Leaderboard

Only the first 3.

Another scandalous decision that benefits the Big PL clubs, at the expense of those in the lower divisions who will lose revenue as a result of this decision. Very sad indeed.

As a staunch promoter of Enlightenment values I'm against any restriction on freedom of speech except in those instances where there is incitement to commit a crime. As such I'm against the new "hate speech" laws introduced in Scotland as it seems obvious to me that you can express hate for something without it being the case that you intend to incite violence against those you hate (e.g. I hate religious fundamentalists and racists). However, in this case I'm not convinced of your argument. The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) has absolutely no power to censor anybody. It is a body that offers analysis of what it considers to be misleading information and makes suggestions to advertisers accordingly. Its recommendations remain entirely unenforceable, and entirely within the discretion of those businesses contemplating advertising with the organisation under consideration. Nothing GDI has said restricts UnHerd's freedom of speech. If UnHerd feels it has been libelled by GDI then there is a well established system of law to which it can turn to seek remedy. Are you really suggesting that GDI should have their freedom of expression restricted? Surely you would want to protect their right to speak about what they consider to be corrupt practices, wouldn't you? Frankly, there are far more insidious restrictions on freedom of speech than an organisation that attempts to reveal in the public domain what it considers to be disinformation. We had a perfect example yesterday in the case of Hugh Grant's settlement with News International. Murdoch used his financial might to make it impossible for Grant to reveal his evidence of crimes in court. By offering a settlement for a huge amount of money that Grant's lawyers told him would be well beyond what a judge would order, Murdoch was able to shut down exposure of those alleged crimes. Bizarrely, if Grant had won his case but been awarded an amount 1-pence lower than Murdoch's settlement offer, he would have been liable to pay all the legal costs of BOTH sides ( a figure estimated to be around £10 million). As such News International is able to continue with its disinformation project, claiming it did nothing wrong. Freedom of speech is very much under threat; more than at anytime I can remember in my lifetime. For example, Braverman's draconian measures in restricting the right to protest are completely at odds with her duplicitous claims yesterday to be a defender of free expression. Thank the Lord we still have the ECHR to protect that fundamental freedom, just as Churchill intended it to be.

She's also being investigated for; Being in possession of a northern accent. Walking on the cracks in the pavement. Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing. Coughing without due care and attention. Wearing bright clothes in a built up area after 11PM. Just lock her up and throw away the key, it'll save us all time.

Well worth a few minutes viewing for us old lads.

The big clubs couldn’t even let them have that to themselves, they had to take it away and use it as a training comp for their youth teams. I’m beginning to hate everything about modern football in England

This is yet just another of many reasons why the "big 6" should f**k off and join their European Super League. All of these shocking decisions made just to benefit the chosen few.

It was not a case of how many we asked for but a case of how many Brum were prepared to give and it was the minimum in this case under league rules which was 2,000 because of anticipated home demand.

"The FA Cup final has also been moved to the penultimate weekend of the Premier League season. It will be played on a Saturday, and will also be independent of any Premier League matches, as will the Friday before the final "to allow focus on the build-up to the showpiece event". "The FA Cup is our biggest asset," said FA chief executive Mark Bullingham." So the FA Cup is the biggest asset and a showpiece event but will be played BEFORE the last Premier League fixtures... Hmmmm... Call me old fashioned but if it's THAT important you have it the week AFTER the last Premier League fixtures.

Maybe you're being too harsh. This poor bloke's only been on circa £80k plus very generous expenses for 14 years, how was he to know that it would be prudent to put away some cash for that 'rainy day/kidnapped by some wrong uns' moment we're all likely to encounter.

Google lens doesn't know who he is. Definitely not Richard Bacon as whoever it is is at work.

I just thought I'd lay out why pursuing this would be a difficult thing to do. There is a risk in that unless Brum are also "safe" from relegation at that point. If there is a possibility they could get relegated and we put out a "weakened" team and thus give Brum a potential "advantage" over other teams facing relegation, we could land up with a financial penalty or even risk a points deduction (although I think I am right in saying that this would be in a future season not this one because of the subjectivity over what is a "weakened" team). We have 22 players you could deem as "experienced" in our squad (at some point having started a game this season). Gibbs and Dimi are unlikely to be fit until next season, and Onel, Hanley and Lungi have not made a squad in a month. If those latter three are fit, then sure, you could rest six of last week's starting line up without being deemed to start with a "weakened" team. However if any of them 3 do not make it back then the number of players you can rest reduces further to avoid such an accusation. This is where I think Wagner may have scored an own goal in not bringing players like Aboh and Welch on more often in recent weeks to prove they are truly part of our squad. With wholesale changes there would also be a change to the tactical set up as well which could undermine continuity. Finally there would also be a more than two week break between Swansea and the first leg of a play-off, after a long season a player could go stale in that time. The balance between keeping players sharp and fit and avoiding injuries is a difficult one to tread, so is avoiding the wrath of other clubs and the EFL.

