|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 18:45:14 GMT
I think we can except your opinion is different to mine in terms of what constitutes a "reckless" challenge. If a slight miss-timed attempt by a winger to tackle back which does absolutely zero harm is your benchmark and should be condemned with an emotive term like that then murder is being committed every day on football pitches between Rotherham and Rio De Janeiro right here in 2014. I would be ashamed to let a 5 stone wet through Sterling know I had even felt the tackle and I'm sure that the "career threatened" Valencia felt the same once he had thought about it. Fuck me, Rob if we adopted your netball approach we would have games abandoned every week for a lack of players on the pitch! Nonsense again Mark. First of all I can't remember the rules saying anywhere that a tackle from a winger should be treated differently to a midfield enforcer or a centre half. Must've missed that bit. Second, because Valencia wasn't maimed that makes the tackle alright? Again, you'll have to run that one past me again. Was he in control? No. Did he go flying in? Yes. Was he over the ball? Yes. The netball thing proves my point, it's boring macho "grrr it's not for girls!" posturing. I'm all for physicality in football and all for a bit of blood and thunder. I just think when diving is treated as the work of the devil and reckless tackles get laughed off with "it's a man's game" we've got our priorities wrong somewhere. You can call it nonsense all day long Rob but the points I made remain the same. If every mistimed tackle gets a red card then lets stop tackling all together. There was fuck all reckless about it. The only person banding about the "man's game" stuff is you for some reason. Anyone who has ever played football rather than talked about it understands entirely that it was in absolutely no sense of the word, reckless unless it is reckless to tackle for the ball at all. No harm done, no intent to do any harm. It is a free kick and get on with it. Do you think there was the remotest chance it was going to lead to a sending off before things turned into a girlie slap-fest with the subs involved? Of course not which rather undermines your point a little?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 18:37:29 GMT
Link works fine. The survey has simple been closed by the author.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 18:28:44 GMT
I'm getting a "survey closed" message when I click on the link! It is a pity that everyone can't agree to use the name "rail seats" in place of safe standing. If we all used "rail seats" all the time then it would not be long before everyone knew what was meant. In a sense, "safe standing" has become too successful a phrase for its own good. Agree entirely, John.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 18:26:58 GMT
If that had been what it was he might have had some reason. It wasn't. The over scrutiny of every single challenge is laughable but I guess it is thanks to the wall to wall TV coverage from every single angle. It was powder puff and Valencia wasn't hurt in the slightest yet some media (and you have swallowed it to be fair)band around the "reckless" bollocks at the drop of a hat. It is still a contact sport but only just which is exactly why I am making the point regarding Ryan. It doesn't mean I like it by the way. Bollocks Mark. It was a reckless, needless challenge that he left the ground for and clattered him. Beyond tired of this 'it's a man's game' bollocks that makes every tackle acceptable. It isn't 1975 anymore. I think we can acccept your opinion is different to mine in terms of what constitutes a "reckless" challenge. If a slight miss-timed attempt by a winger to tackle back which does absolutely zero harm is your benchmark and should be condemned with an emotive term like that then murder is being committed every day on football pitches between Rotherham and Rio De Janeiro right here in 2014. I would be ashamed to let a 5 stone wet through Sterling know I had even felt the tackle and I'm sure that the "career threatened" Valencia felt the same once he had thought about it. Fuck me, Rob if we adopted your netball approach we would have games abandoned every week for a lack of players on the pitch!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 18:18:18 GMT
Must admit I'm not keen on the term 'safe standing'. Words matter and it starts with the presumption that standing of itself is not safe. Yet most of us can struggle up to the vertical and back down again without incident. Exactly and worse than that it could be interpreted an attempt to cover over the real problem that has led to people loosing their lives by attending a football match. I know full well the people proposing this do not mean that to be the case but it is still irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 18:09:03 GMT
