hypochondriac

Even if we win this game that's another shite half of football.We can't put a 90 minute together. This is a real worry.

Bazunu with a ricket. Hate to say,we told the club so but we told the club so. We reward failure.

When we are 1-0 down...

I don't think we can afford that if he's anonymous again. Like still says they have to prove they belong in the team.

He was nursing a slight injury wasn't he? So doubt he was dropped.

Other than maybe Downs that's the team I would have played. Big opportunity for the lad I hope he takes it.

Well firstly there's more all the time so it's going to be more annoying the longer it goes on. Secondly I wasn't happy about it the entire time. Maybe other people only recently started caring but it's an affront to the British sense of fair play. I think it's appalling that poll after poll for so many years now have called for lower levels of immigration. Parties have gotbibto power promising to significantly lower it and then the numbers keep going up. Even if you don't think it matters, everyone must surely agree that that is unacceptable. The Boris wave in particular was a dereliction of duty as far as I'm concerned and spat in the face of anyone who voted for him for that reason

It's a bit more than an annoyance. It's a disgrace and it's a big reason why Reform are surging in the polls.

Drawing fouls slows them down, not us. It kills their momentum, prevents them from hitting us on the break which was one of their main tactics and gets us further up the pitch, allows our strikers to get into position and winds their players up. If Pompey are hacking him down, it means he’s causing them problems — that’s literally the point. Pretending that’s a negative is just clueless. What's more, judging by the responses to my last post it seems that quite a few people agree with me. I'd expand more but you were being a bit of an abusive twat so I won't bother.

Not sure what you're talking about.

What is a slap in the face? Unprecedented levels of change in some areas of the country? I agree that's shit.

Having parts of the country full of foreigners with an unprecedented rate of change has undeniably changed some areas of the country for the worse. It's not what is making life shit -my life isn't shit -but it's certainly not positive. Most of that was the fault of the Tories of course.

So we just accept waste forever because it’s hard? No wonder the books never balance and we're mored in debt. Short term solutions are a big part of the problem.

Sure, debt costs went up after the downgrade – but hammering taxes won’t fix underlying issues. Smarter welfare reform, efficiency savings, and growth policies aren't perfect but are a better option than massive tax rises. I'd have reversed the NI cuts last year but they didn't so might have to do it alongside all the other unpopular cuts. Let's see how much further their popularity drops.

Lol. That will fix it no doubt.

Maybe he will do it himself then. Either way, crazy to suggest that drawing multiple fouls would be in any way negative.

Agreed. Hopefully can draw a few more fouls as well so Manning can thump them in.

And he succeeded every time. Be honest, had you not heard that random journo interview you wouldn't have posted this.

I think this highlights a big reason for the mess we are in: ‘52.6% of all UK households are taking more in benefits/services than they contribute in all taxes. In 1977 it was 37%.’ Just insane.

Exactly — and that’s the whole point. The bar in the Public Order Act is deliberately set high: speech has to be threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up hatred. In most of the cases I've highlighted — Miller, Brady, Scottow — the police knew that threshold wasn’t met, yet still logged incidents or turned up at people’s homes. So I'm not arguing against the Act itself. The issue is the gap between the law and the way it’s been applied in practice, where lawful speech has been treated as if it were criminal. That’s why the courts rebuked both the police and the guidance behind it as I said. Edit: regarding your final paragraph that's not how the law works. The public order act doesn't criminalise all insulting or abusive language online. The Miller judgement even makes this explicit that lawful even deeply offensive speech is protected. The problem was that the police treated lawful yet what they deemed unpopular opinions expressed in possibly a rude way as if they were hate crimes. The line is much narrower than "pretty much any and all abusive language" because otherwise half of social media would be criminalised by default.

I say this as politely as possible but what the fuck are you talking about? Drawing multiple fouls is obviously a positive.

The comparison with loud music doesn’t work though — in those cases, there is a potential offence under noise legislation, and the police or council have clear powers to intervene. That’s very different from turning up at someone’s home or workplace over lawful online speech where no offence has taken place. Of course the police won’t get total accuracy — nobody expects that. The problem is that in some of these “hate incident” cases, the courts have already ruled the approach unlawful and disproportionate. When you’ve got people being logged, visited, or even arrested for posts that aren’t crimes, and the police end up paying compensation, that’s not just “a few mistakes.” It’s a pattern of overreach that needs to be called out. As I mentioned there's quite a large number of high profile cases.

That’s not really the same thing. If someone hears shouting, there’s a potential immediate risk to life or safety, so a welfare check makes sense. But in the Miller case and others, we’re talking about lawful speech online where the police already knew no crime had been committed due to the content of the tweets. Turning up at people’s homes or workplaces in those circumstances has been found by the courts in many cases to be disproportionate and unlawful. The issue isn’t that house calls “always” happen, it’s that they happen at all in cases where no crime has been committed — and that’s exactly what the courts have rebuked even if some posters think otherwise.

That’s exactly the point though — the courts don’t hand out “naughty step” punishments, they make findings on legality and in Miller’s case, both courts found overreach. The High Court in 2021 ruled Humberside Police acted unlawfully. The Court of Appeal in 2022 went further and ruled the national guidance itself unlawful because it chilled free speech. That’s not just “sorting out” a few wrinkles, it’s the judiciary saying both the conduct and the framework behind it crossed the line.

Come on, that’s a bit of a rewrite of history. The High Court didn’t just “clarify” things — they said Humberside Police acted unlawfully and warned against them becoming the thought police. That’s not process, that’s a slap on the wrist. Then the Court of Appeal went a step further and ruled the guidance itself unlawful because it chilled free speech. So no, it wasn’t just the law being gently “clarified” — both courts made it clear the police had overstepped, and the system backing them was broken. It's also still happening so the clarification wasn't particularly successful in any case which is why they are still asking for law changes. In additionx the policeman admits in the video above with the American lady that if she admitted the offence he would simply ask her to apologise so clearly he isn't there in that case because he thinks a crime has been committed.