Sheaf Saint

I mean that if we approach the Championship with the same head-in-the-sand "We'll be fine if we stick with our current strategy" way that we have approached the PL for the last two season, then we're fooked. What is obvious is that numerous players will be cleared out and we will need to rebuild a squad with a winning mentality. Do you trust the current senior management team to achieve that? I don't, and I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in that respect. We quite obviously have serious failings at boardroom level, and we have a shadowy, virtually anonymous owner whose plans for the future of the club are unclear. If we stick with Les & Ralph at the helm and don't address the serious failures of our recruitment strategy over the last 2 seasons then, in my opinion, we don't have a hope of bouncing straight back up and we don't deserve to.

Would that be this Avi Gabbay??? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-palestine-labor-party-gabbay-netanyahu-settlements-two-state-bds-movement-a8005136.html https://twitter.com/GarySpedding/status/983721110880563201 Yeah I expect Corbyn is devastated that he no longer has his support

I should think it's fairly obvious why. We certainly won't bounce straight back up if we don't address the failings at boardroom level over the last 2-3 transfer windows. If we just ignore that and bury our head in the sands and assume we are too good to stay in the Championship for too long then we are in big trouble.

Copied from Facebook, in response to a report in The Metro where Amber Rudd tries to claim that it could be the fault of social media...

Well you're right about one thing here, but wrong about the other. Absolutely I don't like Boris. He loves to portray this image of being a bumbling but lovable buffoon, but he is nothing of the sort. He is devious and dangerous and he's a f*cking embarrassment to this country. But I have no political allegiances - never have had. My beliefs and opinions should theoretically push me to lean towards Labour, but I find it very difficult to fully get behind them right now when they are clearly at war with themselves, and I could never bring myself to vote for them under Blair, Brown or Milliband. The only reason I voted for them last time round was because I have the utmost respect for my local MP and her genuine efforts to actually work in the interests of the community. The only certainty I can state in this respect is that I would sooner shoot myself in the head than ever vote for the steaming cesspit of corruption and elitism that the Tories represent.

I came across this piece and thought I should post it on here rather than derail either of the other threads in which he is the star of the show right now. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/boris-johnson-has-achieved-impossible-he-s-been-even-worse-expected

Vil Mirzayanov already did that in the early 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vil_Mirzayanov He even published a book about it, in which he essentially revealed the secret recipe for Novichoks. In fact, it's surprising that he hasn't already been targeted for assassination himself.

Wow Verbal, that's a whole lot of leaps of faulty logic you've made in one post there. I don't 'know' that the government presumed Russian guilt first, hence my use of the words "seem to have", which I based on how quick they were to point the finger of blame just a couple of days after the incident, well before any kind of proper investigation could have even begun, let alone finished. Yes, I obviously recognise that just because Boris has been caught talking out of his ar$e again (no, that is no surprise to me whatsoever) doesn't prove that it wasn't Russia. I didn't make any such claim to the contrary. But when our foreign secretary is shown to have made made up claims about imaginary conversations with our chemical weapons experts, you do have to wonder about the validity of the case our government actually has, don't you? I can't tell you what the evidence is that points to non-Russian attackers because, if you bothered to read my post correctly, you would have seen the bit where I said "I remain skeptical without evidence and that applies to both the government stance and to any other alternatives." I quite obviously don't have any evidence to prove it wasn't Russia and I never claimed I did. Also, I'm not prepared to dive in and swallow whole anything a rogue regime says that conflicts with the hated west. I haven't at any point indicated that I believe the Russians any more than I believe our own government, so I have no idea how you have drawn that conclusion. I'm just not exactly ecstatic that we appear to be going in all guns blazing and escalating tensions on what seems to be the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. The statement that Batman linked to earlier states that our 'assessment' that it was Russia is based on the fact that we know they developed novichoks and might still have some, and that they have got previous for this kind of thing. It doesn't prove a damn thing and I would hope/expect that our glorious leaders would be more prudent than to row in to a potential geopolitical sh!tstorm on something a bit more sturdy than a f*cking inflatable dinghy.

Neither is sticking with our current passengers like Tadic and Redmond, both of whom I would be quite happy to never see in a Saints shirt again.

Experience has taught me to pay close attention to what they do and pretty much ignore what they say. In principle, I am fully supportive of the initiatives in the 25-year environment plan recently announced by Theresa May. But until I see some evidence of these initiatives actually being implemented, I will remain skeptical about it.

