Sheaf Saint

Fawning over Russia? "As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption." "our capacity to deal with outrages from Russia is compromised by the tidal wave of ill-gotten cash that Russian oligarchs – both allied with and opposed to the Russian government – have laundered through London over the past two decades. We must stop servicing Russian crony capitalism in Britain, and the corrupt billionaires who use London to protect their wealth." "So I will not step back from demanding that Russian money be excluded from our political system. We will be holding the government’s feet to the fire to fully back Labour’s proposed Magnitsky-style sanctions against human rights abusers, along with a wider crackdown on money laundering and tax avoidance." "We agree with the government’s action in relation to Russian diplomats, but measures to tackle the oligarchs and their loot would have a far greater impact on Russia’s elite than limited tit-for-tat expulsions. We are willing to back further sanctions as and when the investigation into the Salisbury attack produces results." Please tell me which part of that qualifies as "fawning over Russia"?

The BBC is denying the image was photoshopped... Of course, BBC - anything you say

Let’s just examine the Tories recent record in regards to Russia… Repeatedly blocked the setting up of an inquiry into the death of Litvinenko Blocked Labour’s tabled motion to introduce anti-money laundering legislation to disrupt the constant flow of dark money into Britain which has so artificially inflated the London housing market. Accepted huge amounts of donations from Russian billionaires, including a £30,000 bung to grant direct access to our defence secretary only weeks ago, right before this poisoning took place. Blocked a motion tabled by Russia to the UN security council calling for an “urgent, civilised investigation” into the poisoning incident. Refused (initially) to cooperate with the terms of the OPCW by providing samples of the nerve agent to Russia for analysis. Sent an over-privileged manchild masquerading as our defence secretary to a press briefing, with a PRE-SCRIPTED statement saying Russia should “go away and shut up”. The government’s handling of this entire situation has been shoddy at best, and downright corrupt at worst. And in the midst of all this current lunacy and rush to jump to conclusions, the only actual sane voice in parliament comes from Corbyn, saying that we should wait until the investigation is complete and then IF it is proved that Russia are responsible, we should provide a response which is actually more robust than the half-baked idea that the government have already come up with. He was among many who called for more evidence of WMDs before going into Iraq remember, and was proved absolutely correct in his stance on that when they, unsurprisingly, couldn’t find any WMDs. Yet despite the Tories quite obvious connections to Russia, Corbyn is the one making all the headlines and is being portrayed as a Russian stooge who is a danger to the security of the UK by pretty much the entire mainstream media, including our own supposedly impartial BBC who thought it was acceptable to host their Newsnight discussion about the issue in front of a backdrop comprising a red-tinted picture of Corbyn in front of the Kremlin that had been photoshopped to make his hat appear more Soviet-looking. What the actual fk!? This is some f*cking Orwellian level of reality-reversing propaganda going on here, where the one guy who is showing calm restraint in proposing that we wait until we have proof before rushing into a course of action we might deeply regret is being utterly destroyed by the press, and the Tory government who are so blatantly up to their eyeballs in dirty Russian money are getting a complete free pass. You only have to look at how differently it was reported in the Daily Mail when May recently stole one of Ed Milliband's old policies to see the kind of media bias I'm talking about. There isn’t a single aspect of Corbyn’s statements to parliament or in his Guardian article which can be construed as anything other than just common f*cking sense when it comes to diplomatic relations with a nuclear-armed superpower. Everything he has said, and the way he has conducted himself, are EXACTLY how any decent person should want their politicians to behave in such potentially serious circumstances. Like I've said throughout this thread, I realise that Corbyn is far from the perfect opposition leader, but once again the media is having to invent synthetic outrage to attack him with because they don't have anything concrete. Why do they constantly have to do this? If he really is as bad and terrible as you lot all make him out to be, then why can't the actual truth speak for itself?

Wow. A breath of fresh air. I've highlighted a few of the comments that really stood out for me. The thing about the players being surpried about the level of intensity is a damning indictment of Pellegrino IMO. What the hell were they actually doing in training and why didn't Les or anybody else above him pick up on this failure!? Truly shocking.

