Lord Duckhunter

They’re different than normal vouchers & are ABTA protected. From the ABTA website; “A Refund Credit Note entitles you to rebook a holiday at a future date or receive a cash refund at a later date, up until the expiry date of the note. It also retains the financial protection that you had with your original booking.” The Premier league could do something similar and guarantee a refund if we go belly up. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hague used to regularly monster Blair at PMQ’s didn’t make a blind bit of difference. Let’s see how he does when the chambers full & there’s a coordinated heckling campaign from the vast banks of Tory MP’s. The subject matter lends itself to boring forensic scrutiny, it won’t always be like that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They’ll try and offset that against the next one you buy. TUI are offering a voucher to the value of holiday plus 20% on top, makes sense for us to do something similar. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing to do with politics LOL, of course it’s not Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Charge back & section 75 are actually 2 different things (I didn’t realise this until my case recently). Charge back is when the card company tries to get your money back voluntarily, section 75 is when they’re jointly reasonable for the charge. Nationwide told me they’d try charge back first, and if unsuccessful I could then process a section 75 claim. Basically, they got Ryan air to voluntarily give me the money back onto my card . Had Ryan air refused, I would have gone down the section 75 route & Nationwide would then have paid me back, before going after Ryanair for reimbursement. I presume the admin costs of refunding nationwide under section 75 were more than voluntarily doing so, so coughed up. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Still not got over it? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

?????? The point being debated by me was that Clinton was unelectable. You appear to agree. I wasn’t debating the rights or wrongs of the system, just her electability under that system. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If they didn’t pay the players or cut their wages unilaterally the players are entitled to a free transfer. That’s the rules I’m afraid, nothing to do with your refund. If you feel you have a case, go to your credit or debit card company & ask for a charge back. If your complaint is legitimate they’ll do so & you’ll get your money back. I did so over a Ryanair flight, the credit card provider told me the measure used is “reasonable”. Was it reasonable that Ryan air unilaterally issued me a voucher & then said I could have a cash refund if that voucher wasn’t used in a year. The CC people, didn’t think that reasonable so got my money back for me . The club will say a refund will be forthcoming once the games rearranged and either, you can’t make it, or it’s behind closed doors. I suspect the card company will deem that reasonable. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here’s a thought . Maybe some people think it’s safe to play, that playing or not playing won’t make a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Some people even believe that life is risky & whilst not unaware of the potency of the virus, believe staying in doors & hiding under our beds isn’t going to make it go away. These people aren’t murderers or killers, or even selfish, they just have a different opinion than you. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And against the most flawed candidate in living memory. If you can’t get elected fighting The Donald, I’m afraid you’re unelectable. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The one who gets elected. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dear god, this is like trying to debate Forrest Gump Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What’s that got to do with anything? Is that proof that Clinton was electable, not getting elected against the most flawed candidate a presidential election has ever seen? You lefties just don’t get it do you, just keep on losing, and still don’t get it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What the hells the matter with you people, Covid deranged syndrome?

Dear God Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because something is even more extreme, it doesn’t make something else less extreme. We have extreme measures, putting nearly the whole economy into hibernation, is extreme. Making people too scared to go and get medical advice, is extreme. You have even more extreme measures. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reaction to it is comparable to lots of things. You’re saying that although The Government, The PFA, the Premier league believe it’s safe to play behind closed doors, we can’t because a few chumps might watch it with their mates, or god forbid turn up outside the ground to listen to the players shouts. By that logic you wouldn’t open B&Q, not because they haven’t got safe practises in store or in their car park, but because some random people may not adhere to them. If you don’t think it’s self to play yet, fine, that’s a legitimate view. But once it is, it shouldn’t be subject to an idiots test. It’ll never start again. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pony You just made that up. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dear god, you think Hilary Clinton was electable. Almost anyone vaguely electable would have beaten him. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just as well that I wasn’t t comparing drink driving to the virus then. The comparison I made was between banning something because others might abuse it. If you deem football safe to play & the players, officials & assorted staff safe to do their jobs, banning it because other people may not behave properly, is like banning drinking because some may do so & then drive. Would you ban Southampton V Portsmouth because people may not behave properly whilst the game was going on. Of course not. It’s either safe to play or it isn’t. How people may or may not behave because of it should be irrelevant. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Who on earth thinks if we’d carried on everything would be alright. That’s a straw man if ever I saw one. Even Peter Hitchens one of the most vocal lockdown critic accepts there needed to be measures and these measures would affect the economic output. The issue is whether the extreme measures put in place were an over reaction, and whether that over reaction will eventually cost us more jobs and years of extra misery than was required, without saving any extra lives. It’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and a perfectly valid opinion to have. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So you’re going to stop millions watching a game because a few half wits wont obey the rules. Get a grip man. If football, cricket or any pastime can be played in relative safety, you can’t stop it because of what other people might do. People might drink too much & drive home, you don’t ban alcohol because of it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s simple really. Trump supporters won’t care, they’ll vote for him regardless. They’ll vote for a sex pest. Biden’s supporters may stay at home, not wanting to vote for a hypercritical sex pest. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The BBC we’re actually pretty good during the purdah period. The were pretty balanced & probably as neutral as it’s possible to be. The period following, particularly after Mays dog breakfast of an election campaign, they’ve been horrendously biased. Too much air time given to the Gaukes, Stewart’s & Hestletine’s along with underserved fawning over Soubry & her gang of loons. My argument is impartiality is impossible as individuals values & thoughts will always cloud editorial decisions. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk