hypochondriac

I made one reply- not sure why that equates to being "triggered" and verbal wilfully misinterpreted me as an excuse to prove his vast knowledge of consumer protections for some reason. All my posts since then have tried to clarify what I assumed was an easily understood point. Not by verbal it seems but then he has been shouting about jihadists all over the place so he does appear slightly unhinged.

You didn't understand my point then and went off on a rant about consumer protections that I didn't talk about. Never mind...

The sarcastic post suggested that the reason we don't want the EU to increase our consumer protections was because we "enjoy being ripped off." The implication is that stupid English people have voted against the EU despite the good legislation it passes to increase consumer protection. The point I was making was that regulations like this are not why people voted to leave and if the EU confined itself to these sorts of things then they wouldn't be nearly as unpopular as they are.

The point- which you missed- is that the cuddly EU are not confined to decisions which protect consumers- which was the implication of the post. If that was all they did then no one would have voted to leave.

We will see if it goes through the "opaque and undemocratic" trilogue process behind closed doors between EU legislators and member states. There's a vote against it tomorrow so lets hope for everyone's sake that they are forced to conduct these "discussions" in public. And there's a bit more to it than simply not being able to use an avatar. On the one hand we have buctootim assuring us there's nothing to worry about and on the other we have a letter signed by over 70 luminaries including the father of the internet. Personally I'd prefer to listen to them when they say that the implications of this sort of legislation are a lot more than simply copyright protection.

Maybe have a look at article 11 and 13 of the new Internet censorship regulations and the link tax, legislation possibly being debated in secret and opposed by a host of people including Tim berners Lee.

Tbf it's not like you've set a good tone for any 'debate' with your constant use of jihadists and comparisons between those who voted to leave and terrorist organisations.

You seriously don't understand the dislike? He's our record signing for goodness sake and for the money is now statistically our worst ever value for money signing and possibly the worst prem striker ever on a contribution to cost ratio.

That's very unfair. If we were ignoring the Guardian way back in 2011, we would never have learnt about all those "dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition

Sorry but that's a load of rubbish. There's been a ton of quality games and loads of goals scored.

Apologies I thought he said last six finals.

Brazil?

What a weird way of looking at it. He is our record signing and pound to contribution he is our worst signing by an absolute mile.

Nope. We'd need two yellow cards.

Good shout. They've also looked decent.

I disagree. Both England and Belgium have stood out so far. Uruguay looked good too.

A player I'm really glad played for us. Did well more often than he did badly. The Sunderland game was a highlight and he was pretty great that season in general. Thanks for the memories Dusan and for actually leaving on good terms- makes a change from recent players!

As an example the ref clearly had a good view of the soares handball. Ordinarily he would have waved away the penalty and carried on but the presence of var makes it too tempting to just use the technology and then he ended up reversing his decision which was correct in the first place. If the ref doesn't see something then that's different.

Guess you missed the bit where I said the very presence of var is causing referees to second guess themselves. We won't be getting AI referees for the foreseeable future so I don't think var is the answer when you have the fallibility of a human ref who feels undermined by the technology and has their confidence to make any sort of decisions removed purely because of the existence of var.

Then it should be a straight red if that's what you think.

I disagree. The very presence of var itself is making referees second guess themselves and rely on the technology rather than trusting themselves in way too many decisions. Stopping the game for goodness knows how long over what appears a very straight forward decision is farcical.

I don't think Ronaldo was a yellow card. The fact it's not definitive means the original decision should stand. So that's 2 out of 4 and even the Portugal penalty decision was debated by some.

Agree with that. Get the var officials to make the decision not the referee on a little monitor on the side of the pitch. If there is any ambiguity at all then the refs decision stands.

Except that it may not have been that they thought it was a handball- they just thought there was enough of an element of doubt about it to warrant the ref having another look at it.

Well then the var officials need looking at and how often they communicate with the ref. The yellow card on Ronaldo last night was another ridiculous decision- either it's an elbow and thus a red card or it's nothing. The ref wasn't certain so the original decision should have stood, not giving a yellow just because he feels he should do something.