|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 17:49:35 GMT
Our season will be defined with our games against Huddersfield, Plymouth & Sheffield Wednesday, do we trust him to manufacture 3 positive results 🤔. We don't have any other choice ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 17:28:59 GMT
"His school routinely washed uniforms for children whose families didn’t have a washing machine.
The school recently stepped in to help after discovering a pupil begging outside a supermarket and its free breakfast club was “really needed”. But lack of sleep had become another big symptom of poverty – and a barrier to learning.
“We’ve got a lot of kids in homes with not enough beds or a mum sleeping with two or three children,” the head said. Support staff would often take children out of class who weren’t coping because of exhaustion to let them sleep for an hour or two. “Some children are falling asleep in lessons, and not just the little ones,” he said.
The school had many children living in “desperate neglect”. “Kids are sleeping on sofas, in homes with smashed windows, no curtains, or mice,” he said. “I come out of some of these properties and get really upset.”
A report published on Friday by the Child of the North campaign, led by eight leading northern universities, and the Centre for Young Lives thinktank, warned that after decades of cuts to public services, schools were now the “frontline of the battle against child poverty”, and at risk of being “overwhelmed”. It called on the government to increase funding to help schools support the more than 4 million children now living in poverty in the UK."
Fuck that, it's tax cuts that we need!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 15:52:21 GMT
Are Norwich playing with 13 players or summat..? They’ve got extra runners everywhere…. SS has got to change to a 4-4-2 to stop the extra wide players coming forward surely…. No same number of players as us but coached by a proper manager Behave. How many of the Stoke team would get in the Norwich side?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 15:33:54 GMT
Unbelievably wank from Laurent 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 15:13:29 GMT
Fuck me, what a goal that would have been! 👏
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 14:37:31 GMT
Important:
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 11:57:17 GMT
I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation? Paul we didn’t need the consent of NATO to liberate the Falklands & its dependencies. Yes there was concern in NATO that we were depleting its North Atlantic anti-submarine capability and this is possibly why we only committed 5 nukes to Op Corporate. 7 remained within NATO including 4 of the latest more capable at the time S boats. Anti submarine frigates were deployed because of the perceived threat from the very capable Argentinian Guppy Class diesel subs. As it happened only 2 of these were sea worthy and one was sunk early in the conflict. The other remained operational and was a nuisance throughout the conflict. The anti submarine frigates were mostly redeployed for Naval Gunfire Support to our troops ashore. Thanks for that lawrie, not sure that it's relevant to my point but thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 19:58:29 GMT
I was reading an article about the culture/economy of South Korea not long ago. An insanely competitive jobs market at the top end with thousands spent on extra-curricular stuff for children as not to fall behind and putting themselves in debt to be able to afford it, ridiculously long working hours with non-working hours spent on furthering their education and a severe decline in population due to the obsession of getting into these top end jobs. It sounded absolutely wank. Their government have spent billions and billions trying to insentivise the population to have more children to address the decline but they don't want it becuase it puts them on the back foot career wise. And the article didn't even use a 'South Career' pun. Journalism my arse. Sounds Seoul destroying when you think about it. Immediate ban! 🤦♂️😄
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 19:03:58 GMT
Absolutely and that's the very hard bit. If we were that convinced that our response might not trigger a nuclear war, then the war would be already over and Putin would have been finished a long time ago. But thankfully we've got some sensible heads in the alliance and we must remain as an alliance and not go off doing things unilaterally. I sometimes wonder if people understand what a nuclear war would actually mean. If there is a nuclear war between the West and Russia, then that's it, it's over for all of us. Could you imagine in a hundred years, when our descendants (well the few that managed to survive) teach their school kids, how in 2024, the West, due to a country (Russia) advancing 3km in 5 months decided they had no choice but to turn large swathes of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be and you don't corner a narcissistic psychopath who's only regard is for himself. This narcissistic psychopath do you feed him cookies and milk and tell him to carry on ? Some Hawks would have gone in ages ago, acting