Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 27/05/20 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    This is the best front page from a newspaper ever. Never expected it to come from the Daily Star. The mask is genius. And we've reached our own 'Don't drink bleach' moment.
  2. 5 points
    Let's say last season you didn't fall apart and over a 46 game season beat us to promotion and earned the right to play a season in the PL. How would you feel if the season after you were 29 games into the PL season nowhere near mathematically relegated and we were top two Championship, nowhere near mathematically promoted and you were going to potentially lose your place to us on some BS PPG predicted table. You would be shafted out of finishing the season you worked so hard for to a team that hasn't gotten close to crossing the line yet in a volatile league where form and results can change like the wind. We came from behind a larger deficit (7 points from safety) by this stage in our 2005 Pl campaign to take it to the last day, needing only a point to stay up, Leicester came from an even bigger deficit to stay up then win the league the following season in 2016. You looked to be for all the world going up by this stage last season but you choked and Sheff Utd deserved to go up ahead of you because of their form over the games that we have yet to play this season. To decide anything as important as promotion on PPG at this stage of the season is farcical. You haven't yet earned promotion, even if our season concludes and we finish bottom you or any other team from the Championship shouldn't be promoted unless you earn your place over a full season like we did. You would feel exactly the same if you were in our position.
  3. 3 points
    As my wise old Lithuanian granny used to say: 'Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him access to the internet and you'll wish you hadn't.'
  4. 3 points
    What is reasonable is a matter of law, NOT the opinion of the decision maker. Cummings statement was written by a lawyer to avoid implicating him, the facts therefore were revealed to support the excuse, the excuse wasn't applied to what may or may not happened in fact. By doing this Cummings has damaged the public health response to Covid, so it should fall within your field of interest.
  5. 3 points
    So, 2 against 2 according to Bill
  6. 2 points
    Maitlis was spot on. Nothing to be ashamed of. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. It's the correct thing to do. Johnson and this government Can't tell right from wrong Zero integrity Zero moral authority. Zero leadership.
  7. 2 points
    French study here. Interesting about mild infections but also the note about preventative treatment in the trachea to ward off a large viral load ....plus up to 2 years antibodies still present! French team finds mild coronavirus infection does lead to antibodies https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/27/french-team-finds-mild-coronavirus-infection-does-lead-to-antibodies?
  8. 2 points
    Lewis Baker played against us for Chelsea in the FA Youth Cup final in 2013. He's now 25, still out on loan, and has played a grand total of three minutes for Chelsea. It may be unethical, but you can't be necessarily blame them for milking the system. They can hoover up teenagers from all over the world when they're teenagers, loan them out whilst collecting loan fees which cover the initial transfer fee, then sell the decent ones for a few million if they develop which allows them to buy next generation with cash left over for FFP.
  9. 2 points
    There are three types of allegation here. One is that he acted unlawfully up to three times by leaving his house without reasonable excuse. The three times being when he left ans returned from london and when he went to bernard castle. There is a separate but related allegation that he reached the advice. The third allegation is that although he might not have broken any 'rule' he nonetheless contravened the spirit. Breaching the advice or spirit of the sdvice is not in itself an offence. As to the first the facts are well known it's a question of judgement about how reasonable and how believable the excuse was. This is a matter almost entirely of opinion for the decision maker. To the advice the two sides of the argument are well rehearsed. One says the advice is clear 'go straight home and stay at home'. The other side is that the advice clearly invites autonomy to be applied if there are (for example) children involved. As to the third everyone's opinion on the 'spirit' will be different. As so much of this is personal opinion and subjective there really isn't any point shouting at each other. Everyone has had their say, one opinion is as valid as another and unless there is anything new to say lets move on. There are corrections to be made. And the main one is that when the child was ill, they both took him to hospital. He stayed in the car and she went inside with the child. So, knowing she had the virus, it was their only reason for being in the area, she took it into a hospital. They had gone to his parent's farm to isolate and to take advantage of the sister in law if both should have the virus. So why didn't the sister in law take the child to hospital? The rest is just semantics. But what they did that day risked many peoples lives.
