|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 28, 2024 8:39:22 GMT
My opinion is that unemployed should be required to do charitable work or supporting the local community in some way. Prisoners and young offenders should be litter picking and regenerating run down neighbourhoods. Not a fan of national service as it's just a means to send the less desirables off to some bullshit conflict. National service, non-military, has some merit though. spot on. It almost feels that nowadays it’s a sin to question people who are fit and healthy (and aren’t caring for someone) who can’t be bothered to work or contribute and are happy to live off the taxpayer. Is it wrong to say actually that’s not fair. But that isn't the proposed policy - it's compulsory unpaid labour for everyone aged 18 regardless of whether they are active or not. That isn't National Service or paying your way, its being press ganged.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 28, 2024 8:06:48 GMT
People like to imagine there's no complexity to politics and government and that you can just ride in on your white horse, change all the power structures, convince the wealthy to share more and everyone lives happily ever after. It's a fairytale. It will take decades and decades to prise power and influence from the aristocracy and the ultra wealthy. Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people. The only naive person here Dave is yourself. "Convince the wealthy" - The ruling party doesn't ask for permission to raise taxes you weapon. There's no convincing required. They are voted in to represent the many not the few. "It will take decades and decades" - How many Dave? We've had a century of the same 2 parties. Just another 40 years of Duopoly for change? Or how many? Or maybe if you keep voting for neoliberalism you keep getting neoliberalism? I know people like me don't understand the complexity. So maybe you can explain the complexity around neoliberalism and what it means to vote for parties which believe in this philosophy, and how we just need decades of it and a magic wand will fix everything. Or maybe what we vote for is what we will get? "Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people." - based on what Dave? Scrapping uni fees? Gone. Green 28 billion investment? Gone. Abolishing the house of lords? Gone. Bringing energy and water back under public control? Gone. Giving workers a better deal? Gone. Scrapping private school charitable status? Gone. Ending two child benefit limit? Gone. Increasing income tax for top 5%? Gone. Defend freedom of movement? Gone. Abolishing universal credit? Gone. Stop NHS outsourcing? Gone. Increase digital tax for big tech? Gone. Introduce rent controls? Gone. Stop sale of arms to Saudia Arabia? Gone. Introduce a wealth tax? Gone. Reinstate banker bonuses caps? Gone. So the person leading the party which said it would do all of the above and has u turned on every single one we should trust because he just needs to convince the 1% to do it all and if we keep doing the same thing we've done for decades that in a few decades time it will finally work? You spent 15 years voting tory every election before the last. The party which allowed inequality to thrive and never prioritised the young or the poor. The fact you're now a keen Starmer supporter shows the move to the right which has happened to labour. This mess we now have is what you vote for. So I won't take any lectures from a tory who loves Starmer. If anything that is testament to just how far right this labour party has went. The left and the right both want to reduce everything to binary options - in this case neoliberal v socialist economic policy. It's a false characterisation of a way more nuanced situation. Neoliberalism is founded on the belief that an unfettered free market will benefit the whole of society if left to its own devices through the trickle down effect. The current Tory Party have shown this to be a load if bollocks - neoliberalism has resulted in a massive increase in wealth at the top at the expense of lower living standards for the majority and a huge increase in poverty at the bottom end. Socialist economic policy goes the other way - it fundamentally mistrusts the free market and favours state control. The problem is genuinely socialist economies don't deliver - they disintegrate into inefficiency, nepotism and corruption. Labour is not a socialist party and it isn't a neoliberal party either - its a social democratic party. It recognises that the free market has a major role to play but also that it needs to be managed in order for the benefits to be distributed fairly as left to its own devices an unfettered free market will simply benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. The Tory Party is now going though an equivalent schism to what happened to the Labour Party in the 70s. The economic policy under Hunt is way more like the social democratic model than the pure neoliberal model favoured by the Tory right and when Sinak loses the general election its very likely that a right wing neoliberal will become party leader. The Tory right are making the same mistake as the Corbyn left - they both believe they are the true representatives of the people whereas in fact in practice the majority opinion is in the centre ground where various shades of the social democratic model hold sway. It isnt a binary choice between neoliberalism and socialism. The real battle is between difference shades of a managed free market.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 18:17:21 GMT