Really? In what way? I can sort of see the link in the fact that Sterling got sent off but I am really struggling with the rest. How are you linking the sending off of a winger thanks to the time of the month antics of Valencia with Ryan's style of defending that I am suggesting just would not be tolerated by officials outside of this country? Do you not think Valencia had a right to be pissed off with a reckless, unnecessary tackle that could've ended his World Cup before it started? If that had been what it was he might have had some reason. It wasn't. The over scrutiny of every single challenge is laughable but I guess it is thanks to the wall to wall TV coverage from every single angle. It was powder puff and Valencia wasn't hurt in the slightest yet some media (and you have swallowed it to be fair)band around the "reckless" bollocks at the drop of a hat. It is still a contact sport but only just which is exactly why I am making the point regarding Ryan. It doesn't mean I like it by the way.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 17:53:40 GMT
Bogus conspiracy alert! How about Ryan doesn't play for England because his style of doing his job would see him off the pitch within minutes outside of the Premier League? At least that is a theory? I would agree that it's a theory, yes. Kind of gets undermined by Hodgson's vigorous defence of Raheem Sterling's behaviour the other night though. Really? In what way? I can sort of see the link in the fact that Sterling got sent off but I am really struggling with the rest. How are you linking the sending off of a winger thanks to the time of the month antics of Valencia with Ryan's style of defending that I am suggesting just would not be tolerated by officials outside of this country?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 7, 2014 11:57:13 GMT
He pretty much has picked it though surely? Not his very best squad, no. And I find it hard to believe such a wise old football bloke could actually make this one ridiculous decision on footballing grounds, and that he hasn't been influenced by fear of the Arsenal media making his own life hell if he picked the player they despise the most. I don't buy the theory that this is just about Stoke-tinted glasses. I agree with Sid that if Ryan was to play we would still probably lose, but that doesn't make it any less of a case of Roy simply trying to keep the media on board. Bogus conspiracy alert! How about Ryan doesn't play for England because his style of doing his job would see him off the pitch within minutes outside of the Premier League? At least that is a theory?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 4, 2014 18:23:39 GMT
The only thing lacking with Rooney is match time. He is renowned for taking a while to get going after a lay-off. Fergie stated that he was the sort of player who had to be playing regularly to get the best out of him. Tonight's game is all about getting on pitch leg time into the players who need it. Nothing more, nothing less. Rooney will start every game in the middle and where he can be most influential as should our best player. Imagining he is not or anything else will happen is frankly people kidding themselves in my opinion.
Really disagree with you here Mark.
In my (and many other people's) opinion Rooney neither has the stamina nor the discipline to play in the hole for England in a 4-2-3-1, you either have him leading the line in a 4-3-3 or you don't play him at all - as has already been debated at length on this thread.
Its all about opinions Paul but for me if Rooney is lacking in stamina in any shape or form he has done a damn good job of hiding it for a long, long time. We are talking about the player who is constantly seen (and even criticised) for chasing back as he does, aren't we? The discipline thing is different. He has an edge that many top players possess and arguably it is a way in which they are defined. It may have all been debated on this thread but at this point I doubt it is a topic of conversation within the England squad. Ive lost track of the number of England's best players who have their right to a starting place challenged by a few over the years,
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 4, 2014 10:55:33 GMT
Surprised we let him go he was supposed to be finger lickin good True but prone to fall to pieces in the box!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 4, 2014 10:53:16 GMT
The only thing lacking with Rooney is match time. He is renowned for taking a while to get going after a lay-off. Fergie stated that he was the sort of player who had to be playing regularly to get the best out of him.
Tonight's game is all about getting on pitch leg time into the players who need it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Rooney will start every game in the middle and where he can be most influential as should our best player. Imagining he is not or anything else will happen is frankly people kidding themselves in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 3, 2014 11:59:01 GMT
Remember it well. It was a pretty foggy day and I think the sneaky bastard actually thought he could get away with it.
That Arsenal team were a poor man's Leeds in the dirty tricks and thug ratings although in fairness to their manager I'm pretty sure that incident pretty well ended Storey with them.
