hypochondriac

Childcare establishments have been opening on bank Holidays and weekends during this crisis and they are also taking older children in some cases.

Cheers. I wonder if we will attempt to bring lemona back if we can't get rid?

It's superb. Made me think very much of the outbreak of the current situation.

But as you just demonstrated with your point about NHS workers having no one but grandparents to look after children, there is still a need even if it's small.

Thanks that is interesting. The people I spoke to were very complimentary about Semmens. They really thought he did a good job to get everyone rowing in the same direction and putting his faith in Ralph was a big moment. Basically said that Ralph was staying whatever happened and he would get rid of the pkayers before Ralph. Helped to bring people on board.

The people I spoke to work at the club but they weren't involved directly with any decisions on rohl so it's possible they were just told something to prevent any wider scandal if that's what it was.

Fair enough. Maybe the bayern thing was just what certain people at the club were told if he did something he shouldn't have done.

What's your point?

This is what I posted in January but thought better of it and deleted it. Feck it, it doesn't really matter now and we need something to discuss: Who wants some club gossip? Seems like as good a place as any to put it. From multiple sources: January. Relevant club staff have been told to work until 1am on transfer deadline day. Suggests that at the very least we will be working to bring someone in. The club. Agreement seems to be that the club structure went to pot after we qualified for Europe. Apparently following this we brought in a load of extra staff in departments. The people I spoke to think we are overstaffed in certain areas to do with the club, with loads of staff doing jobs that are different from their job description. The board itself is apparently decent but the department heads are pretty rubbish and are largely the reason that things have gone backwards. Almost all decisions have to be run past the board for approval which means we have had a high turnover of backroom staff as many want to stay but small things like little pay rises or contract changes can take ages to be approved and staff get fed up and find alternative employment. We had a solid system for recruiting players and under krueger and Wilson things changed. Ross and krueger were largely responsible for the transfer debacle of the last couple of years. The club are aware that Les carried the can for a load of the decisions but apparently he was blamed for a load of stuff that wasn't his fault. Wilson was largely to blame. The carillo transfer in particular, loads of scouts said he wasn't worth the cash but Ross was adament that he would do well. Leicester. After the 9-0 and before the Everton game there was a big crisis meeting with about 600 staff addressed by Martin selmayr. Apparently he is miles better than krueger and Ross and has taken more of a responsibility in football matters. He was very honest and said that apparently we were incredibly close to signing about 5 of the Leicester team - Maddison in particular changed his mind at the last minute- and he emphasised the fine line between success and failure. Ralph was ready to walk after Leicester and offered his resignation but the club decided that they didn't want him to leave. Martin said that a manager should only leave if they had lost the players and they didn't believe that this was the case so they were determined to back him. He said that whilst he was in charge, never again would players be signed on the say so of one person (meaning carillo.) The academy bloke who left for England and due to start in February has been all over the club recently and apparently is an incredibly positive appointment as he knows the club and will return things to higher standards and remove some of the department heads if not performing. Jaidi apparently is still working for the club and there may be an expectation that he has gone to learn in America and will return in the future. Ralph. Decided to come to the club and use us largely as a stepping stone. Came in and promised to stay and get us up the table but then wants to leave and move on. Unlikely to stay for too long if we have some success. Lost rohl once he knew bayern wanted him. Big loss because he was the link between Ralph and the players. Even now Ralph is slightly isolated. Ralph really doesn't trust many of the hangers on like coles and kelvin. If you notice he rarely interacts with them and doesn't do much conferring on match days other than with the bald guy (can't remember his name.) The players Many of the players have had and in some cases continue to have incredibly poor attitudes. There's been a marked decrease in commitment from a few seasons ago. Players were told to come to a sponsors event in November and were told that any players who did not attend would be fined £7k. Out of twenty odd players, only 7 showed up including jwp and ings. Certain departments have been told not to do anything too in depth with Bertrand which suggests he is off. He apparently has a poor attitude and was why he wasn't being played much at the start of the season. Charlie Austin is a gigantic b*llend. Made sexually suggestive and lewd comments to female staff members and was generally a ball bag. Most in the club very pleased to see the back of him Danso was really signed for potential and was worth a punt. Apparently has a 3.5 million fee if we decide to keep him. View of the club is that he has a lot of potential and may be worth it for such a small outlay. The kit. Anniversary next year. Almost certainly. Isn't going to be stripes, we may see a return of the sash. Someone got sacked for leaking the kit last year so understandably people don't want to reveal anything much this year. Gao Nothing we don't already know but has no intention of putting money in or taking any out. Only ever wanted the club to raise his profile abroad and as an asset to assist him in his other businesses. Some people are nervous about the sponsor this year and fear it could be something dodgy like money laundering.