But it's still very important that we are able to make the distinction before deciding on appropriate action. There is a big difference in severity of offence between aggressively carrying out an assassination on British soil and 'allowing' it to happen through negligence, and our response needs to reflect that. Hence why it is absolutely right to suggest waiting until the investigation is complete before jumping to a potentially unreasonable response.

Oh yes, I'm sure a tweet from a notoriously anti-Corbyn Mail on Sunday columnist, supported by that well known advocate of political balance Julia Hartley Brewer (essentially just Katie Hopkins with a thesaurus), can be described as a fair "summery" (sic). Anyway, the things he claims are required in this tweet - ascertaining concrete proof, providing a more robust response and reducing tensions - are exactly what JC is advocating. It's a case of attacking the messenger and not the message. If the foreign secretary was saying exactly the same things as Corbyn has then everyone would be agreeing with him. Only that's not possible, because our foreign secretary is an entitled, childish oaf who is incapable of speaking that much sense. Seriously - if you agree with Dan Hodges that we need to reduce tensions, then why are you getting your knickers more in a twist about the leader of the opposition saying let's make sure we have all the facts before responding accordingly than you are about the appalling misjudgement of our defence secretary secretary by essentially sticking his fingers up and blowing a raspberry at Russia?

Really? You reckon that's a balanced, unbiased and truly representative poll do you? From SKY? A news organisation owned by the same tax-dodging billionaire whose newspapers were caught hacking the phones of dead teenagers and who constantly prints untruth after untruth about anyone who disagrees with their political opinions? Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. You only need to read the linked headlines on that article to see how ridiculously biased the reporting is on there. Jeesus, I would put more faith in the result of a poll printed in the f*cking Beano than that.

Do you not consider remaining calm and waiting for conclusive evidence before rushing into a course of action which might spark WW3 to be acting properly then?

You know damn well I'm not talking about the murder itself. I'm talking about the mock outrage at Corbyn's alleged, but clearly untrue, failure to condemn Russia, which for some baffling reason seems to be more newsworthy to some people and organisations than the actual murder. If Theresa May had made exactly the same statement, word for word, as JC did yesterday, would she be facing the same level of criticism for it? Of course not. The mainstream media would be congratulating her for such a calm and diplomatic response to a tricky situation. Are they now going to be running full front page headlines about our defence secretary publicly stating that Russia should "go away and shut up" like a spoilt child in a playground argument? I wouldn't put money on it. I know he has his faults, but FFS if you're going to attack him then do it for genuine reasons. This constant desire from some parts to attack him on the basis of complete untruths is pathetic, and it's getting very tiresome.

First Saints manager to have previously had a goal for the club disallowed for hitting it too hard and rebounding back off the advertising hoardings behind the goal.

Only after Corbyn called for it in parliament. So they obviously agree with him and think his idea was a good one. So we are all in agreement with him now then, yeah? Once again - a massive storm over what turns out to be nothing. A pointless sideshow orchestrated by the govt and their media chums to distract everybody from just how f*cking terrible they are at doing their jobs.

Yeah there's probably a lot of truth in this. As I have said on repeated occasions, I'm not a huge supporter of him, certainly not in the JC4PM messiah-worship mould anyway. I like him well enough, and I think he carries himself with far more dignity than anybody in the Tory party could ever hope to emulate, but I recognise his flaws and limitations. But I can't see anything wrong with what he said yesterday. It was a calm, diplomatic, statesmanlike response to a potentially very volatile situation, and everything he said seemed perfectly reasonable. He said... "the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of evidence and our response must be decisive and proportionate". "We have a duty to speak out against the abuse of human rights by Putin's government and its support, both at home and abroad... ...we must do more to address the dangers posed by the Russian state's relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs". "We need to expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who became stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently using London to protect their wealth". I'm absolutely at a loss to work out how the tabloid press have somehow managed to twist all of that in such a way as to make out he is a traitorous Russian sympathiser, when it is the Tory government who have been accepting huge donations from Russia. Their viscious front-page attack on him is literally the opposite of reality in this case. If Corbyn is as awful and terrible as people who oppose him like to make out, then why do the right-wing media continually need to make sh!t up to attack him with? If he really was as bad as they say he is then that wouldn't be necessary would it.

