|
Post by alster on May 28, 2018 10:16:56 GMT
How easy for his Lordship with his nice cosy life of privilidge. Not really interested what Lord Saville concludes. The terrorists were amongst them, they knew full well who they were and that they had firearms, petrol bombs and pipe bombs stockpiled for their intentions. Knowing all that inocents would remove themselves. They are no different to the muslims who allow Isis to operate amongst them and provide them with cover because you can't destroy them without civilian casualties they're not innocent just because they aren't armed. What a pile of pig ignorant fucking bollocks. Oh do fuck off drama queen.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 28, 2018 6:27:06 GMT
Totally irrelevant, Hughes isn't in charge. McClean is a terrible footballer, is thick as pig shit and is a walking yellow/red card. We can and must do a lot better. In addition he's an all round unpleasant and nasty piece of work. If this is a sign of what's to come Rowett can fck right off. No problem with a few nasty pieces of work that’s something we’ve been sadly lacking this season, note the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 21:32:45 GMT
Very dramatic but not really an acid test of whether it is sufficient to be charged with a racially aggravated offence under criminal law. Thanks, but seriously, in this day and age, a player getting slagged off because of his heritage. Really? It's not a good look is it. Realistically people get slagged off with reference to their heritage millions of times a day. PC policemen like yourself like to jump all over it like its the crime of the century if it refers to race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation. Its complete overkill, it no more says I have a deep seated hatred of Irishmen than calling someone a Brummie cunt means I have a deep seated hatred of people from Birmingham. The law has seldom been used so officiously to prosecute racially aggravated offences. You'd be far more likely to face a public order charge for public obscenity, quite rightly IMO. Save your racism for real cases of racial hatred or descrimination throwing it around like confetti at a wedding simply devalues the worthy cause of equality.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 21:16:11 GMT
You are very naive if you think you'd be charged with a racist offence for calling anyone an Irish cunt. You may get charged with a public order offence but you would have to have a degree of racial hatred or discrimination to get charged with a racially agravated offence. Oh my and FML. Using a person's nationality as a prefix when using insulting language is <drum roll> a racist statement. Ergo, referring to someone as an Irish cunt is determining that their cuntishness is determined by their race or nationality. If you want to test it out, I'm sure you can find a sodding great big Irish bloke somewhere in a pub and ask him is he would mind being called an Irish Cunt. Try it after a few pints just to make certain. Very dramatic but not really an acid test of whether it is sufficient to be charged with a racially aggravated offence under criminal law.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 21:08:01 GMT
Probably more than this season when I haven't been able to face much football due to the depressing effect our results, performances and ultimate relegation has had on me.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 20:58:11 GMT
It's a fact he is Irish and an opinion that he is a cunt neither of those things are racist. Try using that explanation when you are arrested for racism at Stoke for shouting out 'Irish Cunt' to any player You are very naive if you think you'd be charged with a racist offence for calling anyone an Irish cunt. You may get charged with a public order offence but you would have to have a degree of racial hatred or discrimination to get charged with a racially agravated offence.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 20:22:44 GMT
He's Irish and he's a cunt. What's 'racist' about being factual? The only fact there is that you don't know the difference between fact and opinion. It's a fact he is Irish and an opinion that he is a cunt neither of those things are racist.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 20:20:29 GMT
Unfortunately this player has drawn attention to his views to a point where his football and his politics are inseparable. He should never have been allowed to do it in the first place. that is censorship! Why shouldn't he, or anybody else have the right to express their views just because he is a footballer, or you don't agree with them? Because when he's representing his club as an employee his views reflect on the club. Plenty of jobs restrict what views you are allowed to express during working hours it's really not unusual.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:30:40 GMT
They shouldn't be asked to but the poppy is supposed to be non political anyway. At the end of the day it's got to be a group decision. If he feels so strongly and no one else feels that way he should be excluded and lose pay for that game. Refusing to wear it just draws attention to his stance. What if he objected to the sponsors name on his shirt does he have a right not to wear that too? But the poppy is a political symbol for some, you and I may see it as non political but those who do are entitled to their opinion, why on earth should someone lose a days pay because they don't agree with the majority view. That is the start of the slippery slope that ends in tyranny Not really its just democracy in action. As I said if he objects to the sponsors name on his shirt is he within his rights not to wear that as well?