I wouldn't condemn people I see for that reason unless it's blatantly obvious they are being irresponsible. Some schools and childcare facilities were open on Friday and are open on Monday by the way for that exact purpose to avoid sending children to elderly relatives.

I was talking more generally about this sense that if you are out working without ppe that it's then OK to go and meet people from other households. The example given could very well have been people from the same house so I wouldn't be able to comment on that specific case.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting I'm lacking empathy because I don't understand why grandparents would want to see their grandchildren? I know full well how painful and upsetting it has been for grandparents- not least my own who haven't seen their granddaughter in a month. It's not sanctimony at all, it's a basic request that if adhered to by enough people is clearly going to save lives, possibly of people you love. Some people would rather run the risk though because they don't think it will happen to them. I know who is really lacking empathy in this situation.

Well it doesn't really because you have a chance of catching it and spreading it on the tube AND to close friends and family if you're mixing with them. Surely the sensible thing to do is to minimise the different people you are mixing with which will reduce the amount of people you spread it to. It isn't rocket science.

Well yes but that's not what I said.

No I called you thick because you either didn't understand what I was saying or chose not to. No one has ever said that someone who has to work for financial reasons or because they have no choice are selfish. Its incredibly selfish and irresponsible though to think that because you have to risk your health by going to work that it's then acceptable to go and visit grandchildren. It isn't.

Are you hard of thinking? Going to work because you have to is not a choice. You are still risking your health but people who are doing it should take all the precautions they can whilst doing so. Meeting up with your grandkids is absolutely a choice and it's that part which is incredibly selfish and potentially dangerous. Just because you have to go to work does not mean it's then fine to potentially spread the disease further by engaging in activities that you choose to do. It's not a contradiction at all. If you are unable to social distance at work then you have my sympathy but if anything that means you should be being more careful outside of work not to come into contact with people from other households.

Part of the problem is the media that are waiting for a slip up or something they can plaster on the front page. Sometimes you get a good question from a journalist but normally it's something ridiculous like asking for a definite timetable for the lockdown when they know they won't be getting an answer.

Individuals freely mixing between households- if that is what is happening- is a direct threat to everyone else and that attitude will be contributing to more deaths and keeping the lockdown going on longer.

What example? People meeting loved ones by definition increases the chances of the virus being spread between households. It's a selfish and irresponsible thing to do and it makes me angry to know that people are deliberately flouting the guidelines because they can't stay inside for a few weeks. Loads of people are doing what they are supposed to be doing and staying home, it's a pity that some people are simply incapable. As someone suggested earlier, maybe those actually being sensible should be the ones given preferential treatment for the disease if it comes to a point where a choice has to be made.

You're either a key worker or have to work for some other reason. Either way, the fact you have to risk your health by going to work doesn't mean you should then be all laissez-faire outside of work, breaking the guidelines and potentially spreading this disease to people who might die from it because you fancy seeing your grandchildren. I know grandparents who are dying to see their grandchildren but they are doing the only thing they should be doing and staying away until the country has some more control. The selfishness of some people is amazing.

No I don't. If you have to go to work then you do because you are a key worker and you have little choice. Whilst doing so you take all reasonable precautions you can. Outside of when you have to go to work you should be inside adhering to the rules which will end this thing quicker and reduce the chance that either yourself or people you love will die from this disease. To do otherwise is selfish, irresponsible and an insult to people that are risking their own health.

So MLG you have now admitted that there are ocassions when prayer can be both "harmless" and even potentially "beneficial." presumably on the occasions when it is harmless and beneficial you wouldn't be opposed to it happening? I can't see why logically you wouldn't be.

In general? But not all the time? So again, is it conceivable that there exists an adult who prays, gets comfort and is equally as harmless as a child believing in the tooth fairy? And with regards to my second question, it sounds like you have agreed that prayer does not always make you more gullible and can in fact be beneficial because it makes someone who is gullible less gullible?

If a child believing in the tooth fairy is harmless as you claim it to be, is it not conceivable that an adult deriving comfort from a prayer could be equally harmless? If a gullible person prays or doesn't pray, does the act of praying make them more gullible in every case or could it actually be the case that praying could lead to disillusionment and actually make them less gullible as a result?

Not necessarily. Maybe the times when prayer doesn't work will make me question the validity of prayer and make me less gullible.