Interesting - Perhaps the upper age should increase yearly like the smoking ban... Then the 30 year olds will never have a problem 🙂 Commission proposes Brexit deal for 18 to 30 year olds Lisa O'Carroll The European Commission has proposed opening negotiations with the UK to allow free movement enjoyed before Brexit to millions of 18 to 30 year olds in a major post Brexit concession. It said it will now seek approval from individual EU leaders to start the talks which will see one of the most controversial elements of Brexit, a block on the right to live in each others countries visa free, partially eliminated. Under the envisaged agreement, both EU and UK citizens aged between 18 to 30 years would be able to stay for up to 4 years in the destination country, the European Commission said in a detailed statement. “The objective would be to facilitate youth exchanges, making it easier for young EU citizens to travel, work and live in the UK, with reciprocity for young UK nationals in a member state,” the Commission said.

Have you ever looked in the mirror and said to yourself, “ Hey Kevin old chap, all this hand wringing, gnashing of teeth and sleepless nights I suffer over my 24/7 vendetta against Norwich City Football Club is probably not going to lengthen my life “. You’ve gone down the Ombudsman route, they’ve ruled against you. The football club will wait until hell freezes over before they appease you any further so why not forget about all this “ it is the principle “ stubbornness and, if you must, redirect that energy into tackling other perceived injustices in your life.

If this has to happen a simple rule that the lower-division team gets 100% of the gate receipts, regardless of where the tie is played, would be a great gesture that would cost the bigger clubs very little and make a big difference to the minnows. Chance of that happening: 0%, obviously. But it would be an easy win for a football regulator...

I guess you are pointing the finger of guilt towards her, before any investigation is concluded, so an absoloute genuine question, if my assumption is correct, why is it that you consider a man who is accused of multiple crimes, including fraud and rape, to definitely be innocent, even though his investigations have concluded he should stand trial ?. The political argument thing I don’t think is a good answer as her case is definitely politically motivated. Its amazing, as I have told my MP, that I and approximately 15 others in my area have been burgled, yet the police have no manpower to investigate the perpetrator even though the area knows who it is, yet they can throw manpower at this on the word of a Conservative MP.

This ain't Lego or a model....it is actually Lofthouse Road.....For Real!....Factissimo!....

Is the answer Donald Trump ?

They cite the congestion caused by the UEFA competitions, but, the clubs in them are only joining the FA cup in round 3 anyway, so why get rid of replays in rounds 1 & 2?

This is precisely what I like about Hitchens's Razor - it helps provide some clarity of thought by reinforcing the notion that the onus of evidence is on that person making the claim. An atheist is simply saying "where's the evidence for a god's existence?" As I said in my previous post, it's basically all about the "god of the gaps". Can't explain it - just say a god did it. And it gets particularly shaky when they try to force codes of conduct based on it across society at large. The Abrahamic religions are all notoriously bad at this although some wings are more tolerant than others.

What utter rot. You can't rule something out that you can't comprehend because by that definition you can't comprehend what it is you're ruling out. Yet again you're trading on a completely fallacious account of what Atheism is. Atheism rests on the fundamental methodological principle that the justification of all beliefs must be founded upon some form of empirical experience. The atheist claims there is no empirical evidence that justifies a belief in God. Given that fundamental methodological principle, no genuine atheist who understands her position correctly would rule out the possibility that there ever could be such empirical evidence. If God were to appear before our eyes, perform all the extraordinary miracles for which she is famous in the bible, then we would have convincing empirical evidence, and all bar the most deranged atheists would become believers. Atheists don't rule out the existence of God by logical principle (which would be what is required to "definitively" rule out the existence of God). They express a belief that God doesn't exist on the grounds that there is no human experience or natural phenomena that requires the existence of God for it's explanation. In short, there is no evidence for the existence of God, ergo there is no evidence which would justify me believing in God.