  10. 2 points
    FIFA have recently announced a rule to combat this. From 2022, a team can have a maximum of six players on international loans.
  11. 2 points
    This is what we said earlier. Phase 3 for less vulnerable groups but phase 2 for others. If it passes both I cant see why it wouldn't be approved on a better than nothing basis? Not that I have any idea of the basis on which these decisions are made.
  12. 1 point
    Everybody can and will make weak excuses why their own little trip is necessary ... even if it was just for mental health. Cummings and Johnson are now simply frauds in the eyes of most people on this.
  13. 1 point
    I can’t see any reference to children in the regs as a reasonable excuse and can’t really see how you can even try to squeeze it into one of the existing listed reasonable excuses. So if the list of reasonable excuses is exhaustive, I can’t see DC’s excuse was reasonable. However, I think the list is probably - on the drafting - intended not to be exhaustive. So there could be other reasonable excuses which are not listed in the regs. So I think the questions, from a legal rather than political or ‘moral’ point of view, boil down to (1) was driving 260 miles to stay in a cottage near his parents a reasonable excuse for leaving his home, and (2) was driving thirty miles to Barnard Castle to ‘test your eyes’, stop for a walk down the river bank, then play in a forest, a reasonable excuse to leave his home, in both cases based on all the circumstances? (1) - Personally, I think it’s difficult to argue that it was reasonable for someone with no symptoms (and whose wife had some symptoms of covid but not the main two - cough or fever), who was a senior government advisor, who was probably one of the main architects of the “stay home” campaign, and who probably had a large network of people in London who could have looked after his child if the worst came to pass (he said he didn’t even make enquiries), to leave his home on the basis he was worried his kid might effectively be abandoned in its own home. But there are a lot of ‘probablys’ there which would need verifying if it was in an actual court. If he did genuinely have no one in London, and he had genuine reason to believe he was about to become ill then maybe it’s within a range of reasonableness. However, I simply don’t see any extenuating circumstances for number 2. Testing your eyes by going for a 30 mile drive with your wife and kids then having a walk by a river and play in a forest is not a reasonable excuse for leaving your home under the current regulations. Had it have been a quick drive, alone, to the bottom of the drive of his country estate then I might accept that was maybe a reasonable “eye test” before a long drive back for work. But it wasn’t that. I don't disagree with most of this. I wasnt trying to suggest that a case should be on the whim of a judge or juror. Of course the case should be judged as objectively as possible but to suggest that this is black and white or that there is a form of strict liability is, in my lay opinion, going too far. Agree that the mental element is likely relevant and that the experience and attributes are relevant (though of course this is not a law on technical matters so there are unlikely to be much in the experience or attributes that would lead to different conclusions for different people- mental capacity excepted) Ultimately I see that this comes down to the decision maker looking at the act, hearing the reason and deciding whether or not it sounds legit. At its heart this is a matter of applying common sense. Wrap it up however you like but it is a matter of, guided, opinion . I still feel that Cummings could argue the 'moving home', 'care for a vulnerable person' and 'other' excuses, though I most profess to not knowing what to make of whether or not a child is vulnerable as you do correctly point to the differing uses of 'includes' in the regs. Regardless, I would say that a *genuine* need to travel for care of a child in case the worst happens does seem reasonable to me even if not on the list I'm not going to comment on the reasonableness of his excuses except to say that the second incident 'bernard castle' does appear to be both the least serious and the hardest to justify with reference to the law or advice. But he still won't be prosecuted...