all John Wayne but thankfully, there are some level heads about, we listen to them and we take as long as it takes. You truly want to risk nuclear war because you're so desperate to teach Putin a lesson? Really? He's hardly made any advances whatsoever. In the meantime, we continue to arm Ukraine to the fullest extent. Do you seriously think Putin is going to say, oh no, we surrender now, just because Macron got a bit shouty, one Thursday evening in March? Macron is either going to have to follow through with his threats, or else it's just hot air. If he can build a coalition that will break away from NATO and he can convince the French public to go with him, then that changes things but I notice today that a major polling group has 68% of the French against sending troops in. And he's got to be able to demonstrate that he can win, the thing is, nobody wins a nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 16:46:43 GMT
I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation? Russia needs to be defeated without triggering nuclear war. Absolutely and that's the very hard bit. If we were that convinced that our response might not trigger a nuclear war, then the war would be already over and Putin would have been finished a long time ago. But thankfully we've got some sensible heads in the alliance and we must remain as an alliance and not go off doing things unilaterally. I sometimes wonder if people understand what a nuclear war would actually mean. If there is a nuclear war between the West and Russia, then that's it, it's over for all of us. Could you imagine in a hundred years, when our descendants (well the few that managed to survive) teach their school kids, how in 2024, the West, due to a country (Russia) advancing 3km in 5 months decided they had no choice but to turn large swathes of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be and you don't corner a narcissistic psychopath who's only regard is for himself.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 16:03:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 15:43:42 GMT
If he unilaterally puts French troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields, then of course it does. When you're a part of a military alliance, you act in accordance with the wishes and decisions of that alliance, or else you completely compromise it.
How would you feel if the next time he addresses the French public, he says something like, I dunno, er ... "My fellow French citizens, I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia's activities once and for all. We begin bombing in five minutes."
I think I don't completely agree with that. NATO doesn't prevent you doing your own stuff. Vietnam, Suez or Mali didn't get all NATO involved. Everyone talks about Article 5 but often doesn't mention Article 6: mutual defence is only triggered by attacks inside NATO territory ( source). So I don't see how France is stopped. There just needs to be more money for Ukraine, but if the politicians pussy out of that then I'd like to see the French, Polish, British + Nordic air forces covering Ukraine and bombing the crap out of Russian logistics. I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 15:36:31 GMT
Astonishing revelation from Sam Coates, it's one of those where you would ordinarily say, incredible but not surprising but Jesus, is this really how low the Tories can sink?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 15:02:02 GMT
😀
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 13:44:14 GMT
Fourth and final episode last night and I've been surprised both by the contributors and their frankness. Very interesting contributions from Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn with a bit of dry humour thrown in, an array of Conservative ministers, Nigel Farage and a fair selection of mistresses as well. It finished with someone stating that in political terms Boris is still young. I remember hearing a commentary on the radio a few weeks back where someone spouted the scenario where Sunak has a bad election result and is replaced as leader by someone who has a poor three years in opposition at which time the grass roots are clamouring for Boris before the next election against the uninspiring Keir Starmer I just don’t see why he would need to. He has his six figure salary for life from the taxpayer already. He can now piss about and get book deals and large speakership deals all around the globe from his time in office. Ego and power.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 13:13:13 GMT