What do you mean by "native"? British citizen? If so how is possible to determine if someone is or isn't a British citizen by the footage? Not talking about the footage...as I made clear. But a passport or form of ID should suffice. OK I'll spell it out. The OP was a piece of context free footage with little or no reportage on the cause of the events or who perpetrated it. The title of the post gives away the motivation - it was a dog whistle post designed specifically to stir up racist sentiments. And low and behold the thread is already talking about deportation of "non natives" when there is no evidence that the perpetrators weren't British. Might it not be a good idea to hold fire on what to do with non British nationals who commit criminal acts when there is some actual evidence that the events in the OP are in fact perpetrated by non British nationals? Or is it more important to be the first on the scene to kick things off when the dog whistle sounds?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 17:51:19 GMT
At least they've finally put a stop to that pesky trickle down effect. Not that it was ever a thing anyway...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 17:02:34 GMT
Yes he was convicted of defamation and sexual abuse. In New York State law rape is defined as penetration with a penis rather than a finger. The judge went on to clarify that Caroll was entitled to say Trump raped her because what he did is considered to be rape in common parlance and the ommission of the word "rape" in the conviction was a matter of legal semantics. It is nonsense to say there was no evidence. If there was no evidence there would never have been a case and the judge would have had the jury find in Trump's favour. The evidence may not have been sufficient for a criminal conviction but the fact remains a jury found him guilty based on the evidence provided. You have just decided to ignore the conviction because it makes your claim that you have a "neutral" position on Trump look ridiculous. In effect you are saying if you ignore his convictions he's done nothing wrong. No shit Sherlock. Pointing out the holes in your argument is not wetting myself. It's hardly my fault your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and that you are incapable of sustaining an argument or admitting you might be wrong without resorting to name calling. Go away you are boring.. Please stay your posts are hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 16:54:02 GMT
Not sure what to believe in this thread, in terms of tweets, but my position on anyone not respecting others or the rule of law, or the country they reside in, is that they should be severely punished. And if not native, then kicked out. What do you mean by "native"? British citizen? If so how is possible to determine if someone is or isn't a British citizen by the footage?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 15:15:34 GMT
That article is three days old. I'm not saying that isn't the issue but I can't find anything that gives an explanation of the Sheffield incident, presumably because it is still under investigation.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 15:09:59 GMT
The word voluntary has a dual meaning I think which is where the confusion stems from. It means both 'optional' and 'without pay'. Might be wrong but my understanding is that Tories are using it in the latter sense, i.e. something that is mandatory BUT voluntary, without pay. Go figure. A truly regressive policy that causes more problems than it solves. The word "voluntary" literally means "Done or undertaken of one's own free will". The unpaid bit is just an add on - in fact voluntary work can be paid or unpaid. This isn't voluntary work - its state enforced free labour. If I was 18 I'd tell them to pay me or fuck off. The military angle is a complete red herring. The Tories are calling it National Service purely because its a dog whistle term beloved of nostalgic right wing old farts who think Britain was great in the 50s when in fact it was pretty shit. There is an issue with military funding and numbers but this does very little to address it. And to cap it all the funding is coming from the pot ear marked for levelling up. And what's the odds on the admin contracts being handed out to friends and donors of the Tory Party? Nothing to see here....