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:29:30 GMT
Shrewsbury are awful. Rode their luck on the penalty, didn't change anything and didnt give them the kick up the arse they needed. Could be 3/4 nil to rotherham at the end. They were both fucking awful neither side could string three passes together possession changing hands every couple of seconds, dross.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:21:27 GMT
The thread title is nearly 100 points to get back to the Prem. 2nd in the Championship gets you to the Prem. I don't remember too many people being that bothered about it in 2008. Wasn't our points total in getting automatic promotion one of the lowest ever? Joint with Kingston City (Hull). As blueprints for promotion go its a pretty poor one.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:19:58 GMT
Need a solution for away games starstreams won't be any use next season I'll be looking for something to replace it as good as it has been.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:14:58 GMT
Admin! Surely this is one for the Everything Else board now. I have a great interest in politics but I have no interest in seeing it debated on the football section of the site. If I open a thread with the name of a player, I'm looking for a discussion about the player and not his political views. Unfortunately this player has drawn attention to his views to a point where his football and his politics are inseparable. He should never have been allowed to do it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:12:33 GMT
I'd prefer it if players did not use our club or any other as a platform for their political or religious views whether I agree with them or not. I just don't think it is appropriate. Equally why should someone be forced to support political symbols they disagree with, last time I checked this is still a free country. They shouldn't be asked to but the poppy is supposed to be non political anyway. At the end of the day it's got to be a group decision. If he feels so strongly and no one else feels that way he should be excluded and lose pay for that game. Refusing to wear it just draws attention to his stance. What if he objected to the sponsors name on his shirt does he have a right not to wear that too?
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 19:04:34 GMT
89 is the average number of points won by the runners up in the ten seasons we've been away. Maybe we shouldn't aim for second spot. Fall slightly short and you've only got a 25% chance of promotion. Aim for 1st place and fall slightly short you have 100% chance of promotion. Stokies never dare to dream it's so limiting.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 18:57:01 GMT
No thanks scummy ira twat .the club say they have learnt lessons well listen to the fans .there are alot of us veterans in the stoke city family who never want this scum near our club .if u buy him he will get booed he should never wear our shirt .hope he has returned all his premiership wages with the queens head on it He has an opinion it is a valid one and he is entitled to hold it, if it different to yours so what? Are there other mainstream political views that are not allowed at Stoke? I'd prefer it if players did not use our club or any other as a platform for their political or religious views whether I agree with them or not. I just don't think it is appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 18:48:39 GMT
Takes a lot of imagining at the moment Everything about the club and its football is too pragmatic to achieve automatic promotion 12 seasons out of 13. The Prem has been going for 26 years and we are the joint record low points scorers for automatic promotion. Only a change in mindset will change that. I'm not sure the new bloke is any sort of change in direction other than retracing our steps.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 13:57:02 GMT
So non of the other 48.1% are proud Englishmen or Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish? What a peculiar view. I'm part of a slim majority the rest of you are traitors. It's not a peculiar view, it's rather your question is a good one. 48.1% wanted the country to be controlled, governed and populated by other nations, at their own will. That to me, simply put, means you are not very proud or happy with what Britain as a standalone entity stood for? The British Empire is the reason our Foreign Aid budget (even in 2018) absolutely takes the piss too, pure guilt money - I don't get your point? Are we supposed to be ashamed of our heritage or something? Not me mate. It's alright for everyone else to be proud of their heritage and in a dog-eat-dog world, we were a fucking Wolf, so what. This ties in to the player in question too because why would you want to play for Stoke City when Stoke-On-Trent was the highest voting