Revie on the other hand would have handed out a pay rise.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 30, 2014 11:38:02 GMT
As I said previously if we have a good summer window and land all our major targets I will be the first to congratulate TS and the transfer team. It has to happen first though. They had a good summer last year, yet here we are playing the ifs and buts card. Funnily enough I concluded the same about last summer's window in the fanzine. Thankfully Sheiky corrected me immediately by pointing out that it was in fact a complete and total disaster.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 29, 2014 22:54:05 GMT
It is about time that the throngs of Ilford based supporters of Stoke City had the opportunity of having their voice heard of the Council in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 29, 2014 22:47:48 GMT
Nope, wrong as usual. I said that Cartwright joining the club signified the beginning of the end for Pulis and so it transpired. The suits I referred to all work on Festival park. Anyway on the subject of Scholes, I remember a time when venerable organs like the Oatcake and correspondents such as the Marksman would have plenty to say about his fan abusing activities. When Lions turn into Lambs, eh?! Thank fuck for that. I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you were deranged enough to make a completely unsubstantiated allegation that the people whispering poison in St Peter's ear against the capped one and making him bring down the axe against his better judgement were people employed by the club when all along it was actually people not employed by the club whose only engagement is in transfer business who done it. Makes perfect sense now! Criticise Scholes in the fanzine? Fuck off. We are Platinum Plus boys to a man!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 29, 2014 22:02:42 GMT
He was part of the downfall of the great man wasn't he? Not as far as I'm aware. That didn't stop you claiming he was though. Him and "the suits" did it, remember whilst Coates was locked in a cupboard with Denise's knickers shoved in his mouth and his hands were stuck behind his back with a piece of over chewy Hawaiian pizza.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 28, 2014 22:16:56 GMT
I don't think it was the rather camp pizza celebrations in isolation that annoyed people was it. It was the fact that the feckless Dough Boys had just failed to deliver a striker for the third window running.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 22:43:43 GMT
You can hardly call my point debate able and then hang your hat on the prospect of a couple of corporations returning to the UK and transforming the economy can you? Of course that takes us into the territory of the stance of existing UK major corporations should we take the course advocated by UKIP and withdraw from the EEC. It is easily arguable that they will choose to set up on the continent and enjoy the benefits of access to a much larger market and ease of trading that Farage wishes to toss away. I was just giving you an example of a few companies but those companies didn't move to an EEC company they moved to non EEC Country which makes you think why if it so important Well we can argue where Virgin and Unilever are based all night but the point stands that the idea that a couple of multi nationals moving into the UK to take advantage of personal tax benefits for their higher paid employes or indeed any potential corporation taxes is going to offset regressive taxation practice for the majority of UK citizens is rather old hat and discredited economics of the 1980s. The point also stands that a withdrawal from the NEC could have a much larger reverse effect.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 21:35:57 GMT
I salute the idea that the low paid will be satisfied with avoiding being penalised especially when they see the inevitable steeping increases in the indirect taxes like VAT necessary to cover the deficit in treasury income. My god, I thought regressive taxation went with the arc or at least Thatcher!! This is all debatable it could be argued if we bring down Corporation tax companies like Unilever and Virgin might just come back to UK for the purpose of paying tax. If this then increases GBP, wages will increase and 33% might not be a bad thing especially if it includes NI You can hardly call my point debate able and then hang your hat on the prospect of a couple of corporations returning to the UK and transforming the economy can you? Of course that takes us into the territory of the stance of existing UK major corporations should we take the course advocated by UKIP and withdraw from the EEC. It is easily arguable that they will choose to set up on the continent and enjoy the benefits of access to a much larger market and ease of trading that Farage wishes to toss away.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 21:08:17 GMT
So a bloke who spends all his waking hours conversing with racists is a poor reference for what racists are saying to him? Give over. You don't have to go into complete denial. The simple point I have made is that UKIP has attracted the racist vote. Why are you so sensitive to this?
