Lighthouse

It was your suggestion, it’s not my fault it won’t hold up in real life. We have a Championship standard squad, none of our players have achieved any higher than they are now. Last time out in the PL Armstrong scored two goals, Archer scored four, BBD scored six. Maybe, they’ve all been held back by terrible managers consistently, throughout their careers or maybe, just maybe, they’re a bit sh*t and this kind of form is all they’re capable of.

You seem to be equating showing a modicum of patience with giving up. I can absolutely guarantee that if the new bloke had a sub-standard start, people would be calling for his head by Christmas, regardless of Fry’s nineteen game suggestion.

So basically you’re counting the fact that he was here to get us promoted against him. Yes, Russ has short comings, as will absolutely any manager we have a realistic chance of getting, but to say that he only gets eight games after getting us promoted, whilst a complete stranger gets nineteen, makes no sense.

That’s very obviously not what I’m saying though. Most people wanted Russ gone after Bournemouth, i.e. six games. Now the consensus seems to be that failing to win our eighth game will be the final straw. My point is that if the next bloke comes in and gets one or two points from eight games, why does he then get another eleven games to prove himself? In short, why would we hold two different managers to completely different expectations in terms of time available to get results? Because I can absolutely guarantee it won’t pan out that way with the fans. Nobody was demanding we give Jones another twelve games after that Wolves performance last year and it’ll just be the same if the new bloke turns in similar performances.

Why does the new man get nineteen games when Russ only gets eight? (Many wanted him gone after six, some as few as three or four).

I don't know why anyone is hoping or expecting for him to have been sacked in this international break, when his last game was away at Arsenal and for the most part we acquitted ourselves alright. If it didnt happen after our trip to Bournemouth, then it isn't going to now. So what, we just keep sacking managers every six or seven games? What if the next bloke comes in and only gets a point or two from his first seven? Sack him and bring in another?

We had peak Rickie Lambert, scoring 15 goals, peak Adam Lallana providing the creativity, Steven Davis who’s far better than anyone we’ve got now and a raw but talented J Rod and Ramirez, who both chipped in with six goals each and Morgan who, well let’s just say I can’t see Man Utd coming in for Flynn Downes any time soon. That squad was comfortably better than this one.

A 95th minute deflected Ipswich corner is just barely holding that stat together but I agree with the sentiment.

It's a charity football match thread, please can we refrain from turning it yet another discussion about Rickie and Tiss's wacky conspiracy theories. Thank you. That being said, it's a shame the government didn't organise a bit of nicer weather for today's match.

P f**king R f**king I f**king N f**king T f**king E f**king R f**king S Remember back in the glorious nineties when you could just plug a printer into your computer and click print and it would print something.

We tried to do a Danny Ings again. It worked then, it didn't this time, there was always going to be an element of risk and luck with this signing.

They aren't, I've no idea why people are pretending they might be otherwise. BBD and CA are 10 goal a season Championship strikers, PO scored in Turkey and Belgium but has yet to register a goal for us under three different managers. Diaz would be better up front but that means better than abysmal, as opposed to actually being good. He scored fewer goals in four seasons at Blackburn than Adam Armstrong did in three.

Clearly. I’m not sure who you think is worse than last season’s fourth best Championship team, combined with the attack from the worst PL team and a three or four other okay players.

He's changed his tactics many times, that's clearly not true. He went to a back five at the end of last season to accomodate McCarthy's limited distribution, then changed it back this season when we were struggling. We've played different formations, with different players in different positions. Some of them, like at Bournemouth, were shocking but other than his general passing philosophy, you can't really say he's wedded to any particular way of playing. As for, "set your team up to be hard to beat and capable of scoring on the counter," I'm sorry but that's just a cliche. We basically had that with Selles last season, every game he put out teams to hopefully not be embarassed, it didn't get us anywhere. Even the likes of Moyes and Dyche, who you'd generally associate that kind of sentiment with, have been on the end of a fair few thumpings and spent a lot of time in the bottom five, with better squads than ours.

It really isn't, it's quite obviously one of the three worst in the division, possibly the worst. Russ isn't holding this team back in quite the way that some people think he is. If you're waiting for another manager to come along and release the full attacking potential of Archer, BBD and Fraser, I fear it could be a long wait.