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 14:49:18 GMT
On the streets of the UK for the last 2 nights in Sheffield 🙄 So what actually happened and why?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 14:43:17 GMT
Where is the transfer thread......... anybody? Sandwiched between Ronaldos buttocks somewhere in the vicinity of Rome circa 2010. Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 14:20:27 GMT
I've already addressed all of this in my response to you earlier in the thread. The only new bit that you've added, is the bit about Mickey and him suggesting he was neutral. If I'd wanted to back Mickey on that point then I would have done but I chose not to. I said I was a neutral viewer in general with regards to Trump. In fact I've even indicated several times I'm no fan of trump, which this chap seems to ignore. I was not referring to being neutral about whether he was a rapist or not. All I was doing was questioning how sound the civil conviction was when there was essentially no evidence other than what she said about something 30 odd years ago. This chap is misquoting me all over the shop and quite frankly attempting to make me out to be some kind of pariah. He quite evidently has the derangement syndrome, which seems to cause him to wet his undies every now and again.. And for the record he was convicted of defamation and sexual abuse. Not my words but those contained in the conviction. He'll wet himself about that in a minute too.. Yes he was convicted of defamation and sexual abuse. In New York State law rape is defined as penetration with a penis rather than a finger. The judge went on to clarify that Caroll was entitled to say Trump raped her because what he did is considered to be rape in common parlance and the ommission of the word "rape" in the conviction was a matter of legal semantics. It is nonsense to say there was no evidence. If there was no evidence there would never have been a case and the judge would have had the jury find in Trump's favour. The evidence may not have been sufficient for a criminal conviction but the fact remains a jury found him guilty based on the evidence provided. You have just decided to ignore the conviction because it makes your claim that you have a "neutral" position on Trump look ridiculous. In effect you are saying if you ignore his convictions he's done nothing wrong. No shit Sherlock. Pointing out the holes in your argument is not wetting myself. It's hardly my fault your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and that you are incapable of sustaining an argument or admitting you might be wrong without resorting to name calling.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 13:26:44 GMT
As I understand it the main reason Carroll didn't take the matter to a criminal court was because she was afraid of the consequences - which is why many women choose not to report rape and the situation was way worse before the Weinstein case when powerful men like Trump found themselves on a situation where they could just get away with it - as he himself bragged about in his pussy grabbing tape -see www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1172684266/trump-attorney-asks-e-jean-carroll-why-it-took-decades-to-accuse-his-client-of-r. Carroll took out a civil case against Trump for defamation - Trump repeatedly accused Carroll of lying about being sexually assaulted by him. At that point in time there was no way a criminal case would stick so her only legal redress was a civil case. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong the legal position is that the standard of proof is balance of probability for a civil case in part because the consequences are far less than for a criminal conviction (the outcome is usually a fine and restoration of the plainiffs reputation rather than a jail sentence). If you got rid of the distinction you would effectively allow many people, particularly the rich and powerful, to be beyond the law. After the first case the State of New York introduced a law which allowed rape survivors to take out a civil prosecution against their attackers, presumably in recognition that pre-Weinstein the victims of rape were not properly served by the justice system. When Trump continued to defame Carroll she took out another civil case and added rape and sexual battery to the claim as provided fir by the new law. Trump was found guilty of defamation and sexual battery but not rape on the technicality that the definition of rape on New York state is penetration of the vagina by a penis, not a finger as in this case. The judge went on to clarify that this was purely a legal distinction and that in the common understanding of the term Trump was deemed to have raped Carroll. There are three distinct things here; 1 Did Trump actually rape Carroll. Given the circumstances the only people who know that with absolute certainty are Trump and Carroll and that is true of the vast majority of rape cases. If you apply that standard of certainty virtually no one would ever be convicted of rape. 2 Did a jury find Trump guilty of rape to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? No - the matter never went to a criminal court and given the passage of time as the law stands it never will. 3 Did a jury find Trump guilty of sexual battery to the standard of balance of probability? Yes. Did it pass the legal definition of rape in New York State? No? Is it reasonable to claim Trump raped Carroll in the everyday sense of what is understood by rape? Yes. Is Carroll