Sheaf Saint

Good effort from Clyne

Close to an OG there!

Should have conceded again there. This is hard to watch - defending has been utterly comical so far today.

Should have been a FK to us just before that. This ref isn't great.

Nice interception from Clyne there

Another dangerous opportunity there. No surprise it came down our left side. Lukaku is too good a player to have Fox marking him.

Or we could just focus on trying to win this game and not have to worry about other results. Just a thought.

Scrappiest goal you'll ever see.

No, I didn't claim that it does. If you read my later reply to pap, I'm not supporting any side here, I was merely pointing out that this particular aspect of the story is questionable because the official account doesn't seem to fit with the evidence. You could be right, it might just be a case of an over-zealous copper deciding to dish out his own special brand of extra-judicial punishment after he was captured, but either way some further investigation is required. We'll just have to wait and see what kind of official report is presented to the public.

errr, monkey nuts are peanuts.

As if we didn't already know... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22308165 I despair, I really do.

Given the size of the wound on his chest/side shown in the later picture, there would have been a massive amount of blood loss which would have been evident through his clothes. He was clearly alive when he was lying on the ground in the surrender position as his hands are 'hovering' above the ground. Something isn't right.

I'm just calling it how I see it pap. While some of the theories doing the rounds are quite clearly just the deranged ramblings of people with nothing better to do with their time, there are many aspects of the whole thing that don't seem to add up to me, that's all. I'm not coming down on any particular side here, as there is no either/or as I see it - Just like the whole alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I have read countless pages and accounts relating to it and while some of them have merit, others are clearly nonsense. Just because one particular claim can be easily de-bunked doesn't mean that other aspects don't deserve further investigation. One thing I have learned is to believe no-one, especially if they happen to be mainstream media. You only have to look at who owns what in the broadcast media in the States to see there is a massive conflict of interest there (like the fact that NBC is owned by one of the world's biggest arms manufacturers, General Electric).

So is sinking your teeth into somebody when the ball is out of play not classed as assault then?

OK, my mistake - I know you should never trust wiki but the citation appeared to be genuine. I should have researched a little more.

From the citation on the very Wikipedia page you linked to... http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml

I have been reading through this myself, and while some of the claims made are ambiguous at best, there are also a lot of things that raise eyebrows, such as... 1. The fact that the 'exploded' rucksack looks nothing like the rucksacks being carried by the suspects 2. The fact that the older brother was pictured as laying down in a surrender position without any apparent injuries and later died of some horrific injuries 3. The fact that the younger brother did not appear to be injured at all before hiding in the boat and seemed fine while being led away in handcuffs, but still somehow suffered some horrific injuries leaving him unable to speak 4. The complete failure of any of the media to even acknowledge the presence of the Craft personnel Meanwhile, as the whole world was distracted by 24hr news coverage of the manhunt for the suspects, The US senate passed the controversial CISPA bill to allow the covert surveillance of anybody's internet traffic - in the same week that the NRA managed to block the reforms on gun ownership on the grounds of 'invasion of privacy'. God bless America - the land of the free.

The wrath of God? But surely if god made everything then he is responsible for people being homosexual in the first place, so why would he then be angry about them receiving the same civil rights as everybody else? Unless, of course, god didn't make everything and he/she/it is just a figment of human imagination. I am fully in favour of the whole idea of gay marriage mainly because it makes the ultra-religious so angry. The belief that the voting of gay marriage laws somehow translates as oppression of their religious belief is so utterly laughable, these people really need to get over themselves. I saw something on FB last week that some guy has bought a house directly opposite the Westboro Baptist Church and has painted it in the rainbow colours of the LGBT movement. It was brilliant!

Of course I acknowledge the actions and sacrifices that enabled me to have the life I have, and as I already said I consider myself fortunate that I was born and brought up in such an environment when, by accident of birth, so many don't get that chance. But what has 'pride' got to do with that? Nothing.

On this we are in complete agreement. Now apply the same logic to feeling pride in the actions of other people that you had nothing to do with. Doesn't make any rational sense does it.

By 'we' you mean England? Technically 'we' didn't.

You misunderstand the point I am making Turks. I do not hate this country at all. Indeed, I consider myself lucky to have been born in a country where I would get a half-decent state education and never know true poverty, unlike many billions of other people on this planet. But pride? No. Pride is something I reserve for myself only. If I achieve something that I have had to work hard for then that is something to be proud of. Likewise if I actively take part in a team effort to achieve something positive. But feeling pride in the dubious achievements of some people who, quite by chance, happened to be born to parents of the same nationality as I did... there is simply no rationality in that. To many people, like yourself, national pride is held up as some kind of positive influence, but in my opinion it is anything but. By declaring pride in your own nationality (as if you somehow had something to do with it - which you didn't) you are instantly excluding everybody outside of your group, as if your being British in some way makes you special. All you are actually doing is creating (or perpetuating) division, and this can be demonstrated throughout history. Millions of soldiers lost their lives in WW1 all because of the national pride of their ruling aristocrats.

No, of course not. And this is precisely my point... Feeling guilty about the negative actions of people who happened to be born within the same arbitrarily-defined borders as you in the distant past is irrational and patently absurd, I think everybody would agree. Yet for some reason many people think it is perfectly OK to feel pride about the positive stuff, when in in fact it is just as irrational and absurd.

So it's OK to feel pride in the achievements of your nation while completely washing your hands of any embarrassment for the bad things is it?

This is exactly the point though. If you refuse to feel guilt for the bad things that 'England' has done, then why should you feel pride for the good things?