hypochondriac

I hope someone you love like your parents don't get caught up in this.

I'm well aware we aren't a corner shop thanks for the patronising reply, the principle is of course still the same. You'd be a fool not to use past business performance as an indicator of present business performance- particularly because we are currently performing so badly. Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

​How is his history in business not relevant to the running of his current business? If I owned a shop, appointed a load of rubbish people to work there and drove it into the ground and then I took over another shop, would the new employees not be concerned based on my actions at the previous shop?

Charming. Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

Made me smile which is the important thing. Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

I want Richard Chorley as chairman.

I'd personally love that.

Nice to have you back alpine.

Watch us sell the players I mentioned in my previous post in the summer now. No one is going to buy Stephens, long vestergaard with the wages they are on and what we would wasn't for them.

Great so trying to lower the wage bill through sales. Only people really worth buying is hojbjerg, ings, Bertrand and maybe redmond.

That's probably the case even with us bejng for sale. No one is going to buy saints for that price. We probably wouldn't get anyone remotely credible for even 100 million. If we do sell it would probably be to someone worse. As I said, cheers kat for ruining your father's legacy. If she truly loved and valued the club as she claimed then she could have easily sold us for something like 50 million to a sensible and credible buyer who was actually interested in investing rather than this setup.

Someone being for sale isn't really good news if no one is available to buy.

Cheers kat.

I think you're wildly exaggerating if you reckon that not doing an interview with Andrew Neil amounts to not being properly scrutinised, particularly because there was loads of media he did do during the campaign. Let's be honest, with all the main leaders it was mostly an excuse to watch them be eviscerated for a laugh and to watch them squirm. I wanted corbyn to do the interview because it was funny and because he got destroyed but if he hadn't gone on I would have understood, it's not exactly a helpful think for a politician to do imo and maybe adversarial grilling with a presenter is more of a thing of the past. I've seen Boris and his comments be scrutinised to death, people keep bringing up the letterbox comment out of context or other quotes from decades past ffs. Dawn Butler brought it up again even this week and still is throwing around silly words like racist.

I've got us below Norwich in 20th

Corbyn believed it which was my point. Corbyn's strategy was to "win the argument" even if that cost him the election whereas Boris' strategy was to win the election. In that respect you could argue that both of them succeeded in their aims- plenty of Corbynistas had little interest in actually winning. Boris won the election and proved that his Andrew Neil snub at worst had very little impact and may have actually been beneficial to his chances.

Did you read the bit where I said he should have done the interview? I criticised him at the time for not doing it but it's undeniable that his strategy paid off.

The aim was to win the election. You may consider it cowardice but its clear that the electorate didn't care about it so from a getting elected standpoint- which was the point of the exercise- it was the right call. I mean otherwise you're in corbyn territory where you supposedly won the argument but got trounced. History will record who won the election, not who got interviewed by Andrew Neil before the election.

I am aware. The specific Disney versions did not originate in books.

But clearly he made the call that most of the electorate weren't bothered if he did the Neil interview or not. He was right wasn't he? Maybe the others were wrong to do it. It's not like he didn't do other ones. I think he should have done it by the way, I can just see why he would have some justification for not doing it.

Because he sae that Neil is pretty skilled at destroying the person opposite him and calculated- rightly as it happens- that there was no reason for him to do the jnterview as it would not improve his chances of getting elected.

World book day and all the children (and some adults) go dressed as Disney characters.

No they felt that corbyn was much worse and they were correct.

Absolutely agree with that. Even better get some people in charge of departments who have experience in the sector they are leading like they do in Germany.

How do you know that accusations of bullying have gone through the correct channels? There isn't always the opportunity to deal with things earlier, it's at least partially up to the attitude of the employee even if that's very much the intention of the employer. Every organisation worth their salt has a whistle blowing procedure and a bullying policy. We have no knowledge about bullying that Patel is directly responsible for that has subsequently been covered up. Hopefully an investigation will see if that is the case but I certainly wouldn't hang someone out to dry on the say of a few disgruntled employees with a differing version of events. We had somebody once who deliberately ignored protocols, caused a major safeguarding incident and we had no choice but to sack her. That certainly wasn't the fault of management, it was the correct and responsible thing to do under the circumstances. How do you know that Patel's behaviour has fallen below and acceptable level? You don't know that and clearly there are different interpretations. You are suggesting she should step down now because you disagree with her ideogically and we know this because you would not be doing the same if it were corbyn or others on the left being accused of similar things.