hypochondriac

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.

Human rights are currently defined domestically through the HRA and interpreted by UK judges. It is true that most cases never get near Strasbourg. But the issue isn’t how often Strasbourg steps in — it’s that our own courts are required under the HRA to “take into account” Strasbourg rulings. Over time, that’s shaped our domestic case law and tilted the balance of interpretation in a direction set by an external court. The argument I have heard from most is about resetting that relationship. It’s not saying our courts are entirely powerless at present or that Strasbourg is all powerful — it’s about ensuring that when UK judges make judgements they’re doing so based solely on UK legislative intent. A British HRA wouldn’t need to reinvent rights — it would just reassert domestic primacy. It could for example say that Strasbourg case law has no authority unless adopted by Parliament or the Supreme Court. That would make rights protections domestic.

Agree with that too. There's no doubt that the state of the country has impacted on labour's popularity. Starmer being the last charismatic politician ever hasnt also helped but they have to take their share of the blame regardless of the circumstances. Hammering all sorts of different groups since they got into power just pisses everyone off. They've shown no political nouse appointing Mandleson for example. I listened to a podcast today where they said that the time to raise taxes was when Trump came into power and we could have used the war in Ukraine as an excuse rather than now which just looks like incompetence. They need a strategy person with a bit of forward thinking.

I agree with most of that. It's debatable they've been better than the Tories so far for me. I think they've been better in some areas but worse in others. Certainly the communication has been the worst thing.

Right but it's obvious why government ministers get more scrutiny than MPs of opposition parties not in power.

Farage isn't in government though.

I don't really disagree but it's just another item to add to the ledger and another example of the overall impression of incompetence.

Only because Matsuki hasn't had an opportunity. I've seen nothing to suggest we aren't going to plat Robinson on the wing in which case he's competing with Scienza.

Why? Robinson is also a winger.