  14. 1 point
    I can’t see any reference to children in the regs as a reasonable excuse and can’t really see how you can even try to squeeze it into one of the existing listed reasonable excuses. So if the list of reasonable excuses is exhaustive, I can’t see DC’s excuse was reasonable. However, I think the list is probably - on the drafting - intended not to be exhaustive. So there could be other reasonable excuses which are not listed in the regs. So I think the questions, from a legal rather than political or ‘moral’ point of view, boil down to (1) was driving 260 miles to stay in a cottage near his parents a reasonable excuse for leaving his home, and (2) was driving thirty miles to Barnard Castle to ‘test your eyes’, stop for a walk down the river bank, then play in a forest, a reasonable excuse to leave his home, in both cases based on all the circumstances? (1) - Personally, I think it’s difficult to argue that it was reasonable for someone with no symptoms (and whose wife had some symptoms of covid but not the main two - cough or fever), who was a senior government advisor, who was probably one of the main architects of the “stay home” campaign, and who probably had a large network of people in London who could have looked after his child if the worst came to pass (he said he didn’t even make enquiries), to leave his home on the basis he was worried his kid might effectively be abandoned in its own home. But there are a lot of ‘probablys’ there which would need verifying if it was in an actual court. If he did genuinely have no one in London, and he had genuine reason to believe he was about to become ill then maybe it’s within a range of reasonableness. However, I simply don’t see any extenuating circumstances for number 2. Testing your eyes by going for a 30 mile drive with your wife and kids then having a walk by a river and play in a forest is not a reasonable excuse for leaving your home under the current regulations. Had it have been a quick drive, alone, to the bottom of the drive of his country estate then I might accept that was maybe a reasonable “eye test” before a long drive back for work. But it wasn’t that.
  15. 1 point
    We have had four days to talk this one out. We have seen that the Government have their tin hats on hoping the flak will stop. For whatever reason, they want him to remain as adviser. I don't condone but understand that. What I don't understand is why some posters are using legalities to reinforce their arguments. It has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the public's opinion. When the public were allowed to use their judgement and decided to leave the EU by 51.9%, we were told by the PM, the public had given them a mandate. Even though there has been no legal and binding vote, public opinion has indicated by a much larger percentage that Cummings should go. In this matter, the public's opinion is being ignored and Boris has chosen his own mandate.
  16. 1 point
    Not quite got onto shops Barbe but the subject of food is one part of the way there . (I did try this morning with agriculture)
  17. 1 point
    Inevitable some of the public are using Dominic Cummings as their role model
  18. 1 point
    I should imagine that's because he wasn't comfortable making that judgement. I didn't see him give us an answer today. Did he? Trouble with this is the bigger picture is hidden by agendas going after an individual. However if there haven't been fines issued to people travelling for childcare purposes then I'm sure we'll hear before too long. However if I'd been fined for travelling over something I thought was an exceptional circumstance I would appeal it now. Wouldn't you?
  19. 1 point
    Yes I felt the same. When Hancock said "we're past the peak" I thought it was a coded message about Cummings
  20. 1 point
    There is a fun irony here that it doesn't much matter whether what Cummings did was right or wrong so much as whether people out there in the real world of dealing with and suffering from the pandemic think he acted rightly or wrongly, even if they are wrong to think what they think. I am sure in his quieter moments, as someone who greatly helped win the Brexit vote by getting people to believe lies, fraudulent soundbites, distortions and spin, he appreciates falling foul of crude public opinion.
  21. 1 point
    Clearly the fairest solution is to do PPG based on what Leeds did last season- so give them 10 points from the last 9 games as they managed last season.
  22. 1 point
    We've heard that before, many times in fact! Leeds are perpetual 'bottlers' as far as seeing a season out is concerned. Promotion and relegation is influenced greatly by mental and human factors, something a statistical solution such as PPG cannot replicate. Leeds have consistently proven over the last decade or so that they finish seasons in poor form. Until its won, it isn't. For me it's clear, null and void is the fairest way to end the season without football being played. Nobody has lost anything they had or owned possession of. Leeds may 'hold' a promotion place but they do not own it. The season cannot be cut short either. I think play will resume behind closed doors, but the sporting integrity will be brought into question, with clubs potentially losing competitive home advantage etc. Plus the interaction of relegation and promotion between the EPL and EFL. Again, null and voiding the season, would be the cleanest cut available IMO. Legal battles? Yes. But much less complex than any of the other potential options. As a final point, I've lost interest how it ends to be quite honest. For me the season is over. I don't particularly care what division or what football format Norwich return to play in, so long as they do so with fans and it's competitive!