Unfortunately I don't speak French but this specific sentence is being quoted literally everywhere ... "There will be French troops in Ukraine. There will be no red lines. I am the president of France and I decide" Can anybody who does speak French confirm whether this is or isn't an accurate translation of what he said, establishing the fact, is obviously an extremely important element to the discussion? I don't disagree that this is what Macron said but it was in the context of providing French Troops as part of a NATO Force This was Russia's interpretation prior to Macron doubling down on what he said Russia on Saturday requested a UN Security Council meeting to discuss French President Emmanuel Macron's idea to send NATO troops to Ukraine. Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting in New York, Russia's deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Dmitry Polyansky said Moscow would like to know more about such "ideas fraught with the beginning of the Third World War." On Feb. 27, Macron confirmed his offer to NATO partners to send troops to Ukraine. However, he added that an official consensus to send ground troops "has not yet been reached, but nothing can be ruled out." Later, he said France would send soldiers if Russia moved to Kyiv or Odesa. www.aa.com.tr/en/world/russia-requests-un-security-council-meeting-to-discuss-macrons-threats-to-send-troops-to-ukraine/3160065So your interpretation is that Macron has no intention of acting unilaterally then? If NATO say no ground troops are going in, then that means that by definition French troops won't be going in either? I'm totally fine with that and I guess it's the lack of clarity in his comments that sow the seeds of confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 13:07:50 GMT
He's just had his arse handed to him on a plate in Burkina Faso and you yourself have said that you think his threats are nothing more than a bluff. Germany HAVE backed Ukraine militarily far more than France has, it's not even close. It’s a different type of warfare. In a conventional war they’d smash Russia. In Africa they still act all colonial and haven’t learned from what we did in Malaya. Germany haven’t gone as far. Missiles that can strike deep is a step above what Germany have sent and Germany won’t send Taurus missiles as they see it as a red line they won’t cross. They have sent lots but they haven’t gone as far as us or France. France way behind Germany on military aid to Ukraine, data shows. France, with one of Europe's largest military industrial complexes, trails far behind. The Insitute found that French commitments — aid given and promised — were €635 million, while Germany was €17.7 billion, second only to the U.S. www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-france-way-behind-germany/
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 12:30:38 GMT
Does there have to be an opposite, is there not a third option?
Russia has made little in the way of advances, why not maintain that position, rather than jump straight to 'Russia overrunning Ukraine'?
Most analysts seem to think that Russia isn't even capable of overrunning Ukraine as long as the current level of military aid is maintained.
Macron specifically said French troops not NATO troops.
The third option is what we have right now which is stalemate, it is convenient for US and some in Europe to weaken Russia but not to give Ukraine sufficient Military Equipment to make a decisive difference. In my view this is a risky tactic as the balance can very quickly alter as we have seen in US Senate wavering support. If anything Russia is making advances albeit modest but if it were able to punch through the Eastern defences there would be little to stop them "overrunning Ukraine" A crucial period is approaching in the next couple of months when the weather improves. Every report I read of what Macron said in February and again yesterday was "Western" Troops not "French" Toops, at least that's how he was quited in Le Monde www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/03/14/macron-says-russian-ukraine-victory-would-reduce-europe-s-credibility-to-zero_6619721_7.htmlMacron said that responsibility for prompting such a move (sending Western Troops to Ukraine) would lie with Moscow – "It wouldn't be us – and said France would not lead an offensive into Ukraine. But he also said, "Today, to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak." As I said originally his speech contained a lot of ambiguity which in my view is the correct approach Unfortunately I don't speak French but this specific sentence is being quoted literally everywhere ... "There will be French troops in Ukraine. There will be no red lines. I am the president of France and I decide" Can anybody who does speak French confirm whether this is or isn't an accurate translation of what he said, establishing the fact, is obviously an extremely important element to the discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 12:15:23 GMT
You're not answering the question, how is Macron acting strong, if you don't believe his threats? You've completely missed the thrust of my argument, I've already said, that it's not about a specific military strategy but rather, it is about respecting being in a military alliance, especially if that alliance has pledged to protect you if you get attacked. If you had said that you believe that Macron is worried about Trump winning in November, thus leaving Ukraine high and dry and as such, we (now) need to be prepared to form a new European military alliance, then I think your argument would have carried more credence but you didn't. It seems to me that you're just itching to blow shit up. As for Macron sending some planes? Bring it on, if he's so determined that Putin must not win, then why has he been so pathetically short in matching the amount of weaponry that the UK and Germany have supplied to Ukraine?
