revolution saint

So it sounds like you want to treat anyone who isn't a white male differently - that's sexist and racist. I understand your argument and I understand the intention behind it which are well meaning but it really doesn't help. In fact it's incredibly patronising (you've just compared people who aren't white and male to children). Equal rights are exactly that - they're applied equally to all people regardless of any protected characteristic. I'm no fan of the Tories but they've had two women PMs and countless minorities in their cabinets and they did that without giving them special dispensation or treatment. The left seems to think it's only possible by treating them differently. Women and non-whites are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves without having their own little protected space. Every single time this kind of thing goes on it distances the average voter who gets the impression that minorities are the only ones that matter. You want to know why people vote Brexit or for Trump? It's exactly this kind of thing perpetrated by people who give the impression they really couldn't care less about anyone who doesn't belong to a minority. The left chucks out accusations of racism and sexism like confetti at a wedding and then acts in ways that are obviously hypocritical. I know this all sounds very right wing and I'm really not but the "left" needs to get it's act together. We've had a pretty disastrous pandemic (vaccine aside), we've got Brexit problems, a buffoon of a PM, a united kingdom that looks more and more likely to split, shockingly incompetent ministers and instead of wiping the floor with them Labour are more interested in who has/hasn't got a cervix.

Tough call innit? Without Cameron there would have been no Brexit and without Brexit Boris wouldn't be prime minister. Therefore Cameron is the biggest fuckwit for creating the environment for Boris to be where he is.

That's pretty much my take on it as well. According to Ipsos Mori about one percent of people thought it was the most important issue in December 2015. Most people really weren't that bothered. It was weak of Cameron to agree to a referendum just to satisfy his own party but even worse was his incompetence when it came to framing the question - a straight forward YES/NO would always throw up more questions than it answered. When the Aussies had their referendum in '99 over keeping Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gothe as their head of state they didn't give the electorate a choice on getting rid of her. Instead if you wanted to remove her you had to agree to an almost equally undemocratic alternative (parliament appointed president). Effectively they fucked the republicans and got the result they were looking for. There were any number of ways Cameron could have achieved a similar result. It's all academic now but Cameron is going to go down as the biggest fuckwit of a prime minister we've ever had.

With regard to the 1975 referendum, it was to decide whether to remain in the EU after having joined it two and a half years previously. So the equivalent would have been to leave the EU in 2014 and then hold a referendum in 2016 on continuing to remain out of the EU. Point being that you were voting on a known entity to an extent. In 1975 they knew what being in the EU was like as they’d had a decent amount of time to assess it. In 2016 we were asked to vote on leaving without anyone knowing what that would entail beyond vague promises and predictions.

I pretty much agree with this but you have to wonder why Major and Cameron didn't tell it like it was and why Ken Clarke suffered for doing exactly that. It was at least partly because of the euro sceptic wing of the Tory party. As you've said - telling it like it is meant you didn't become leader of the (tory) party. I think you're right that stronger leadership would have meant a stronger remain argument during the referendum but lets not pretend that argument would have been easy, winnable or even possible on the Tory side at least. On a completely different note I've just seen Peter Lilley bemoan the fact that British firms have used cheap foreign labour and failed to train resident UK citizens resulting in a skills shortage (in this case HGV drivers). I agree with him but it's a bit galling coming from someone who actively participated in the privatisation of industries that used to train and provide apprenticeships to people because they realised they had a duty for the long term prosperity of the country and not just the bottom line. It's a bit rich to blame companies for following market forces and cutting skills training when you actively created the environment you now blame. None of this is directed at LDs post - it just annoyed me (and I also realise it doesn't count in the HGV case but it was just a general point).

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that Armstrong is better than Ings. Practically no one agrees with that.

A few years ago I was having a cup of tea in a cafe when this really loud and irritating voice started to distract me. It was Adam Blackmore and his "normal" voice is really bloody loud - wouldn't be surprised if the BBC were saving money on microphones whilst they're employing him. Anyway, I still like him as a commentator and DM is good in the same way Murray Walker was - not the best commentator but a bit of an institution. Only heard Tessem recently - it's an odd voice for radio but from the small bits I heard didn't drop into too many boring cliches. Hopefully he'll do well as he gets a bit more experience.

Worth remembering that it was only just over 2 years ago that Lyanco was named the second best player at the Toulon Tournament. For context England had the following players: Reece James, Marc Guehi, Trevor Chalobah, Eze, Joe Willock, Nketieh and Connor Gallagher. The UEFA bods reckoned he was better than all of them. Presumably this would have been where he caught the attention of Matt Crocker. Here's a quote from the match report against France, "There were times where Lyanco would win the ball and then launch into attack with an unpredictable, elusive dribble. On the ball, he was a maestro, breaking the lines with vertical passes into Pedro and Pedrinho, fizzing passes over the top into Emerson or Bruno Tabata, and avoiding France’s hapless press. With Lyanco acting as a sweeper between Murilo and Iago, he had license to drive forward on the ball and pick out the wingers on the touchline." So it's not like Lyanco has been plucked from obscurity and has never shown any potential whatsoever. You can argue that he might not make the grade (England also had Josh Sims in the squad), you can argue that he might not be suited to a more robust and fast "English" game. There's plenty of reasons why it might not be a great signing but equally there's enough to suggest he might be a decent player. Seems to me that technically he's a good player but is going to take time to adjust to the pace and power of the league. That's fine - he wasn't signed to make an immediate impression just as Salisu wasn't either. The club obviously feel that he could be the ball playing CB and would complement Salisu in the long term. Anyway, no idea if he'll go on to be the player we all hope he'll be but just wanted to address some of the reasons why we signed him. As for Vestergaard - I'm starting to think he was the ideal lockdown player - never looked as good when the crowds were in and looks like he's reverted to type with Leicester now that the fans are back.