Brexit City in the entire country? Again it makes no sense if you don't do British values. It's as big a deal politically as Ireland is/was. Stokies are so British it hurts, so why would you want to be here? You can't pick and choose the bits you like and dislike when you're British mate. That is bollocks and that's why I think James McClean is an absolute mega tit. He is also too crap to play for us IMO, we are better than him. So let me try to get my head around this. You disagree fundamentally with the size of the international aid budget (as do I incidentally) but I and others can't pick and choose what we agree with and what we don't and still remain proud patriotic Englishmen or whatever. I think you're extremely confused
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 12:58:38 GMT
So non of the other 48.1% are proud Englishmen or Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish? What a peculiar view. I'm part of a slim majority the rest of you are traitors. I think the problem is twofold: 1) we, as a species, need hate to define who we are as in I hate you, because you are not like me: white/black/Muslim/Jew/Christian/Tory/labour/tax payer/benefits class the list of opposites is infinite and defining of both the I that says I am and the you it differentiates 2) this should be on the "everything else" thread 😬😁 It was a bit grey whether it was a football topic right from the start but yes we have diverged totally.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 12:52:48 GMT
No it isn't. Political Correctness Multi Culturalism Positive discrimination Whatever your viewpoint there are always going to be aspects of your own nation that you dislike it doesn't make you some Brit hating traitor.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 12:43:25 GMT
Don’t sing why would I disrespect it I’m a patriotic Englishman. It’s a constitutional objection. It’s a view just like I think we should have a new secular constitution that prevents any religion breeding itself into a majority and forcing religion down people’s throats in a country where more people identify themselves as nil religion than any single religious denomination. Fuck religions, all of them. And herein lies the difference between yourself and McClean. You choose to be covert in your actions, which, I believe, everyone respects (or should) whereas McClean goes out of his way to show his feelings. No, I'm not covert in expressing and sharing my views otherwise I wouldn't be posting them on a message board. I put them forward at any given opportunity. That doesn't mean I wish to disrespect my country because I vehemently disagree with some aspects of its constitution.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 12:37:19 GMT
Who the fuck is we? Does everyone in England agree with one another on every subject? We are the 51.9% voting British public. You know, the majority? So non of the other 48.1% are proud Englishmen or Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish? What a peculiar view. I'm part of a slim majority the rest of you are traitors.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 12:30:48 GMT
I don’t believe he’s ever stated hatred for the English, it is the actions of the British that he refers to. Britain is a political collective rather than a nationality. He was also born in Britain so has every right to ply his trade in Britain. By the way, I am English and very proud of it, however I also dislike the British ideology, won’t sing the national anthem or wave the Union Jack, I still work in England, have worked in Scotland and Northern Ireland - Should I be packing my bags and finding work somewhere else? How can you be English and very proud when you dislike British ideology? It makes no sense. You have an issue with what we stand for?I bet Brexit has really hurt you? Who the fuck is we? Does everyone in England agree with one another on every subject?
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 12:24:54 GMT
They weren’t innocents they knew full well who was amongst them and their intentions as clearly admitted by McGuiness innocents would have gone out of their way to be nowhere to be seen never mind shot. Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which should not have been given by their commander.
He finds that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army.
He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of support company was armed with a firearm.
He finds that there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties.
And he finds that, in no case, was any warning given by soldiers before opening fire.
He also finds that the support company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline.
He finds that despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers, none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.