Of course Griffin is a poor reference. Do you trust him for anything - especially where he has a vested interest?
You haven't provided any reason for UKIP attracting the racist vote apart from they want to have firmer controls on immigration. Wanting firmer immigration controls doesn't make you racist in the slightest does it?
You've continually implied that UKIP and their supporters are racist without providing evidence to back that up. You may not agree with UKIP's views but they have a right to the views.
Some with a nefarious motives try to paint false motives and intentions. I haven't implied anything. I'm stating a obvious truth. I appreciate you may not like being associated with the unsavoury support UKIP attract but that is for your conscience. That bottom line is UKIP actively share platforms with people such as those who support Anders Brevik on the basis that he was protecting a way of life. If you choose to associate yourself with such people it is no use crying foul when you are tarred with the same brush. It's a personal choice but I would be ashamed of myself.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 21:00:37 GMT
How do you feel about a flat rate 33% income tax (including National Insurance contributions) rate regardless of your income and ability to pay? If I was selfish I would be cock-a-hoop but I have a social conscience. I can only begin to imagine the divisions and damage that pearler would create to start with. That is the tip of the iceberg. I've not got a problem with that provided the tax threshold is raised to ensure that the lower paid are not penalized. I think a flat rate could result in a greater tax take as people would be less inclined to utalize tax avoidance schemes if they feel they arn't being fleeced. Once in place though I would like to see avoidance loopholes closed and punitive fines for those caught evading tax. I salute the idea that the low paid will be satisfied with avoiding being penalised especially when they see the inevitable steeping increases in the indirect taxes like VAT necessary to cover the deficit in treasury income. My god, I thought regressive taxation went with the arc or at least Thatcher!!
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 20:24:19 GMT
Are you denying it? Do you think I haven't got a memory? You can call me a tool all day long but it isn't me who judges people by the colour of their skin or where they were born. You have years of posting history showing you to be the type of person who does just that. If it isn't Asians, it is eastern Europeans. You were part of the invasion of racists that infected this message board that we cleared out years ago. You were particularly infamous for making up stories about attacks on English girls by Asians. Are you calling me a liar? Call me a tool all you like but I have all the history I need to know you are an inadequate individual afraid of anyone and anything that is slightly different to you. My point is undeniable and Frasier knows it. It is underlined by the like of you and another couple of long standing racially prejudiced posters attaching themselves to the UKIP flag. I doubt very much in fairness that Farage wants people like you voting for them to his credit. He has already distanced himself from the French Looney Tunes and made it clear he will not be making any alliance with them. I guess that disappoints you? Haha. I would love to see the post where I made up that Asians have been beating up girls? You need to read all posts and not just the ones that suit you. I don't dislike all Eastern Europeans just the ones that tip up here with no intention of working and milking our system. We should go the way if the Aussies. Now show me where I have judged someone by the colour of their skin? Little man syndrome springs to mind when I read your mard arse dogs at me. Frankly I dunna care a fuck what you think if me but at least back it up with the posts. You once banned me for calling you a retard yet you feel it ok to call people racists? Fuckin keyboard warriors, I've shit em. Haha. How about subjecting that post to one of your famous message board polls. Should be as favourable to your denials as your last one. I call you a racist because that is exactly what you are. Why are you embarrassed by it? Pity the alternative message board no longer runs where you can really express yourself isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 20:16:30 GMT
I feel exactly the same as you about the wanker but......You don't think he is in a pretty good position to judge then? Not in the slightest. He sees himself in competition with UKIP - he's doing the same as you and throwing mud at UKIP. How's it feel to be in bed with the BNP then? So a bloke who spends all his waking hours conversing with racists is a poor reference for what racists are saying to him? Give over. You don't have to go into complete denial. The simple point I have made is that UKIP has attracted the racist vote. Why are you so sensitive to this?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 20:13:38 GMT
