egg

Feck me. Beyond shocking.

Strictly

I'd rather that they moved it to PM. I disagree with much of what Sadoldgit posts, but this thread is pathetic.

No, you're missing the point. Clause 77 (an addition not present in May's deal) essentially imposes upon us an alignment with the EU in many areas beyond us leaving. That interferes with what brexit is meant to achieve, namely a launch pad to negotiate with others without any ties to the EU. Don't get me wrong, I know full well that Trump will turn us inside out on any trade deal, but clause 77 appears to stand in the way of such deals / negotiations. Whichever way you look at it though, we're exposed to getting ****ed from all directions.

Under point 77 of the revised deal, the alignment must be between the "Union and the United Kingdom".

True, but either way it's a provision which means that we won't have full autonomy over our affairs with reference to "state aid, competition, social and employment".

We read it very differently. There is clear reference to "competition" and specific reference to "These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages" between the union and the United Kingdom. It's pretty obvious what it means and is a new addition that is very restrictive to our ability to negotiate trade deals on whatever terms we want.

In my reading it means we can't get any trade deal that favours us more than the EU, and basically it seems the EU has a very deep concern that we will be better without the EU ... and Boris has given this away ... what's the point of having trade deals if can't be competitive?

reading point 77 of the new brexit deal.... Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationshipand the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment

Yep. People whine when all we have is an option but sometimes an option is more than enough. He was shocking last night and on that performance he's not worth buying.

Trade

Vestergaard looked awful to anyone who had watched him. Everything we now know was obvious then: can't jump, can't run and turning speed of an oil tanker. Elynoussi on the other hand did look half decent to me but arguably looks an even worse signing than Vestergaard. Whatever, £60m plus agents fees, signing on fees, wages for those 2 plus Carillo is appalling business.

League down, club up, club trajectory up. He'll have a transfer budget to work with but the main point is that players have a much better chance of succeeding / looking good in that league so it's easier for him to shine up there. I can see why he's taken the job.

I don't know but I'm guessing he's injured. Slattery is the main man in the u23 midfield this season.

Short answer is no. That said, RH has made some baffling decisions this season with his team selections, tactics, and subs (or lack of). Whilst he has a pretty poor squad of players, there's no doubt in my mind that he could have done better with what's available to him, so it's understandable that questions are being asked.

He was awful yesterday and has been for most of this season. If we had an alternative I'm sure RH would try him, but he doesn't seem to fancy Slattery and there's nobody else.

I suspect its more likely that Rangers are a more attractive club for him. They're pushing to catch celtic, he'll have a transfer budget to work with, and given the inferior league, there's a better chance that players will be a success. To be fair to the bloke, he had to pull rabbits out of the hat for us and there's only so many times you can do that.

Caramel

If I interpret you correctly, are you are saying that as a result of a parents inability to reasonably communicate with or calm with his/her child, that it is acceptable for the adult to then strike the child? Of course an adult can walk away from a difficult situation and doing so often takes the heat out of a situation very quickly. Your statement is ridiculous.

Yes. Open palm (slap) or closed palm (fist) are two ways of hitting someone, but the latter is surely be a punch. In any event, I'm staggered by the suggestion above that there's a threshold beyond which it's considered acceptable to hit/smack/slap any child of any age. If someone would deal with a situation in life with another adult or the child of another without a hit/smack/slap, I need to understand on what basis they would feel the need hit/smack/slap their own child and why they would feel that necessary or justified. The "I can raise my child how I like" argument isn't an answer, just an excuse.

I'll take that response as a "yes".

What the f*ck! Are you for real or just some Internet caricature? Smacking someone is hitting them.

I don't hit colleagues, mates, family, or anyone when they don't comply / need to learn, so wouldn't dream of hitting a child in those (or any) situations. It's obvious that nobody should hit a child and I can't imagine a credible argument for doing so.

Gloom

They've behaved disgracefully. Had there been no accident they would have played him and regarded him as theirs. To say otherwise after his death is poor.