And he finds that many of the soldiers - and I quote knowingly - put forward false accounts to seek to justify their firing. How easy for his Lordship with his nice cosy life of privilidge. Not really interested what Lord Saville concludes. The terrorists were amongst them, they knew full well who they were and that they had firearms, petrol bombs and pipe bombs stockpiled for their intentions. Knowing all that inocents would remove themselves. They are no different to the muslims who allow Isis to operate amongst them and provide them with cover because you can't destroy them without civilian casualties they're not innocent just because they aren't armed.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 11:59:53 GMT
For what it's worth, there are many photographs of Martin McGuinness with the Queen and Prince Philip. Does that make them Provo sympathisers deserving of your bile? McClean comes from a city more associated with socialism, and the pursuit of equality, rather than with radical republicanism per se. It is in this context that the peaceful protest march on what is now called "Bloody Sunday" was organised - the duel objective being civil rights for Catholics and the removal of internment (the summery jailing of people without trial). There was a suspicion that the march was infiltrated by the provo's - certainly that was the excuse given by the army for opening fire - but that has never been proven. Nothing justified the execution of innocent marchers by the British Army on that day. The Widgery Tribunal, which was conducted with indecent haste, was a whitewash, and it was the Saville Enquiry that resulted in the full facts being established, and an official apology for the behaviour of the army being given by David Cameron from the floor of the Commons. Think about it. British soldiers shooting dead un-armed British citizens, catholic families protesting for the right to not be evicted from their own homes in favour of a pregnant protestant girl. That's something you would more associate with Tiannamon Square or Gaza. Some people will never accept a James McClean at the club. That's fair enough, but at least equip yourselves with a few more facts before dismissing him as some random "provo lover". Absolutely spot on, civilians shot dead by the forces who were supposedly sent in to protect them from a Protestant Loyalist Apartheid. I can’t actually believe people can deny him his view. Every person on this board would feel the same way! They weren’t innocents they knew full well who was amongst them and their intentions as clearly admitted by McGuiness innocents would have gone out of their way to be nowhere to be seen never mind shot.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 11:11:38 GMT
Don’t sing why would I disrespect it I’m a patriotic Englishman. It’s a constitutional objection. It’s a view just like I think we should have a new secular constitution that prevents any religion breeding itself into a majority and forcing religion down people’s throats in a country where more people identify themselves as nil religion than any single religious denomination. Fuck religions, all of them. Religions are great.........until men get involved Thanks for reinforcing my point, men were involved from the start they made the fuckers up.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 10:50:17 GMT
What fucking drivel. I’m a long standing republican and anti monarchist yet spent most of my working life in a HM post. In my view I was a public servant not some subservient in the pay and working to benefit the monarchy. I’m a proud and patriotic Englishman but have always refused to sing the current national anthem for the same reasons. I’ve no problem with his political or historical view even though I don’t share them. As for football he’s not exactly a player to set the pulse racing but I’m sure if they put his views to one side many of our fans would appreciate him. Trying hard with limited ability seems to be their preference. Personally think he’s a bit shit. So, do you simply not sing the National Anthem, or do you overtly turn your back on it? Don’t sing why would I disrespect it I’m a patriotic Englishman. It’s a constitutional objection. It’s a view just like I think we should have a new secular constitution that prevents any religion breeding itself into a majority and forcing religion down people’s throats in a country where more people identify themselves as nil religion than any single religious denomination. Fuck religions, all of them.
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 10:28:55 GMT
Who gives a shit what it was it was prevention of terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. More black youths are carrying guns and knives in our capital. They are the most common victims but also the most common perpetrators. You have to address the problem whether it’s PC to do so or not. I have been on The Oatie for around 20 years and read some horseshit on here, but that sir, has taken 1st prize for the most moronic thing I have seen. Congratulations. Don’t like it because it offends you pc values ? Where are the inaccuracies?
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 10:17:52 GMT
all terrorists are Muslim. Again Fuck me McClean would be what right wing cunts call a snowflake compared to some of the fucking lunatics who inhabit our support! Why look for a needle in a haystack when you know which bale it’s in?
|
|
|
Post by alster on May 27, 2018 10:15:07 GMT
Who gives a shit what it was it was prevention of terrorism. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. More black youths are carrying guns and knives in our capital. They are the most common victims but also the most common perpetrators. You have to address the problem whether it’s PC to do so or not. Have the IRA changed sides? No they’re just not currently engaged in terrorist activity and are mainly just bog standard criminals nowadays.
|
|