within her rights to claim that Trump raped her? Yes - that is precisely what the second case confirmed. So can I or anyone else claim with absolute certainty that Trump raped Carroll? No. So can I and anyone else claim within that on the balance of probability Trump raped Carroll? Yes. The thing is the standard of judgement we all make on any subject where we were not present is based on the balance of probability, not absolute certainty. What Mickey was claiming is that he was the one being neutral about Trump by refusing to accept he is a rapist. That is not a neutral position - its ignoring the judgement of two separate juries that on the balance of probability he did rape Carrol in the common understanding of what constitutes rape. Completely disregarding the civil justice system is not the act if so one being neutral. So do you really want to roll back the legal system to allow the likes of Trump to get away with doing to women what he did to Carroll? I've pretty much answered all of your points in my responses to wannabee, so I'll not go through them again. But my essential point, is that I feel extremely uncomfortable with the concept of having two different amounts of guilt, for the same crime. If we don't have enough evidence to convict somebody of a crime, we then reduce the punishment from a custodial one to a fine, which will allow us to now convict because the burden of proof has been made much lower. I find that to be a quite vulgar trade off. Either you're guilty, or your not. In my book, you can't be a little bit guilty (hence the reduced punishment) because we don't have enough evidence to find you 'properly' guilty. I think I would have to recuse myself of any jury service, where 'beyond reasonable doubt' wasn't the threshold needed to be met, in order to secure a conviction. So basically you are arguing that both civil cases and criminal cases should be subject to the same standard - beyond reasonable doubt. Which is over turning the legal system in most liberal democracies (which isn't going to happen) and effectively render the civil legal system redundant - and the only people who will benefit from that is the rich and powerful who can afford to out spend the average pleb. In a criminal court the accused is being tried for a crime against the state and an outcome is likely to be imprisonment or even death. The consequences are so great and the fact that prosecutor is the state means that individuals are allowed the highest standard of protection against conviction. It is sometimes referred to as the 99% rule. As the bar is so high someone with an 80% chance of being guilty is likely not to be found guilty in a criminal court - effectively the system is weighted in favour of people committing a crime and it its highly likely people guilty of a crime will get off. A civil case is one where the accused and the accuser are individuals or companies - the state is not the prosecuter. The standard of proof is lower to allow people to get legal redress when wronged. The ourcome is usually some fincial redress and resyoration of reputation - wayvless onerous than imprisonment and death. The balance of probability is sometimes called the 51% rule. In day to day matters that is the standard most people use for determining whether something is true - things are rarely judged as being true to the 99% standard used in criminal law. In this case if there is an 80% chance of someone being guilty they will be found guilty which means the system is more way more likely to find someone who is guilty of being guilty. In terms of getting an accurate outcome a civil case is way more likely to get the correct outcome. You came into this argument late and missed my original point. Mickey was claiming he was being neutral about Trump and I cited the Carroll case to illustrate he wasn't being neutral - he was choosing to ignore Trump's civil conviction in order to claim that Trump was not guilty of rape. Neither you, me or Mickey were on the jury but the fact remains that a vetted jury when presented with the evidence decided that Trump was more likely to have committed rape than not - they may have decided it was as tight as 51/49 or for all anyone knows it could have been 99/1 - but the fact remains he was judged based on the evidence to more likely to be guilty than not. The neutral stance us to accept his guilt - that reflects what actually has happened. My argument is that Mickey is wrong in claiming he is being neutral as for no good reason he is ignoring the outcome of 2 civil cases that found Trump guilty. The standard of proof debate has become a side issue.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 12:03:30 GMT
Starmer will be the best thing to happen to this country for 15 years. Finally we may just get a PM who isn't a career politician and who has worked hard for their success. A PM who can actually be an inspirational figure to working class kids up and down the country. A PM who has worked for a living before getting into politics. A PM who's a decent family man with no salaciousness or skeletons in the closet. A PM who's genuinely patriotic and will represent us rather than embarrass us on the world stage. A PM who understands the seriousness of government and the impact it has on everyday people. Just hope we're not stupid enough as a country to pass up the opportunity to bring fairness, respectability and integrity back into politics. Time for the aristocracy to make way. x.com/wolsned/status/1793572368968995154?s=19Another WEF stooge. Sunak the stooge seems to be deliberately handing over the batton to Starmer for the next stages of the agenda. Take your pick of engineered crises (energy shortages, cyber attacks, weather, war, scamdemics, civil unrest) and follow govt preppers page. To be fair DD Denslow's opinions appear to be based on the Book of Revelations backed up (1 hour in) by an Iron Maiden album cover. You genuinely can't argue with that. www.bitchute.com/video/cElVjy2CVAuV/
