Lighthouse

I’ve supported all the lockdowns so far, even though I’m under 40 and have no known underlying health problems.

That first sentence may well be true and it would level out at around 70 per day if it was the case; a slight increase on the current rate. The second sentence is complete conjecture, the current lock down came in to force to put the brakes on an outbreak which, at it's peak, was killing 1,800 per day and left hospitals and their staff unable to cope.

Now is different. Now we have 30 million of our eldest and most vulnerable vaccinated we should indeed, slowly and cautiously, be able to edge towards some sense of normality. Unfortunately vaccinations require a certain threshold of the population to be vaccinated to be completely effective and we aren’t quite there yet. Hence caution and not making promises, especially regarding international travel.

No, the virus (before anyone had been vaccinated) created a world where if we didn’t lock down, people would lying dead on the pavements outside hospitals, unable to get inside. Even if they did there would scarcely be enough doctors and nurses to brush past one in a corridor, let alone receive any medical treatment. If you think this has all been scare mongering, here’s a photo from Brazil where their nutcase of a leader has tried to crack on as normal. Looks more like something you’d find outside Ypres, not a hot country where the virus supposedly can’t survive anyway.

Sounds like something that would also make your laundry whiter TBF.

What's your point? When a crime is alleged, you're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

Caught a sound bite from Dianne Abbott on the news last night whilst driving home. She was telling everyone, in her usual - conducting a primary school assembly - voice that, "some people think it’s our job, as people of colour, to have to prove that systemic racism exists in society." Yes Dianne, that’s how the burden of proof works.

Or, just a suggestion, we can all accept that a teenage boy once did something stupid a decade ago, forget about it and move on with our lives. The criticism from me is aimed squarely at whoever is digging up these social media posts from teenagers in past decades, simply for the sake of causing a stink about racism. They were dead posts, which weren’t offending anyone and should have remained that way.

To me it says, "you definitely can’t park here."

He basically did. Adkins started off 7 points behind Brighton and finished 3 behind. He also lost the Championship title by half a point (i.e. with a massively better GD) and beat a much more expensive West Ham squad in the process.

We can ban you again if you like?

Happy dogging Monday everyone. We’ve even got some nice weather for it.

I’m glad the muppet show is alive and kicking again. It’s what Bearsy would have wanted. 😢

No, we get rid of them and only bring a player in if they’re actually going to improve us. Depth for the sake of depth is pointless. We had depth in 2005, some 40 odd senior players on the books come the final day and about 35 of them useless.

Neither Elyounoussi nor Walcott should be in the squad next year if we have designs on anything other than fighting relegation with a bloated wage bill. We’ll never be able to bring in anyone decent until we stop stockpiling mediocrity just because it’s easy and cheap in the short term. Same goes for Bertrand.

Whilst I agree in principle that it’s vital we replace Ings, you are using the ‘if he wasn’t here, we’d have played those games with ten men’ fallacy. Even a s**t striker is probably good for 4/5 goals a season if playing regularly, apart from Long obviously.

I think some of you need to switch the internet off for a while and take a breather. 🤨

This is basically the crux of it and why he probably won’t be sold in summer. He’s worth more to us than anyone else is likely to pay.

Building a team around anyone for a club our size is foolish IMO. If he wants to spend his a career here then great but history shows us that this is rarely the case.

Probably in the £40-50m bracket. TBH I wouldn't particularly be against that. If we're losing Ings for £20m too then the combined money could get us a new striker, CM, #10 and LB.

Thirded. It’s a flipping weird argument, I’m out.

I really don’t know what the point is supposed to be. San Marino have managed to keep England down to just a 5-0 defeat by stuffing everyone behind the ball and not leaving their own half. On other occasions they have conceded double figures playing the same way and would do so on multiple occasions playing in the Premier League. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they’re in any way better set up defensively than we are.

Okay right, we’ll sack Ralph and replace him with Giuseppe the welder. Defence sorted.

If San Marino played in the Premier League, they would be hit for double figures more than once per season.

I do wonder sometimes how modern society would cope with something like that. Or more specifically, to what extent certain people would be willing to deny something staring them in the face. No doubt if a disease came along and wiped out a third of the country, there’d still be some claiming that it was, "all part of the big reset, they need us scared so that we’re obedient," and that the lockdowns have actually killed more than 20 million people in delayed cancer treatments.