Because he’s backed by nukes, a strong army, navy and air force and the second biggest arms exporters in the world? They haven’t. They’ve gone as far as us by sending SCALP’s which is further than Germany has been willing to go. He does however need to do more. He's just had his arse handed to him on a plate in Burkina Faso and you yourself have said that you think his threats are nothing more than a bluff. Germany HAVE backed Ukraine militarily far more than France has, it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 2:24:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 2:13:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 2:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 1:55:31 GMT
Truckfighters . Absolutely incredible live band. Played at Factory 251, despite it's history it's a now a standard little rock venue, becoming the home of Stoner rock in Manchester . Five albums and nine drummers since 2001, but Ozo and Dango are ageless and unstoppable.This was the best of the three times I've seen them, with a large cult following rammed into a tiny space. The new practice of starting early and getting the rockers out at 10 so they can get a second dance crowd in pressurised the band into a concentrated high energy performance. Support act 1968 could have upstaged any other headliner, a really powerful exciting performance, they seem to be fairly local with publicity photos taken at Mow Cop.
Absolutely love Truckfighters, the spirit of Kyuss lives on ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 1:15:40 GMT
The opposite to what Macron said is that if Russia prevail in the conflict and overruns Ukraine then NATO will accept that as a fait accompli
Does there have to be an opposite, is there not a third option?
Russia has made little in the way of advances, why not maintain that position, rather than jump straight to 'Russia overrunning Ukraine'?
Most analysts seem to think that Russia isn't even capable of overrunning Ukraine as long as the current level of military aid is maintained.
Macron specifically said French troops not NATO troops.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 0:36:20 GMT
If the US and UK governments believed that Macron's unilateral actions could start a nuclear war in Europe, of course they'd get involved. How can you claim that Macron is playing a good hand of poker, when you've already said, that you yourself don't even believe his threats? And what if China decided that as a result of our threats in the South China Sea, it was actually they who turned round and decided to show who was 'boss'?
They’d try to stop him first if that’s what they wanted and if they didn’t then it wouldn’t be the act of an individual. Because he’s acting strong. He needs to back it up with some planes. They won’t 🤣🤣 they are surrounded. You have to keep that pressure up. Japan is building aircraft carriers again. Australia is only getting stronger. India would take advantage. Christ even Vietnam have more against the Chinese than with them. China tries to bully them all. They should just accept that? Nah you fight back. We can’t keep appeasing dictators. It doesn’t work, why do you think it does?
You're not answering the question, how is Macron acting strong, if you don't believe his threats?
You've completely missed the thrust of my argument, I've already said, that it's not about a specific military strategy but rather, it is about respecting being in a military alliance, especially if that alliance has pledged to protect you if you get attacked.
If you had said that you believe that Macron is worried about Trump winning in November, thus leaving Ukraine high and dry and as such, we (now) need to be prepared to form a new European military alliance, then I think your argument would have carried more credence but you didn't. It seems to me that you're just itching to blow shit up.
As for Macron sending some planes? Bring it on, if he's so determined that Putin must not win, then why has he been so pathetically short in matching the amount of weaponry that the UK and Germany have supplied to Ukraine?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 0:11:42 GMT
You seriously think that NATO would have been okay with us going to defend the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability to nuke New York in retaliation? And if you don't believe that Macron would independently send troops to Ukraine, then why do you think Putin will believe it? It sounds like a pointless threat, from what you are saying.
And how exactly do you think we should 'threaten' China?
Do you really think that if France did whatever it is you think they may do and that the UK and American govts didn’t agree with it that they’d intervene? Of course they wouldn’t. This is why it’s so fanciful and your reaction ott. It’s just part of a game of poker. And Macron is playing a good hand. We should threaten China by arming Taiwan to the teeth and carrying on winding them up like we do by sending aircraft carriers to the South China Sea to show them who’s boss.
If the US and UK governments believed that Macron's unilateral actions could start a nuclear war in Europe, of course they'd get involved.
How can you claim that Macron is playing a good hand of poker, when you've already said, that you yourself don't even believe his threats?
And what if China decided that as a result of our threats in the South China Sea, it was actually they who turned round and decided to show who was 'boss'?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:58:12 GMT
It is how it works bayern. If as a result of France's actions, Russia lops nuclear missiles at Paris, NATO is committed to protecting France. If Macron wants to leave NATO and alleviate NATO of it's responsibility, then let him do it - he won't mind.
It’s not though. It really isn’t. Why wouldn’t he? Like I said the French have a fractious relationship with NATO and have spent many years not in it.
