hypochondriac

Indeed. If sports Republic think I'm going near level one until they leave they've got another thing coming.

The only time worse than now was when we went down to league one last time.

Still will go but there's so many decisions that have got us to this point unrelated to the manager. Signing Downs as the only striker, giving Stephens a 3 year contract, not signing championship experience where it counts, bringing Trollope in who failed previously along with keeping idiots like Lallana, not signing a keeper. The new manager whoever they are needs to keep things very simple and clear. We need to play the best players in their proper positions with no dicking about and then we need to buy a new striker as early as possible in January.

Even in the incredibly unlikely event that we win this, starting the game how he did should get him the sack alone. Absolute madness after everything that happened

It really is baffling just to do the same thing. Absolutely no saints fan wanted five at the back today or such negative tactics. If you're going to lose anyway what does it fucking matter if we attack and concede goals in the process?

I just don't get it. Still under pressure at least play with a simple formation and just fucking go for it. If you lose at least you've gone down fighting.

Let's say we played four at the back and he lost. He'd be under pressure but at least he would have tried to do the right thing. If he loses now he's really left himself open to relentless abuse.

What does that even mean? Who would force the manager to persist with a formation that is shit and doesn't work? Particularly at home.

What's the fucking point of us signing fellows if we never play him and the rare times we do it's out of position?

Fuck off will. If we lose today there should be riots.

IMO if we can't get up for the pompey game then I can't see it happening in other games.

McCarthy Edwards Wood Quarshie Mads Jander Sesay Fellows Azaz Scienza Downs We could play that team tomorrow with virtually no significant influence from last season.

Isn't the line that her husband knew and thought someone else was sorting it?

She could easily claim the correspondence was with her husband so what she said wasn't untrue yesterday. Either way it's a bit of a fuss over nothing. Plenty of legitimate stuff to hammer Reeves with already.

I don't see there's much she could have done given she was under the impression that it was applied for. It's the company at fault not her.

Nothing to see then.

But we played five at the back against Bristol City and Blackburn and stil conceded three and two-Blackburn could easily have scored more.

If this week is to keep himself in a job then surely he has to go into this doing what he wants to do? We've lost the last two anyway playing five at the back and most of the Blackburn game was awful. Play players in the positions they are meant to play. That means Fellows not as a hybrid fullback but as a winger and assist maker. It means probably having to play Downs or the young guy from the start.

Good on Adam pushing Still a bit on formation. I didn't really understand his answer. 4231 is his favourite formation that he would love to play? There's nothing stopping you. We concede multiple goals in most games whatever formation we play. We aren't winning either way so play the formation you want to play at home. The worst thing that could happen is that we lose which is what we've been doing with five at the back anyway.

The change would be turning the statutory obligation into judicial discretion. Judges could still look at ECHR rulings if they’re helpful, but they’d do so by choice, not because they are forced to do so. It’s less about changing outcomes overnight and more about making it clear that UK rights law develops on our own terms without laws that compel external influences.

I’m not against keeping the same rights or case law necessarily — just removing the legal obligation to take into account Strasbourg rulings. That way interpretation develops solely under UK law, with judges free to look abroad when it’s useful but not obliged to do so. If it's fully controlled in the UK then there's not a problem.

No. Leaving the ECHR without reforming the HRA would change little. Replacing the HRA to remove the obligation would. It’s about who sets the boundaries of interpretation: Parliament and the UK alone or some involvement from Strasbourg.

I know, that illustrates my point. The difference with Strasbourg is that it's the only one we are legally required to take into account under Section 2 of the HRA. Other foreign precedence is discretionary. Strasbourg is given a legal weight that no other court enjoys.

Not sure the tone is necessary mate. I’m not saying there’s some huge volume of “European law” dictating our judges. The UK isn’t bound by EU law and Strasbourg judgments don’t override our Supreme Court. But under the human rights act UK courts have to take into account Strasbourg rulings. It’s a statutory direction to treat those decisions as persuasive, which has a clear effect on how our courts interpret rights. Over time, that’s created a load of domestic case law that largely mirrors Strasbourg’s. Again, the argument isn't about scrapping rights. It’s about reasserting Pariliament and UK courts as the final word on how those rights apply in practice. So the main change is the requirement to take into account Strasbourg rulings — not the rights themselves necessarily.

I am. My posting persona has been one big psyop.