shurlock

Best place in the UK; but not earth. Think its lost some of its sheen in recent and becoming more and bland. Surely there's a limit to how many estate agents, hair dressers, Eat's and Itsu's you can have.

Djuriric had his best game against palace - it was a shame that the international break then came and he got injured. Not done enough yet but i'm neutral on him and certainly haven't written him off after 2-3 games. Shelvey is a Cork-type player. Excellent for depth but question marks over whether he is a true upgrade for the first XI and almost certainly would want to play week in, week out. Personally, I think Sissoko would be a great addition.

Obviously Koeman doesn't have the same quality at his disposal as MP, but even then I get the sense that MP would have shown greater faith in youth - its not MP only gave real game time to the stars - Gallagher being a good example. With our scoring woes, unprecedented injuries in midfield and the sale of Cork, RK has had every opportunity to give Reed, Gallagher and possibly Hesketh more game time. Even JWP (yes he had an injury), with another year under his belt, has featured less under RK than MP.

I didn't say its not about taxation and spending; but there is a difference between decisions which have distributional consequences across socioeconomic groups -rich vs. poor, old vs. young, borrowers vs. savers, producers vs. consumers, large businesses vs. SMEs, financial services versus other sectors, those with and without children, men vs. women etc; and decisions which redistribute only and exclusively between regions, once you control for the above characteristics. What I am saying is that the importance and salience of the latter is more limited when you consider the entire business of government and the multiple allegiances and affiliations voters have. The SNP's banging on about austerity and protecting public expenditure which will be music to the ears of Labour voters, wherever they are in country, even Ipswich, implies as much. I don't doubt the SNP will be pushing for a more parochial agenda -most probably greater fiscal autonomy (though not a snap referendum or tartan-plated trinkets); but its certainly not the only thing. To assume or assert otherwise is a huge simplification.

Assuming you are correct, are there no policies that are in the interests of Scotland that English voters also believe are in the interests of the UK i.e. the speed, magnitude and timing of deficit reduction or reform of the welfare state, among other things? You've been watching too much House of Cards, my little friend. Not all politics is zero-sum pork barrel spending where the jocks hijack and divert the budget for windfarms and other tinkets. And then, of course, there's your referendum bogeyman.

Frothing or salivating? It would be a massive step backwards.

Wolfy boy, that hardened leftie, delivering the goods once again: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3249930a-f27c-11e4-892a-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3Z6bo6yGp

It illustrates nothing. It's just a strawman example that's trying to conjure up the most controversial scenario, however remote. You'll be adding beach balls into your range of scenarios before long. And it's not even controversial. I see nothing wrong in ruling out a goal and pulling play back if it resulted from the kind of infringements we've been discussing.

The moronic section?

What's your point? It was a perfectly good goal. It wouldn't be taken back.

As I say, they wouldn't be able to challenge a decision until the play had ended, so a team couldn't just stop a counterattack. In the extreme scenario that the play resulted in a goal -when was the last time a goal on the counter resulted from a dubious decision or even an injury, I don't see why pulling play back would be a farce. After all, the goal wouldn't have occurred without the ref's mistake. Indeed, a goal from a refereeing mistake would be the bigger injustice.

Any decision wouldn't be reviewed until the play had broken down (in the same way, physios can't come onto the pitch to attend to an injury). That would prevent your situation of a team (cynically) trying to stop a counter. If it turned out that there was an infringement that the ref had missed, the play would then be pulled back. If not the resulting play would stand. Either way, i have my doubts whether managers would abuse the system if it mean losing a valuable challenge. Lastly, there's a subtle but important difference between adding to the length of a game and disrupting the internal flow of a game. Arguably, technology would affect the former but not the latter. Games would be lengthened but the length would depend on the number of challenges at a manager's disposal. One challenge per side -assuming they are both used- would add what? 5-7 mins in total? Obviously a game would take longer if managers had more challenges or were permitted to challenge decisions until they got one wrong -quasi-precedents which exist in other sports. In terms of time/flow, I don't see that much difference between appealing a decision and a player receiving treatment.

The fewer grasses, the better.

For once, I agree with you. Most of the objections seem to be logistical rather than a matter of principle. As such, they are not insurmountable. For instance, the practice in other sports is for there to be 'conclusive' evidence before a decision is overturned. If those reviewing a decision can't make their minds up and things are inconclusive, the original decision stands. As for hampering the flow of games, giving managers a fixed number of appeals would almost certainly address that.

The NFL is drawn into subjective questions - indeed the biggest decisions the officials face almost always subjective. Among other things, define a 'football move' when establishing whether a receiver completed a catch. Just ask Dez Bryant and the Cowboys. If anything, the trend is to make more subjective calls reviewable - not hard to imagine PI being the next in line. The biggest difference in the use of replay between the NFL and football is not objective vs. subjective. It's that, all things being equal, football has so few gamechanging moments -a pen given(not given) etc- which, if technology was introduced, would well and truly put the spotlight on the robustness of replay and review system. Can see why some might see it as poisoned chalice, though by the same token, surely as a matter of principle, you should be aiming to minimise refereeing mistakes when when refereeing mistakes can carry such large consequences. As such, technology is almost certainly one part of the solution IMO.

Sheer madness.

Not at all. You just continue to avoid the issue by blurting on about segregation and discrimation in the abstract. Thats why you appear to be making things up. Spare us the kitchen sink.

Sounds like you're making things up as you go along, old chum Nobody is denying that discrimination exists. It's whether daft and outdated practices such as differential seating arrangements etc are systematic proof of deeper prejudices and flagrant mistreatment of women or other groups. If any such relationship exists -and I've never seen it- it's nowhere near as strong as you and your frothing loons are claiming as you play party politics, very, very badly.

I have -and think you're talking s**t. Why practices thousands of miles away in Iraq or whatever is your pet, little reference point should illuminate attitudes in provincial community centres, mosques, synagogues etc up and down the country is beyond me.

Well done for generalising from a single case, though that's probably more than dear old duckhunter. Wont ask whether you're mistakenly conflating this one practice with segregation across the board (which is a battle worth fighting). Will leave that till another day, though you concede as much above. Suffice to say it's hard to take you seriously when you still labour under the assumption that this is all politically motivated. As for lazy assumptions, it is rather odd that I've worked for the Tories in the past - some of whom I have a good deal of respect for. HTH

Ive already said I personally think it's daft and outdated; but I've made my position clear, one that wouldn't change if it was Labour, Conservative, UKIP or any other party. Not sure why you mention VFTT - unless you're tedious enough to think it's all politically motivated. Btw, have you ever been to one of these events or canvassed attendants views? You need to get and see the world.

Behave with the 'should be tackled every time' clichés Any more hyperbole and you'll make sound it like apartheid South Africa or a public stoning. Have you actually been to something like this or canvassed attendants views? Probably not. You and I might find the practice utterly daft; but if you had -and I have- you would realise that many readily consent to it -and more pertinently, do not give a flying f**k about it -let alone think of it as an encroachment of their personhood or fundamental liberties, as bien-pensants attempt to dress it up. Frothing on about segregation, as if it's an all-encompassing trump card, doesn't change that. As I say, it's mock outrage, engineered by people who know next to nothing about those who theyre claiming to speak on behalf of.

Really? Says more about Islam than any of the parties - and even then, not sure what some outdated pageantry really says.

The forum excelling at mock outrage once again

I've actually been impressed for a while now -and think he offers more than Long. But probably doesn't represent great value given his importance to Leicester and age is not on his side.