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 27, 2024 10:46:32 GMT
Where did it say it was Walters who insisted on a change if style? It said it was the players who suggested going risk free. Worse still if you are right about Walters and Schumacher not being on the same page Schumacher is toast - if it's a choice between the Sporting Director and the Head Coach the Sporting Director holds all the cards. What part of that do you not understand? Yes fair point - misread the original.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 26, 2024 12:00:59 GMT
Good interview. He always comes across well. Just a different approach than 90% of managers in how honest and open he is. Most managers just wouldn't have mentioned the fact that the move to a more risk-free approach after Cardiff was player-driven. And the face he listened to that at what proved to be the pivot point of the season speaks very well of him. That has allayed some of my concerns that it was at the instruction of Walters and confirmed that it isn’t something that Schu believed in or enjoyed. Hopefully we won’t get into that position again where weak minded players voluntarily opt to play low risk, dull percentage football because their self confidence is so low. Where did it say it was Walters who insisted on a change if style? It said it was the players who suggested going risk free. Worse still if you are right about Walters and Schumacher not being on the same page Schumacher is toast - if it's a choice between the Sporting Director and the Head Coach the Sporting Director holds all the cards.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:36:26 GMT
It was not up to Dublin to decide on which positions needed filling - he just provided names and even if he couldn't provide any names it was still up to the manager and the TD/SD to decide on priorities and fill any gaps. He obviously came up with the wrong names then. If he came up with the wrong names it was still up to Martin and Neil to fill in the gaps which for whatever reason they chose not to do. And anyway how do you know if he came up with the wrong names? It was up to Martin to sign them. You can blame Dublin for the players he brought in who didn't make the grade but you can't blame him for the gaps in the squad - that wasnt his job.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:29:55 GMT
And that’s on me!!!?? There’s a few posters on here who are taking any possible opportunity to snipe at the management. Making groundless assumptions based on pure conjecture. Then there’s the majority who are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait and see. It's not based on pure conjecture and the more you say it doesn't make it so. As been pointed out by various posters opinions are based on the actions taken by the owners over 6 or 7 seasons. Actions that have led to very disappointing seasons, particularly in the Championship. Personally believe that the owners have repeatedly made same errors for 9 seasons. Until recently the owners have repeated the same mistake of appointing a god manager who subsequently proved the job was too big for one man while the rest of the footballing world cracked on with modernising the backroom and dividing up responsibilities to provide better focus and specialisation. The owners have made a complete pig's ear of moving to a more modern structure and it may not work out but at least it isn't just doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. May as well at least see how it pans out rather than just assume the worst especially as it isn't just rinse and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:18:29 GMT
That will be the Ben Gibson who just played 34 times for a club that last season ended up in the playoffs. What the fuck has geography got to do with it? It’s almost as if I’ve got previous for incessant sarcasm. Whoosh...hats off sir...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:16:38 GMT
So basically your opinion on Walters is based solely on your prejudices about him as a player and you won't even give him credit when he actually succeeds in the job he was given. Why the hell should anyone take your opinions seriously when even by your own admission you are just rehashing your prejudices and ignoring any actual real workd evidence that doesn't stack with what you have already decided? There isn’t any real work evidence. The first real evidence was Positive(keeper signing) the second negative(Dublin) the noises on players we’re being linked with is imo negative. Of course I have preferences and prejudices everyone does. That won’t lead to me ignoring anything I see as positive that’s just bloody minded and I just aren’t. Walters was brought in to rally the troops and help save the team from relegation. And he rallied the troops and we avoided relegation. He succeeded in the job he was asked to do. What he acheived as interim TD has no bearing on what he will acheive as permanent SD but I'm prepared to judge him on his actual acheivements in the role. By your own admission you are judging Walters ability as a permanent SD on his playing career and association with the Pulus era. That isn't being bloody minded that's just blind prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:03:37 GMT
