egg

Sadly money talks, and lots of these kids seem unable to look at the bigger picture of their career beyond that tempting 1st contract from the likes of Chelsea. I'm not sure Morgan would be in our first team yet, but he'd doubtless be in or around the squad.

Sadly that's probably the case.

He's on our payroll so let's use him. These kids need some experience around them and as we're paying Vokins, I'm happy with him doing that job. When his contract is up, or he gets an offer, then release him. Hopefully the lad gets a move soon.

I've got a few 1970's Mayfair and Penthouses here that you can have mate. They're "well used", but some of the pages still turn.

There's 2 x 15 year olds starting so I have no issue with Vokins earning his wages and being out there with them.

Harrison Miles and Gomes Rodriguez starting. Nice.

That's too much of a giveaway Del. He'll be an exciting signing though, and a bit of a coup.

Your attempts to save all men with a cervix should get you a CBE Del. I'll nominate you.

We've said to 'protect our financial interests'...by protecting the freedom of movement. Us bombing a sovereign country because militants based there have attacked boats owned and operated by private entities from 3rd party countries is a big step. I'm not sure that a bomb, in retaliation, near a political or military linked place over here would be any less of an act of 'self defence' by the Houthi's.

Ha! Interesting decision though. I'm not convinced that bombing Yemen to protect our financial interests can be said to be 'self defence'. Let's see where this goes.

He's one lad who a couple of ex players have told me really underachieved. Great talent apparently, but not quite there on the commitment. One of them told me a story about him playing somewhere (after his saints days) and arriving late without boots, but coming on when he arrived wearing his shoes, scoring a hat trick, then getting subbed off again. Feels like an urban myth, but if true, it tells me why the lad didn't quite make it.

On a similar theme, the chat on BBC breakfast this morning about vaginal prolapse isn't idea breakfast listening. There's a time and place for discussion about that and the associated issues.

Yes, went to Mountbatten school in Romsey. I didn't see his debut but the way he tells it he made wee Gordon look like a novice. Seemingly he had a real chance to fill Mark Dennis boots who'd just left for QPR but, like many talented kids, injury got in the way. I recall the schools final, but none of the players.

He sure was, some question about players with names like things you drink from or similar. I thought I was the only person apart from Alan Tankard who remember that! I know Andy although our paths haven't crossed for a while. He got injured early on and never really made it back with us. Went down the leagues though and forged a decent career. Very nice intelligent bloke. Trained as a physio when he knew the game was up and was at Eastleigh and running a private clinic when I last saw him.

He was decent. It wasn't Franny who blocked his path (he came through a few years later) but Andy Cook who was the same age but a better prospect. He was a cracking player, and marked Gordon Strachan out of the game on debut against Man Utd.

I'm not sure why the person at the top would have any involvement in run of the mill prosecutions, and more to the point, why anyone thinks that it would be for that person to doubt the veracity of the evidence supporting the case. It's for the defence to challenge the evidence, and the court to test it and decide. People attacking Starmer over this are making a shit point, in a shit way.

This ICJ case against Israel is interesting, especially as any order isn't enforceable anyway. My money's on a not guilty, which won't help the Palestinian people one bit.

Do people seriously think that Kier Starmer had any involvement in these prosecutions? Even he did, the prosecution criteria is whether it's in the interests of justice to do so. Where a prima facie (answerable) case is presented, and there is evidence to suggest a conviction can be secured, the prosecution must proceed. It's for the defence to challenge the evidence, not the bloke at the top.

Nails everywhere. You'd have to expect a few tears.

Yep. Nobody can reasonably expect ministers, the CPS, DPP, police, etc to have assumed that there was a mass cover up going on and that people were being stitched up left, right and centre. It was perfectly reasonable to take the complaint and evidence at face value and leave the defendants to challenge the case against them if they denied it. That's how a justice system works.

Kill joy. Perhaps try the transfer window thread next time.

Test

It's staggering that people get miffed about this. If a bit of fun ain't your idea of fun, don't read the thread.

What's ridiculous is the assumption that people in the right places had the right information to act. Assuming, with hindsight, that they must have does not mean that they did. This needs proper investigation. I agree that asking relevant ministers what they knew and what they did or didn't do is absolutely necessary. What isn't necessary though is all this lurching to conclusions that people knew enough to do something. I'll save my condemnation until we know who to condemn.

The political scapegoating here is pathetic. What we don't yet know is which politicians knew what and when. At the end of the day, some post office masters have been on the take for ever and a day so a minister becoming aware that masters were alleged to be on the take can't be criticised for doing nothing about action being taken against said post masters. The DPP ditto. The CPS ditto. There's only a case for a minister to answer if he or she had knowledge which merited action or an investigation that could have prevented miscarriages of justice.