Well yes, because she isn't. Russia has made a request under the terms of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to which the UK is a signatory, to obtain a sample of the nerve agent that was used in Salisbury so that it can be analysed. So far, May has refused this request. Why? What possible reason can she have to NOT follow the protocols laid down in the OPCW treaty that we signed up to, and then ignore international procedures and obligations? What I want is for our government to follow the correct procedures and take appropriate action only once proof of guilt has been confirmed, as Corbyn has advocated. Is that really too much to ask?

But the police investigation hasn't yet finished, so nobody actually knows for certain yet do they. I accept that, in all probability, it was Russia that carried it out. But I would much rather our foreign policy was not conducted in such a gung-ho way as it has been. Have you seen Gavin Williamson's speech where he said Russia should "shut up and go away"? Jeez it's embarrassing. Especially given that he recently met with the wife of a former Russian minister in exchange for a large donation to the Tory party coffers. Seems to me like the Tories are trying to deflect attention from their own involvement with Russia by accusing Corbyn of exactly the same thing they themselves are guilty of, and getting their media attack dogs to run another pathetic, baseless smear campaign to protect them. What Corbyn has suggested is that we take a calm and measured approach, wait for conclusive evidence, and follow the rule of international law before making any decisions about our future foreign policy. And if/when this proves that Russia are responsible, then the action he is advocating is actually much stronger than May's half-hearted attempt to make it look like she is doing something by expelling a few diplomats.

As long as we don't let Tadic take one, we should be alright.

His latest stance? Are you referring to the fact that he wants to see some actual evidence before jumping to any conclusions that will have potentially very serious repercussions for world peace? Oh yes, shame on him indeed. I can see exactly why the tabloid press are once again using their front pages to try and portray him as a traitorous Russian sympathiser, while completely ignoring the recent revelations that the Tories have, between them, accepted over £3m of donations from Russia in recent years. Oh, and just a little history lesson for you - Russia haven't been "commies" for nearly 3 decades. But if it suits your agenda to continue to portray them in that way then you carry on.

Sky have announced Carragher's replacement for this weekend...

As a player, he was a winner. No doubt about that. FWIW, I don't really care if the players like him or not. It's not a popularity contest. Mourinho has a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way but, importantly, he gets results. By all accounts, not many players who played for SAF liked him very much either. I really don't think that is an issue. As for not being able to organise a defence, I think that's a little harsh. He managed to guide a limited Stoke side to successive top ten finishes by making them hard to beat, as we discovered each time we played them during that time. Don't get me wrong - I'm not exactly excited by the prospect of him being our manager. It seems an underwhelming appointment and one that we would only be making due to his immediate availability above anything else. But I think some of your criticism is a little unfair.

Still growing, apparently

I think this is a very valid point. It went wrong for him towards the end of his time at Stoke, but that doesn't make him a bad manager. Sometimes managers/players need to make a move elsewhere to rejuvenate themselves. Look at Carlos Carvalhal - took Sheff Weds to the brink of promotion two seasons running, then things went wrong at the club for reasons outside of his control. I doubt many Swansea fans were too excited about his appointment at the time, but he's turned things around massively there and will, most likely, keep them up after they looked dead and buried earlier in the season.

We were seemingly prepared to spend £30m on Quincy Promes in the hope he would keep us up. Seeing as we didn't, spending £5m to pay off one of the worst managers in PL history instead to help keep us up seems like a bargain.

We are so fooked now. Not a chance we're going to come back from this. It will take a miracle and/or some incredibly inept refereeing for us to get even a draw. The infuriating thing is that MP will point to that second goal as vindication for his insistence on not committing too many players forward.

I just can't fathom it. Every other attacking player has been rotated in and out of the first 11 at some point this season, regardless of their form. Yet despite being sh!te for the entire season, Tadic is seemingly undroppable. If MP insists on shoehorning him into the team, I wish he would at least recognise that his best position is on the left and play him there. But no, apparently that concept is too far out for our tactical genius manager.

I just can't fathom how MP hasn't worked out how much more effective Redmond is on the right. On saturday against Stoke, when Tadic went off and Redmond switched wings, within seconds he had made a brilliant run to the byline and put in a superb cross for Boufal who couldn't get his header on target. Then factor in how we all know that Tadic is more effective on the left, it beggars belief that MP keeps starting them on the opposite sides.

Yes, I do.