Ben Gibson there we go that’s more like it Jon. Now we’ve got Jared out who knows where our scouting could take us, we could go as far north as Sunderland and god forbid we could also look at players from the Southampton area, it’s far fetched I know but you have to be ambitious sometimes don’t you. That will be the Ben Gibson who just played 34 times for a club that last season ended up in the playoffs. What the fuck has geography got to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:56:28 GMT
Clearly the atmosphere in the background was deteriorating under Martin and Walters was brought in as a short term appointment to rally the troops (including the supporters) - which he succeeded in doing. It may have been a populatist appointment but it was hardly dumb given it actually worked. You can judge what Waters achieved in a short term job by what he acheived in the short term. And he succeeded. Whether he can succeed in a job that is inherently to do with the long term is a completely different matter and can only be judged in the medium/long term. It would be wrong for me to say Walters will succeed as permanent SD based on what he did as interim but its equally nonsense to claim he isn't up to the job when there is zero evidence of his acheivements in the job. Sorry not willing to give him much credit for how the season ended it was nothing to do with his role again that’s just populist nonsense. There’s no evidence that anything he did or said made any difference to anything and he certainly had no impact on the squad. It comes down to people liking him so seeing something that isn’t there. I’m not able to do that because I don’t like what I associate him with and didn’t think much of him as a player so for me he’s just a SD who got the job because of his name. So basically your opinion on Walters is based solely on your prejudices about him as a player and you won't even give him credit when he actually succeeds in the job he was given. Why the hell should anyone take your opinions seriously when even by your own admission you are just rehashing your prejudices and ignoring any actual real workd evidence that doesn't stack with what you have already decided?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:17:44 GMT
TD/SD is a long term appointment - the only way you can make a judgement on one within six months of their appointment (unless things immediately go tits up - which they haven't) is to reel off your preconceptions and prejudices. Not saying it will either work or it won’t but there just wasn’t any basis for the appointment whatsoever. Even when we’ve taken a punt on manager/hc they’ve got some sort of track record. This appointment was made because it would be popular with a section of the fan base dumbed down populism. Clearly the atmosphere in the background was deteriorating under Martin and Walters was brought in as a short term appointment to rally the troops (including the supporters) - which he succeeded in doing. It may have been a populatist appointment but it was hardly dumb given it actually worked. You can judge what Waters achieved in a short term job by what he acheived in the short term. And he succeeded. Whether he can succeed in a job that is inherently to do with the long term is a completely different matter and can only be judged in the medium/long term. It would be wrong for me to say Walters will succeed as permanent SD based on what he did as interim but its equally nonsense to claim he isn't up to the job when there is zero evidence of his acheivements in the job.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:07:19 GMT
Last pre-season it felt like the transfer policy was to build for the medium/long term. This time round with the speculation around Coady and Rodriguez it feels the thinking is much more short term - bringing in players who might not be round for long to have a tilt at promotion this coming season.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:00:48 GMT
When he was brought in as an interim TD you had a point - interim TD makes no sense and all he could be was a cheerleader. Having made him permanent he can't afford to be just a cheerleader and by the sounds of it he is getting hands on. Whether he will be good at the job remains to be seen. It was a daft appointment by terrible owners. TD/SD is a long term appointment - the only way you can make a judgement on one within six months of their appointment (unless things immediately go tits up - which they haven't) is to reel off your preconceptions and prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 6:39:39 GMT
Jon Boy walks into the club and helps turn around a squad doing a great impression of the Titanic. Gets the crowd fired up and packs the stadium. Backs the manager and helps him settle in. Susses out the frauds and snake oil salesmen and recruits the people who can talk the talk and walk the walk. Exciting times. PS Our first signing is a Swedish bloke. He’s a glorified cheerleader. When he was brought in as an interim TD you had a point - interim TD makes no sense and all he could be was a cheerleader. Having made him permanent he can't afford to be just a cheerleader and by the sounds of it he is getting hands on. Whether he will be good at the job remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 6:30:20 GMT
