybe defend its use... the 'it never did me any harm card'. I think its wrong to smack a child - morally, and I do believe it sends them a wrong message, that its OK to hit/smack - In addition I believe that there are equaly more effective alternatives so it should not be necessary and would therefore welcome a ban. I may get the whole parenting thing worng and produce a monster... but If so I very much doubt it will be because she was NOT smacked.. just my opinion.... which has not always been the case - I was all for smacking before she was born... wife said no, and I learned how to do the discipline bit with out it and TBH, it was pretty easy, becaus even though she is now 7 going on 14 - I still see that tiny fragile wee innocent and the though of me ever raising a hand to her would make me feel like a coward.

To be fair though, its no different from those swimimg suits etc - the UCI want the sport to be pure - eg the best cyclist wins, not the best bike - the fact that we share it makes teh results taste that much sweeter as we know we have the best CYCLISTS and not winning just because we have the investment in technology.

True, but some are just pointing out that the law is ...well probably out of date. Pap, you sound like a rational, intelligent sort who takes his parenting responsibilities seriously - but are you seriously suggesting that you get everything right? I suspect you would be more than happy taking advice from your own folks or close friends on other aspects of parenting, so why is it that smacking/hitting becomes an area where so often those that do it are offended when someone suggests its not right? - This is where the power of the 'cycle' is so so strong - it is constantly reinforced with each generation - if you break it, its gone.

The 'niggling guilt' thing is a possibilty, but lets be honest, many dont feel its wrong simply because they were smacked, it did no 'real harm' and they turned out balanced human beings... Thing is the evidence from those countries where it is banned suggests that in a single generation we lose this attitude - eg Sweden were 50% in favour of smacking in the 1980s and now its just 11%... I guess a recognition that 'oh well, seems it was not necessary' - and everyone moves on. I guess problem is that its always a very sensitive issue when in effect if you are against smacking, even if not intentional, there is always going be 'criticism' implied... add to the cliche of 'no one has the right to tell me how to bring my kids' and its hardly condusive to 'pain free' debate. On that note though - have to say I think teh 'no one has the right to tell me how to bring up my kids' is total boll ox - for one thing, ALL parents dont have a fricken clue when teh first one comes a long and so advice whether from books, our own parents, friends etc was invaluable to me - learning on teh jo all teh time and when it comes to parenting, I am am more interested in learning how to do it right than whether my ego is getting bruised because someone 'had to tell me, what I was doing wrong' - the kids come first and their welfare, education and discipline are not something I want to feck up because I am to worried about being given help.

see I'm not so sure, given that Corpse Ho was os adamant that the FL had to approave all their financial transactions last time... suggests either CH was bulls itting or the FL oversighte wont be very robust...

I believe this is key point - even if you forget the moral and ethical issues with hitting children, given that kinds learn so much from examples that are set, Norway's question is fundemental to the argument. I will also repeat, that I simply do not understand why some 'want to keep it as a last resport' etc, when there are alternatives that WORK - as proven by the fact that children are well brought up in countries in which smacking/hittig is banned. If some counter this with 'but it could be that there are other social factors as to why they are well behaved'' well yes there are undoubtedly are, but that s irrelevent to this debate. If we have greater social problems in this country that cause problems with youth behaviour, then we solve the social problems. Surely its illogoical to suggest that social issues are a justification for maintaining hitting of kids? I have tried not to judge on this, and generally, have in the past had an open mind, but to me the arguments against (from those more eloquent and experienced as parents than I) it are simply so much stronger, morally, ethically and practically as there are workable alternatives. I would add, from a PERSONAL perspective, If I ever hit/smack my daughter, I will consider it my failing as a parent.

... I know I am repeating myself, but their constant failure to undersatnd the real issues ad nauseum means I feel it is our try to try and at least get one or two to appreciate the morality of it all. Can someone from pompey please explain why they feel perfectly comfortable supporting a club (and keeping it alive) that given they have been 'fortunate enough' to write off 150mil of debt (which allowed them to enjoy a 7 yaer stint in the top flight and win the cup at the expense of the tax man, local businesses and charities), will instead of ensuring the maximum possible return for creditors (eg using as much of their revenue and the Parachute payments as possible) to pay back creditors and more realistic sum... they are determined to be competitive in L1 and feel justified in spending as big as possible on players and wages... do they not understand that part of the punishment is indeed to be UNCOMPETITIVE and survive on a shoestring? Yes we got lucky, but we took our medicine and now we have been promoted, are paying back even more to our ONE creditor - which in effect means we have paid back some 95p in the £ (note not 20% of 20% (eg 4p in the £) of the original SMS loan... Its this blatent pathetic public 'victim status' and bewildering cries that tehy should be competitive and deserve to be the highest spenders in L1 that illustrates they have simply not learned form any of their past 3 administrations - the cheating culture seems ingrained and they appear too stupid to recognise all that is wrong with that cesspit, and can not even recognise that they actually have an opportunity to discard the rotting corpse and start afresh, and build something they could be proud of again and the footballing community applaud - they need to ******** realise that the stench of their blatent disrespect for the integrity of the game, can not simply be washed away by a CVA and -10points - it will linger, fester and as others have said, will see them back in the insolvency courts in teh ot too distant future... who will they balme next time?