Silly hyperbole? Let me re-iterate to you Benjii, because you don't seem to be getting it, that The CEO of Porton Down has come out publicly and totally contradicted BoJo's claim that he told him 'categorically' that there was 'no doubt' that the source of the nerve agent was Russia. There is no ambiguity here - it's black and white. BoJo blatantly lied. Does that not concern you in the slightest when we are talking about a matter of national security that could have very serious consequences? |I agree, the circumstances surrounding the incident clearly and obviously point immediately to the possibility/likelihood of Russian state involvement. But this in itself actually leaves two possible explanations... 1) it was the Russian state, or 2) it was somebody who wanted it to look like it was the Russian state. Why have we been so quick to discount the second possibility?

Just seen this on Twitter...

http://newsthump.com/2018/04/05/we-dont-know-why-deadly-crime-is-rising-in-london-says-government-that-cut-20000-police/

Yes, I get that cui bono is a fallacy in scientific terms. But when you are trying to ascertain who carried out a particular crime, it is an essential question to ask when compiling a list of suspects who need to be investigated. However, what our government seem to have done in this case is to presume Russian guilt first before carrying out a thorough investigation, which itself is a very backwards way of beginning any investigation, unless you a) already have the concrete evidence you need (in which case there would surely have been no need for BoJo to lie about it), or b) know it wasn't them but are trying to frame them anyway. And when the only 'evidence' that the public has been given so far by our government - that we know it was the Russians because the guys at Porton Down told us so - is proven to be completely untrue, then is it really any wonder that people start looking for possible alternative explanations? Like I said, I remain skeptical without evidence and that applies to both the government stance and to any other alternatives. I'm certainly not going to blindly throw my support behind the government line when they are proven to be a bunch of liars and can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

You mean like how Bush & Blair managed to convince a whole load of other governments that Iraq definitely had WMDs?

Pleasure

Yeah but that was in the unforgiving environment of the PL. We would have much more scope to 'get away with it' in the Championship. And, to be honest, I would much rather take a punt on someone like him who is showing some real innovation and success somewhere than pick AN Other from the ridiculous failed manager merry-go-round.

Yeah very much enjoyed this. I love how he manages to skirt around the edge of bad taste without ever actually crossing the line. And in this one he actually explains very well how some 'offensive' jokes can't actually be deemed that way because of the target and the subject of the joke being fair game. The whole routine about Bruce/Caitlin Jenner was hilarious.

Agreed.

Simply not true... https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/13/the-strange-case-of-the-russian-spy-poisoning/ Now I'm not saying that I believe everything in this report, as there is no firm evidence provided to support it so I remain skeptical, but it does demonstrate that Russia was by no means the only party with the means, motive and opportunity to carry this out. So please forgive me if I will not so readily accept the conclusions that our own toxic and deceitful government managed to jump to at such an alarming speed.

And yet we have denied their request to work directly with our own team of investigators, and they are now the ones calling for an extraordinary meeting of the OPCW to resolve the situation, which our foreign office has described as merely a diversionary tactic. Seems to me our own government is being just as uncooperative, if not more so, as they are.

Yes, but he has been available for selection for a while now. He's clearly our most experienced and most reliable defender, so it's criminal that he hasn't come back in to the starting 11 yet.

Point taken, but when the foreign secretary is doing TV interviews and claiming that our evidence is based on our chemical weapons experts telling him directly that there is no doubt the agent came from Russia, and those experts then go on TV to refute that, do you not see that as a cause for concern? Watch the video where Johnson made that claim, and look at him squirming and stuttering while he is trying to answer the question. You don't need to be any kind of psychologist or body language expert to deduce that he isn't being entirely honest.

Apparently, not as strong as Boris Johnson claimed last week, when he said that the guys at Porton down had stated 'categorically' that there was 'no doubt' that the agent came from Russia. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salisbury-poisoning-russia-novichok-nerve-agent-porton-down-proof-evidence-mod-latest-a8286761.html

It's not just what Puel knew, perhaps Pellegrino knew it too. He often said that controlling the game was the most important element on which to build a platform to win games, and looking at the way we surrendered the midfield on saturday and let WHU roll over us, I'm inclined to believe he knew what he was talking about in this respect. Although I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have sacked him, because he was clearly out of his depth and lacking in awareness in many other areas.