How do you feel about a flat rate 33% income tax (including National Insurance contributions) rate regardless of your income and ability to pay? If I was selfish I would be cock-a-hoop but I have a social conscience. I can only begin to imagine the divisions and damage that pearler would create to start with. That is the tip of the iceberg. We dont know if this is policy though. I'm not saying it wont be but you've not mentioned the fact UKIP want to take everyone on minimum wage out of paying tax all together. This policy has been disclosed and has got to be a good thing for people on the lowest pay I haven't mentioned a lot of other policies, Kris but I bet you could as you do in fairness seem to have at least looked at what you are voting for.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 19:57:01 GMT
Oh well if nick griffin is your bible how could we argue Dear fucking god ...and to think I thought you were an adult when all others were taking the piss out of you I feel exactly the same as you about the wanker but......You don't think he is in a pretty good position to judge then?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 19:55:43 GMT
Not me, although it is the only drum they've been banging this campaign. The main core of their manifesto puts them somewhere to the right of Thatcher, if you'd care to look. No - not you Huddy. I will look at their manifesto when it's released for the General Election along with other parties. I'm a floater mainly because no one party ticks all my boxes. I voted for Ukip in the Euros to give the other tossers a kicking - but I'm up for grabs again in the General. How do you feel about a flat rate 33% income tax (including National Insurance contributions) rate regardless of your income and ability to pay? If I was selfish I would be cock-a-hoop but I have a social conscience. I can only begin to imagine the divisions and damage that pearler would create to start with. That is the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 19:49:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 19:04:56 GMT
I made clear that I didn't think it was a deliberate strategy but it is undeniable that racists have been attracted. Extremists are always attracted by the more radical elements of the mainstream be it on the left or on the right. They attach themselves like leaches to attain the credence they cannot achieve on their own without the camouflage. Why pretend otherwise? Hasn't Farage recognised this and had to take action to boot these elements out of UKIP when they have exposed themselves? Rather than use descriptions like brain dead, wake up and see what has actually happened. I haven't made it up.
So you're effectively saying that a party can't question immigration without being labelled as "racist" and attracting extremists?
There have been racists and other undesirables shown themselves in UKIP. As there has in other parties. ...The brain dead bit is clearly aimed at the continued aim of trying to stop any sensible discussion of immigration by shouting "racist" at people. I don't believe I could ever be accused of being racist (go on Mark - check by post history if you like) - but immigration has been completely out of control. No I'm not effectively or inferring anything of the sort. You are alone in suggesting that. Immigration is discussed by all the mainstream parties they just haven't played on it to the extent or in the way UKIP have. That's probably because UKIP know full well their other policies would be totally unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate. The fact is that if you are prepared to blind yourself to the other aspects of UKIP and what they attract, you risk making yourself guilty by association. History supports that as fact.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 18:47:36 GMT
Anyone like to comment on the suspension of UKIPs Geoffery Clarke?
You can then continue to deny that UKIP have attracted some of the most unsavoury and low life political elements once you have.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 26, 2014 18:35:16 GMT
I think the point is that UKIP have (deliberately or not) appealed to the racist elements in this country. That is exactly why you and tiny minority of other long standing racist brothers who use this message board are all over this thread. The good news is that they have helped wipe out the BNP and EDL in an election in which they usually thrive. So anybody mentioning immigration "appealed to the racist elements"? The very brain dead lack of understanding that has caused people for decades to shy away from discussing the issue. I made clear that I didn't think it was a deliberate strategy but it is undeniable that racists have been attracted. Extremists are always attracted by the more radical elements of the mainstream be it on the left or on the right. They attach themselves like leaches to attain the credence they cannot achieve on their own without the camouflage. Why pretend otherwise? Hasn't Farage recognised this and had to take action to boot these elements out of UKIP when they have exposed themselves? Rather than use descriptions like brain dead, wake up and see what has actually happened. I haven't made it up.
|
|