  23. 1 point
    Big fish. I said what I said because I took the time to read the regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents/made The law says that you shouldnt leave your house without a reaoanable excuse or more specifically "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse". there then follows a list of 13 example reasonable excuses. Work is one of them. It is not the only one. What is 'reasonable' is by it's very nature based on the opinion of the decision maker. He or she can be guided by precedent but there is a subjective element. I'm happy to have a debate on this, as I did with aggy, but I'll not bother unless you bother to read the document you claim to be commenting on. As to the advice Cummings does not accept that he breached it, he says that the qualifiers allow him the freedom of movement he took. Other people have a different view. I have an opinion on his actions but no interest in debating this matter further as the discussion would be political and my interest is with covid and the covid reaction and not party politics.
  24. 1 point
    Perchance better suited to the RSC...?
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    Except any trade deal is likely to block this.
  27. 1 point
    There are three types of allegation here. One is that he acted unlawfully up to three times by leaving his house without reasonable excuse. The three times being when he left ans returned from london and when he went to bernard castle. There is a separate but related allegation that he reached the advice. The third allegation is that although he might not have broken any 'rule' he nonetheless contravened the spirit. Breaching the advice or spirit of the sdvice is not in itself an offence. As to the first the facts are well known it's a question of judgement about how reasonable and how believable the excuse was. This is a matter almost entirely of opinion for the decision maker. To the advice the two sides of the argument are well rehearsed. One says the advice is clear 'go straight home and stay at home'. The other side is that the advice clearly invites autonomy to be applied if there are (for example) children involved. As to the third everyone's opinion on the 'spirit' will be different. As so much of this is personal opinion and subjective there really isn't any point shouting at each other. Everyone has had their say, one opinion is as valid as another and unless there is anything new to say lets move on.
  28. 1 point
    The fact they are talking about PPG just shows they know that the season has to have the full number of matches. A far more honest solution would be to apply PPG for any teams with games in hand to catch them up then just call the table as is. Accept the season didn't finish and then promote/relegate on that basis. PPG is a fudge, no two ways about it.
  29. 1 point
    It does. But on second thoughts it is probably better on the B thread rather than this C thread!
  30. 1 point
    The point is though that the reason they can afford these better players only on loan is because of the system. Get rid of the loan system (or severely limit it) and you'll stop clubs stockpiling players and make players think twice about signing for clubs they'll likely never play for and thus need to take lower contracts.
  31. 1 point
    You'd need to combine the 25 man rule with some strict restrictions (or the outright removal of) the loan system. The situations at clubs like Chelsea and Man City, where they have an entire squad or two out on loan is absurd and allows them to stockpile players they've got zero interest in actually using.
  32. 1 point
    Whilst I agree that finances need to be managed more carefully and a salary cap would be lovely in principle, it's worth pointing out that: 1. The 25-man squad rule is already in place. 2. This already happens. 3. This would be detrimental. Some clubs need to sell to survive and this blocks them from doing so. Also, a lot of League One/Two can't afford to have a large enough squad to do this; they have a settled core and then loan players to cover gaps due to injuries because its more financially viable. In addition, some players who didn't get much game time in the first half of the season would be stuck for even longer without playing, which does neither the player nor club any favours (see Heise, Srbeny etc.) 4. We'd love to see it, but it would probably need some directive from UEFA/FIFA because no country would choose to restrict their own clubs' spending power as they'd be less competitive in Europe and the league as a whole would be less attractive as top players would move abroad, which in the long term would be to everyone's detriment.
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    and I thought he was a populist
  35. 1 point
    It's as meaningful as yours, like it or not.