We’re not accepting anything as inevitable, we have an outside chance of avoiding relegation if he can get it right, same as we have with another manager. We have one of, if not the, worst squads in the league, it’s going to take a fairly special manager to keep us up.

I really don’t understand this eagerness for Russ to have an absolute stinker in the hope that the club will panic into firing him immediately. I don’t know manager people have in mind to replace him but when we binned off MoPe we got Mark Hughes. When we sacked Ralph we appointed Jones, then tried and failed to replace him with Marsch, then ended up with Selles. If and when Russ does get the chop, it’s highly unlikely to be some superb Emery-esq appointment which propels us into the top half.

It’s almost as if famous footballers and managers have media training and PR teams working for them and that not every word that comes out of their mouth is the gospel according to our lord. Who’d have thought.

Yes. Not to secular, liberal Westerners discussing the matter on the internet but in that region both sides actions are completely justified by their own religious dogma.

Where I would agree there is room for discussion is surrounding the grey area what constitutes quality of life and exactly where the boundary is. I don’t have anywhere near enough medical knowledge to sit here and say exactly which conditions fall either side of the line and how far they need to progress. Personally the idea of AD for someone with anorexia or PTSD seems uncomfortable but then I wasn’t the doctor who dealt with either of those cases (which are very much in the minority). 99.9% of the people affected by this bill will be in hospital beds, hooked up to painkillers with days to live, whatever they choose to do. What I don’t agree with at all is the separate point that this bill will turn us into some bizarre mix of Nazi Germany, where those too weak and feeble to work will be put to death, and that John Smiths advert where Peter Kay tries to get rid of his mother so he can out a snooker table in her bedroom. We’re not heading in that direction and the point being put forward by people like Carr and TGT is a non-sequitur. Nothing they are apparently afraid of is being proposed and one disgruntled employee in Canada sending sarcastic emails isn’t evidence of that.

So what do you think that’s proof of? 83,000 people died of cancer alone in Canada last year. Even ignoring every other terminal disease and chronic, debilitating condition out there, the idea that one in eight people dying of cancer choosing to end it humanely really isn’t an absurd or alarming one.

You’re making an absolute mountain of what is quite clearly a rogue employee, who clearly has a very sarcastic attitude problem, has been universally slammed by everyone else concerned up to and including the Canadian PM. That employee has now been suspended and the disabled veteran was never at any point under any actual danger of being euthanised. Clearly this person’s attitude was grossly inappropriate but it’s a very, very tenuous argument to stretch that to people in wheelchairs being basically executed by proxy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html

They’re no more ridiculous than the idea of AD being approved for people who need a ramp to access a bus or have serial killer children. If there’s no medical case to put forward to a doctor, then they’re all equally non-starters. The idea of killing the disabled for being a burden on society is straight out of Mein Kampf, we’re absolutely nothing like that as a society and this bill isn’t going to move us in that direction. This is the exact opposite, it’s about showing compassion for those who are suffering the most and allowing them a dignified and merciful choice.

The problems with assisted dying are why we have doctors, the doctors have supervisors and they have second opinions. You have to go through a whole process just to get an organ transplant, hospitals have whole committees to make sure various standards and criteria are met when dealing with such matters. Matters such as AD will clearly have similar, even more stringent safety measures. The case for assisted dying will have to be put forward individually. If a relatively healthy senior citizen asks to be euthanised because their psychotic son wants their house/inheritance, that’s very, very obviously going to throw up a bunch of red flags. As is somebody in a wheelchair who feels self conscious about holding up a bus. Cases like that would never get through even the most basic of case analysis’, so this is a complete straw man argument from Carr.

I’m not advocating for it to be expanded to include literally anyone. You can take Hypo’s argument as far as you want. If people on wheelchairs can be euthanised for annoying bus drivers, what about people on benefits, or illegal immigrants, people who sit in the middle lane doing 58mph or people who say, “can I get a…” in coffee shops. The fact that Canada has overstepped the mark doesn’t mean we have to. I’m talking about starting with the most obviously chronic and painful conditions first, then expanding it to reasonable parameters after a robust trial period. It’s like anything in life, if Airbus designs a new plane, they don’t cram it full of passengers and send it no stop to Sydney or its first flight.