Perhaps Jon's thanked him for Manhoef, Junho and Burger, but sacked him for dereliction of duty in not bringing in a left back, Centre half and centre forward of any quality. It was not up to Dublin to decide on which positions needed filling - he just provided names and even if he couldn't provide any names it was still up to the manager and the TD/SD to decide on priorities and fill any gaps.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 17:06:21 GMT
Not press ganging anyone - just pointing out that to all and intent and purpose you are defending a rapist and your claims about being neutral about Trump are utter nonsense. It isn't my fault your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny or that you can't sustain a rational argument without resorting to insults and emojis. Not defended a rapist, don't even like Trump. I simply questioned the soundness of a conviction like this. The fact it is trump is irrelevant. Yet you and your wrong think cartel wet yourselves on the spot and make all sorts of allegations against me, which I see you're still doing. Be better stop trying to bully people. And no point trying to bully me anyway cos all it does is make me laugh at how triggered you get. So triggered you send me bible length monologues of guff 😆 go bore someone else. Bully you? Seriously? All I've done is point out the holes in your argument. It's you who has given up on any attempt to rationally backup your position and resorted to petty insults, not me.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 16:56:42 GMT
Hoist by his own Petard springs to mind It's not uncommon for Women to not report a Rape Assault (Digital Penetration) to Police for any manner of reasons. She did tell 2 of her friends at the time. The case never went to the Attorney's Office simply because E Jean Carroll didn't report it to the Police and the Criminal Statute of Limitations ran out after 5 years E Jean Carroll write a memoir in 2019 claiming Trump had Raped her. Trump responded by calling her a liar and claimed it never happened. This opened up a new window limited only from the time Trump called her a liar in 2019 which allowed E Jean Carroll to sue for Defamation. Note Trump never tried to sue E Jean Carroll for Defamation other than to mouth off on Twitter In New York in cases of Sexual Assault Rule 415 allows the accuser to bring evidence of the defendants past behaviour. Before trial Trump's Lawyers tried to exclude the infamous Access Hollywood tape in which Trump can be heard saying “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said, including “grab ‘em by the pussy.” Fucked over by his own Braggadocio Trump's Lawyers were also unsuccessful in excluding testimony from 2 other women who claimed Trump had raped them Trump's Lawyers originally tried to have the case thrown out as he was President at the time he called E Jean Carroll a liar and denied the claims. Do I think Trump would have been Criminally Convicted of Rape back in the Day, probably not. Am I surprised that Trump was convicted twice by a Jury in a Civil Trial "On the Balance of Probability" not at all In any case Trump has the opportunity to overturn both verdicts as he has indicated he will appeal, he doesn't always follow through on his outpourings Yup I agree with all of that and as I said, there wouldn't have been enough for me, if I had been on the jury. Personally I find "on the balance of probability" a bit of a strange concept, when it comes to a person's guilt. As we know, there are plenty of people out there, who would quite easily convict "on the balance of probability" simply based on a person's skin colour. The jury in a civil trial are still vetted for bias and the balance of probability is still based on the evidence presented and not on personal preference. Are you suggesting the beyond reasonable doubt standard should be adopted in civil cases? That would be a fundamental change in both the US and UK legal systems and would massively decrease the number of civil prosecutions which in turn would work to the advantage of the rich and powerful. Is that really a good idea?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 16:32:49 GMT
It was Martin that oversaw recruitment - Jared's job was to identify players and as other's have said it was clearly Neil's choices that had the higher failure rate. Jared unearthed some gems. Having said that it's impossible to criticise the decision until we know his replacement and get to see if his track record is any better or worse. Reeks of someone wanting to build their own clique. So who exactly is building a clique? I'd be concerned if it is Schumacher who leads on the appointment but it makes perfect sense if Walters leads on the decision - that's his job. This is far from ideal but the situation isn't Walters or Schumacher's fault - the club got the order of appointments completely wrong. It should have been SD, HC, HoR - we went HoR, HD, SD which is completely back to front.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 15:39:11 GMT
He had to go. Put the 4 / 5 decent signings to one side and he's a head that oversaw the selection and purchase of 10 substandard and 10 garbage players. It was Martin that oversaw recruitment - Jared's job was to identify players and as other's have said it was clearly Neil's choices that had the higher failure rate. Jared unearthed some gems. Having said that it's impossible to criticise the decision until we know his replacement and get to see if his track record is any better or worse.
|
|