  36. 1 point
    The real issue is not 'chlorinated chicken' or any other food standards (provided that they are safe) but the undercutting to the point of uneconomic of vast amounts of our agricultural industry. The same also goes for other 'protected' industries and services in a new free trade UK. I doubt most who voted for this will like the ruthless reality but who cares. We have now to make it work. If you can't do a job/product/service at a competitive rate against the rest of the world the you'll have to do something else.
  37. 1 point
    I always wash my chicken in chlorinated water to get that authentic down south flavour
  38. 1 point
    FYI I’ve had the Arsenal away refund - noticed it yesterday .
  39. 1 point
    Your military analogy is a useful one ...if you've read the Guardian article this morning about NHS 'heroes" it underlines the problem lying ahead, the mental conflict I alluded to.
  40. 1 point
    Thought this made a very good read in case anybody missed it. The effects the virus can have when it really gets hold of somebody : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52760992
  41. 1 point
    I have already been reading stories from Spain and Italy of nurses and doctors saying they are considering their future, they are not sure if they can continue in their jobs. It seems to happen once the very worst of their work is done, when the pandemic is in full swing they are almost in "automatic" mode and although they are working hours way beyond what they should do, they are able to cope and don't think of themselves. Once that sense of "duty" has gone, they have the time to reflect and look at themselves. I'm ex-military and what they describe is exactly the same as has happened to many serving and ex-members of the Armed Forces.
  42. 1 point
    For what it's worth, attendances in Italy are pretty poor because more than 70% of the country identifies as a fan of one of the big three and not a lot support their local team. I live in the province of Lecce, and I think there are more Juventus fans in this area than Lecce fans, which is ridiculous considering that Turin is actually closer to London than it is to Lecce. Also, there's no rule regarding TV blackouts on Saturday afternoons so lots of fans stay at home to watch games. This is why the Championship's average attendance last season was treble that of Serie B, and even League One had a higher average attendance than Serie B. As for stadium sizes, Lecce's holds 40,000 at maximum capacity (although it's reduced to just under 30,000 for safety reasons) but its average attendance of 10-11,000 was the highest (or maybe second highest) in the whole Serie C two years ago, if I'm not mistaken. But then again, Palermo are in the semi-pro Serie D this season and have had an average attendance of nearly 16,000 but that's obviously an anomaly as they're a big club. The third tier of Italian football is officially fully professional, even though some play in 2,000 capacity grounds and probably have budgets similar to those of National League, and the average attendance across all three leagues is roughly 2-3,000, although this obviously covers clubs 41-100 in the pyramid so it's like a mixture of clubs between lower-Championship and high-National League. I would agree that English football doesn't need five national divisions though- it's insane. Germany and France have three; Spain and Italy only have two. England only really needs three, and I think the benefits of that would outweigh the drawbacks. It doesn't seem to have ever been seriously considered though, for some reason.
  43. 1 point
    Shock. Jools spends days searching for ways to defend yet another loser just like his Avatar. Both unelected.
  44. 1 point
    I never had the legs for Ballot. But I liked the silk shoes , the piroueting and the frilly dress.
  45. 1 point
    I’ve been to the rising sun today. Sausage and chips with 2 pints of wherry in a container. Took a pint glass with me and sat by the river, lovely old job
  46. 1 point
    Apologies if this has already been posted. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/26/dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-terrified-sack-him
  47. 1 point
    You can get home deliveries for everything nowadays.
  48. 1 point
    I think its fairrer because: 1. I would argue it accords with the current rules under which the competitions started; 2. Its in line with the rules as to what happens if a match is abandoned; and 3. It does not involve a contrived or made up conclusion to the league placings which awards honours/benefits to clubs who have not actually won anything yet or punishes clubs who could still save themselves. I think people confuse the word unfortunate with unfair here. Null and voiding is unlucky or unfortunate for certain clubs but its not unfair. PPG is unfair and inequitable.
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point
    Judging by your username, have you considered getting your size right?
×
×
  • Create New...