I don't think anyone is being "overly optimistic" - they're just willing to give him a bit more time and not go over the top on what is essentially a player that's 4th choice CB. No one is saying he will be fantastic and no one is saying he's the new VVD. He may turn out to be a really good player, he may turn out to be awful or more realistically he'll be somewhere in between. What they're not doing is throwing a little paddy and stamping their feet as if this signing alone will relegate us. Let's be honest if the signing of a 4th choice CB is the biggest thing you have to moan about regarding the team then we really shouldn't have any problems this season. You made up your mind on him before we even signed him - it's not like you're really looking with an open mind is it? You're entitled to an opinion and that's fine but don't get too worked up if someone questions it. Oh and moaning about a "whiney fanbase"? You're coming across as being it's biggest representative at the moment.

Yeah, but this really does have an end of days type feeling miserableoldgit. I was a bit worried about COVID and I'm concerned about the climate and world poverty and shit like that but I don't think I've ever been as worried about any of that stuff as I am about a fourth choice centre back who wasn't brought in to be a quick fix being a bit rubbish in his first game. I think we're f*cked.

Good to see you're not writing him off then. I know some people have been guilty of acting like hysterical tarts after a single game but always appreciate it when people are a bit more balanced.

Yeah, it is a bit sad but then going over the top and hysterical before a ball has been kicked is a bit sad too.

Impression I got from the preview conference thing was that there probably would be changes to the side.

You seen the size of her arse though? Big enough to have it’s own gravitational pull. That’s probably what’s attracting you.

Yes, I'd be getting a booster if offered (still too damn young though). My sisters in-laws both just recently had covid - both over 80, both in what would be classed as a vulnerable group and didn't really get many symptoms at all. I'd be fascinated to eventually see why some people are affected worse than others - worst affected person I knew was under 40, very active, very fit and probably the least likely to suffer. Anyway, I don't mind booster shots being rolled out and it will probably save some lives - I don't think there's a really clear case for it but nothing in the pandemic has been that clear and easy to predict.

Actually it's quite interesting that the data about waning immunity is coming from Israel. They're having an uptick in cases and hospitalisations but this coincided with lifting restrictions and the delta variant (which they got late) so even though more double jabbed are getting admitted it's not necessarily due to immunity wearing off (just more cases and the jab not being 100% effective). They also test everyone who gets admitted for whatever reason so many of the people in hospital get included in the hospitalisation figures despite not going in for covid related illness. Important to note that they exclusively used pfizer - there is data to suggest the level of antibodies declines but that doesn't always translate to immunity declining. The data on Astra-Zeneca is much less clear cut. They also vaccinated quicker than we did and with a smaller gap between jabs. I think it's right to be concerned but we're a long way off it being a problem right now.

Luke Shaw was with us minus seven years? He must be desperate to avoid association with us.

So still an opinion then? I repeat, there’s nothing in the rules that state play couldn’t continue.

That’s your interpretation and opinion. Nothing wrong with that but it’s still just your opinion. I disagree with it.

Didn’t answer the question, is it in the rules? Given a lack of answer then I’ll assume not therefore it’s a question of interpretation. Given that Leicester didn’t just win a game but a title on breaking from deep on the counter attack and because Broja was in front of Diallo and had just sprinted clear and hit the post only minutes before then I would say it was a clear opportunity. You can of course interpret differently but the rules don’t deny the ref making a decision to allow play to continue.

Do the rules state you have to be in the opposition half to have a clear chance of scoring?

Yeah, watched the last half hour and he was unplayable albeit against a shit San Marino. They couldn’t get near him. One goal, two assists isn’t bad for a second half sub and he would probably have got another assist if his strike partner was better at finishing. Oh and he hit the crossbar too.

Or they've told him Arteta won't be around much longer.......

Ah right, so you think we have some more cash down the back of the sofa? That's fair enough - none of us really know what the state of the finances are. I'm inclined to think we probably don't have that much money so even if it wasn't Lyanco then it would have been someone around that price range.

Well, assuming we've spent all the money we had available then who would you not have signed? Obviously not Lyanco so that gives you 6M and I'd assume not Walcott which would give you some wages. That still doesn't give you a lot of money to play with so presumably you wouldn't have signed at least one of Perraud or Livramento?