You seriously think that NATO would have been okay with us going to defend the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability to nuke New York in retaliation?
And if you don't believe that Macron would independently send troops to Ukraine, then why do you think Putin will believe it?
It sounds like a pointless threat, from what you are saying.
And how exactly do you think we should 'threaten' China?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:48:47 GMT
Anybody who has suggested that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would lead to World War III are extremely misguided. I could believe that the Russians have suggested as much but not any serious commentator. The point I'm making here, isn't specifically to do with any military strategy being right or wrong but rather, that if you are part of being a military alliance, then you have to respect that fact and not go off making military offences unilaterally, especially if that alliance is committed to having to protect you, as soon as you get into a conflict. If NATO decides by committee, to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, then that is a completely different kettle of fish, to one nation, going of on it's todd. I've got no issue with dramatically increasing the military funding to Ukraine but to be fair, that wasn't what we were discussing.
That’s not how it works though Paul. France can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is an independent military power and can act as such. Like any sovereign nation can. Of course how that ends is a different matter but you don’t have to get NATO or in their case EU approval.
It is how it works bayern.
If as a result of France's actions, Russia lops nuclear missiles at Paris, NATO is committed to protecting France.
If Macron wants to leave NATO and alleviate NATO of it's responsibility, then let him do it - he won't mind.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:44:43 GMT
Of course you have to act in accordance with the alliance that you are part of, especially if it means that that said alliance is going to have to protect your sorry arse, once the kitchen gets too hot for you. Iraq is a complete straw man. Saddam didn't have the capacity to nuke every major city in Europe at the drop of a hat. Of course you'd hope we'd join in, you've been itching for it for months, me? I'd like to see my grandchildren grow up. Putin is a fuckin madman, put him in a corner, where he can't get out with any grace and he'll take us all down.
You don’t. Iraq being the best example of that. You can act independently. See France in Mali. France would hammer Russia. Why are people actually taking them seriously? It’s not a straw man. It’s a conflict where some big NATO countries didnt join in/agree with what was going on. It wasn’t a NATO mission yet it still happened. Countries can act independently. He would be overthrown before anything would happen. They aren’t stupid and they know they couldn’t win a war against any single biggish nation in NATO. Sweden who just joined would have them on their own. Macron has pitched it wonderfully. Hopefully Scholz will take notice and give them Taurus missiles. And hopefully Macron himself will and send some Mirages. We could end this war pretty sharpish if we backed them properly. This Neville Chamberlain approach isn’t what is needed for Putin or Xi. Arm their enemies to the teeth and stand up to them. It’s the only language they understand. As has been shown.
All of that becomes completely moot, once you factor in a) Russia's nuclear arsenal and b) you've got a fuckin madman with his finger on the button, if he doesn't have a dignified retreat available to him.
I've already said that I've got absolutely no issue with arming Ukraine much further but with respect, we were talking about Macron unilaterally sending French troops into battle.
And fuck me, what are you suggesting now about Xi, that we attack China?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2024 23:38:21 GMT
Do whatever the fuck he wants? Russia has advanced about 3km in five months and you want to start World War III? I don't know politics too well but I don't want WW3 and IMO that means defeating russia asap. The best way to do that would be for Macron to line up a load of funding to equip Ukraine to defeat russia. I've seen pretty convincing arguments he's doing a good job in dragging people out of the russian propaganda narrative where the west shouldn't do X or Y because it means WW3. Like Finland and Sweden shouldn't join NATO etc.
Anybody who has suggested that Finland and Sweden joining NATO would lead to World War III are extremely misguided. I could believe that the Russians have suggested as much but not any serious commentator.
The point I'm making here, isn't specifically to do with any military strategy being right or wrong but rather, that if you are part of being a military alliance, then you have to respect that fact and not go off making military offences unilaterally, especially if that alliance is committed to having to protect you, as soon as you get into a conflict.
If NATO decides by committee, to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, then that is a completely different kettle of fish, to one nation, going of on it's todd.
I've got no issue with dramatically increasing the military funding to Ukraine but to be fair, that wasn't what we were discussing.
|
|