This is what I am getting at Hypo - you answered it yourself - you could make a STRONGER positive case quite easily as this would suggest Nige and NC know the score and 3 'verbal sackings' after results based on over emotional reaction... or passion if you like is taken with a pinch of salt... sign of a positive relationship? The issue some have with all this sort of rumour and conjecture, is that its often the same few that 'react emotionally' and place a negative spin on it yet present it as 'balanced critique' (when thos ewith a brain can spot the subtle innuendo a mile off)

In any business , sport or whatever, the intelligent and experienced recognise that everyone has unique skills and limitations. That means at times decsions have to be made based on what is best for the implemenation of the startegy, and not loyalty or sentiment. Smart people recognise where they lack experience and also that if they do prove to be unable to learn at the required pace, they may have to step aside or be moved on. Harsh, but a reality. That said, I find it odd that stories of verbal sackings and kiss and make up, get so much response - even if true, you can spin these things the other way quite easily, in if you want to look at positives rarther than negatives - eg. only a relationship that is STRONG enough would stand up to emotional swings of the nature some are alluding to. Football is about passion, and emotins run high after defeat, especially when everytone is working to an agreesive strategy, so it could be argued that they are comfortable with each other, respectful, but able to express those emotions now and again, without fear? Am I reading too much into certain posters responses? At times it appears like some welcome negative stories and almost want them to be true/become true, just to justify their concerns or issues with NC... but then I am just a paranoid cynical ***ker.

Brilliant repsonse - loved his win last night - just brilliant.

To be honest I think he knows the score - and accepts it. He is unproven at a much higher level, and knows NC is ambitious - he keeps us up and we progress he stays as will have shown he can learn and improve at a pace that is required by NC. We struggle or just survive, with no real improvement and I suspect NC will act. Rather than in previous years, there is a plan and a chairman who obviously wants to give Adkins a well earned chance he deserves, but who is probably realistic and pragmatic enough to know that loyalty and sentiment may not be enough to deliver the performance he desires. Its now up to Adkins to step up again and prove himself. Dont think any dark agenda here, just pragmatism.

Or the German :scared:in the track sprint team ?

Presume no libel issue considering it was a hyperthetical statement?

Come...Murray may be a miserable sour dour sod, but he's OUR (GB) miserable sour sod and gold will do very nicely in the old medal table

Feck - someone called LARD pasted my long 'should have said' post on POL -

wonder how the creditors getting 4p in the pound feel about stories that tehy will ave '3.5 mil kitty' for next season.. presumes thats transfers in AND wages, but knowing the DCSBs it would not surprize me if that is 1 player transfer fee... justified on teh ground that they can always sell thenm and recoup the value... after having shelled out x mil on a 4 year contract and not paid the tax man.... the pipe fat clearer or the local childrens hospice....

Most likely - you cant really seperate out all the variables and determine a causal link, but you can at least use it to demonstrate that no smacking has not caused youth problems in excess of what there may have been prior to an ban. In effect, it demonstrates that behaviour CAN be controlled and discipline installed despite no smacking. You get good and bad parents everywhere - I suspect we do have a higher proportion in this country than in others though - the Thatcher disenfranchised generation grown up without guidance or encouraged to maintain their education.... waits for fall out

Is Mrs Alps getting Lycra for Christmas then?

True Saints Association, was that like Crouchies Army?

Thing is Pap, I for one, would not take my kids out to eat to a Restaurant (proper like) until they were old enough to behave, or knew how to. To me that is part and parcel of the process. So we are svaing the 3star michelin until they are older and currently slum it with 1 star places

Sorry, but I was not suggesting a link between HIGHER youth issues and smacking, but that previously on this thread the point had been made that without smacking we would see levated youth crime, issues etc as smacking was a necessary component of discipline etc. All I am suggesting is that there is evidence to suggest its not necessary to effect a lower level of crime if alternatives are used.

I wont dispute the fact that you get an immediate cessation of the actions etc. I think the effectiveness is not in doubt. I apprecite that no one has given specifics of how those situations that require an imediate cessation are dealt with without the 'smack' etc - I cant comment, because thankfully to date that situation has not arisen (one hideous moment when at 4 she suddenly took off heading for the dual carriage way still gives me nightmares, but managed to sprint like no 40 year overweight smoker should do, unless asking for an MI) - but despite no examples of what is used, the evidence from those countries that have banned it suggests something IS being used and that its is very effective - thos ecountries, especially the nordics and Germany, have lower youth issues, crime etc than we do, and I dont see any data suggesting all toddlers and youg kids are at higher risk of injury or worse from mesiing about in ways they should not be doing for their own good. I think the IMHO, if smacking etc was the ONLY way to ensure certain positive behaviours are reinforced or negative once punished to stop them, Then I would have no issue with it at all - as we need to install these lessons in our children. Its just that the evidence suggests that there are equally effective if not better ways that dont involve it - certainly from other countries where youth crime, ASBOs etc are far lower than here. I dont know exactly what they are, but I guess whatever techniques are used replaced/evolved when the smacking was banned and has proven to be equally effective. It suggests that at this current time, we want to retain the option, because we dont know any other way/more effective way of dealing with teh issue? I am not trying to be holier than thou on this as I dont know wwhat it is either, and have so far been lucky enough not to need to think of one, but would interested to know if in all honesty this is the reason why some do wish to retain the option? Its not meant as a criticism, just an observation

Twas indeed, he sucked in St Lee..... met Wacko (lifelong) once and the first thing he did was pretend he had Kevin Keagans mobile number on his phone... I walked away and queued for a balti pie

That's what fecked me off most.... some of us did not get a wedge, just the Lowe Luvvie sheidt for our sins

I appreciate the facepalm is enough and says it all.... but is he really that fricken stupid? There wa sme thinking that competitiveness was something you worked towards from the ground up as and when you could afford to do so... not a right, especially for a club that gained EXTRA competitiveness it could not afford for 7 years and screwed people of of 100mil in teh process... maybe I am missing something?