I think Deepdale is a decent enough stadium. Shame it’s in Preston

Penrose is good at physics and cosmology - and yes a champion of QM (It's much of my first degree) so I don't doubt and QM underpins much of what we take for granted even in our macroscopic world (modern 'electronics' runs' on QM - conduction bands etc). However - his Quantum Mind theories have little or no evidence for. In layman's terms I think he's trying to find a spooky explanation for consciousness. Make it exotic. I don't think that's needed. Complexity does it for us. However Seth is a Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience. He's as respected / champion in his field (this field we are discussing) as Penrose is in his. That said I wouldn't trust Seth on Quantum Mechanics! His explanations/insight are much more grounded in experimental or observational evidence (sadly often when consciousness fails or falls apart - drugs, damage, sleep and of course in lesser creatures which nevetheless are clearly aware of self and as any dog owner can attest can even empathize / sense moods with you) without recourse or need of exotic physics. My eventual belief is that the 'soul' is an internal illusion to help our survival and make decisions. When we think 'consciously' we are actually running predictive/imaginary scenarios through our minds 'thinking' - a good evolutionary emergent trick to make good decisions (Stay in the tree until the lion goes away - by the way the lion's thinking about dinner too). I rather suspect in a sense all creatures do this with varying degrees of self-awareness / souls!

Comfort, scenic and atmosphere.

Top 3 for what? If QPR is at the top it is a strange list - Loftus Road is an awful ground, designed by a complete moron.

I mean there are actual philosophers and scholars who can’t agree on a definition of atheism so probably not one to get too worked up about on here! The initial point LYB was trying to make though seems to be correct - the ruling has created no legal precedent to get rid of faith schools or stop faith schools from forcing children to pray in assembly. It has merely established that if a school wants to be ‘secular’ and ban all forms of religion and praying, it can.

I think you put Birdie on the wrong wing. 😉

You can't criticise his engine, though. Absolutely relentless. The Gary Holt of this messageboard.

Always thought of Cambridge as a more deep creative midfielder with flair as he's usually making stuff out of thin air. TheRealBuh would be standing on the side with a cuppa.

TheGunnshow GodlyOtsemobor. Nutty. Hogesar. Ricardo Ken hairy Essex Yobocop. Sonyc LYB. Cambridge (c) TheRealBuh, Hank shoots Skylar, well b back, JohnnyJohnnyrowe, Branston, wings of a sparrow, Great mass debater, dylanisabaddog

If I did would I wake up tomorrow to find that Snodgrass let Rickie take that penalty, or it that a miracle/multiverse/timetravelling neutrino too far?

Ha,ha that is PC1021 Chapman.

Well, according to Nietzsche, all us atheists need to do is put our faith in the non existence of those footballing God's.😁

No, this is wrong. Atheism DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY of the 2000 pixies. Less than 200 years ago the existence of neutrinos would have been considered impossible. A distinction between knowledge & belief is often lacking round these parts. Agnosticism is, I think, the only tenable position available to us.

For anyone wondering what Hull and Coventry's repsective games in hand are over us in the final run-in? I just took a look 😄

The simple fact that makes science so successful is that not only do it's theories explain the world - you can use them it to make predictions that can be later verified i.e Newton Einstein, Higgs etc. Nobody in science argues those theories are complete or unassailable or beyond tweaking (indeed we continually try to 'break' them - the 'standard model' is topical - what is 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' - is our understanding of gravity correct at cosmological distances - even 'tired' light to explain red shifts. Why is gravity so weak (other dimensions) and on and on. They are simply the best models we have of reality however 'spooky'. No doubt improved models will follow. Religion (or a God(s)) is unprovable - almost by definition - all about 'faith' - I can dream up any 'God' I like and it's equally valid. Will my new God make it rain? Can I use my God to make testable predictions - No. All that said I understand why some people need a God comfort blanket. It helps them lead and gives a meaning to their lives. Atheism isn't a faith and nor is science.

Wimbledon announced in 2001 that they were relocating to Milton Keynes, AFC Wimbledon were formed in 2002, Wimbledon FC went into administration in 2003 a few months after relocating to Milton Keynes, then Winkleman moved to lead the buy out of administration and then to the rebrand in 2004. He then blamed the fans for abandoning the club by setting up AFC Wimbledon instead of travelling 2 hours to games each Saturday. What happened is exactly what he wanted to happen, he didn't want to own Wimbledon FC, he wanted to own Milton Keynes FC. It worked out exactly how he wanted it to. The whole thing was despicable, and Winkleman didn't care what club be ruined, as mentioned he approached numerous clubs to try and tempt them to Milton Keynes long before he'd built the stadium, which he'd been planning since 1997 and was finished in 2007.

One small group of people in the scientific community believe there is a 50/50 chance we are living in a simulation. That is very different from 50% of the scientific community believing it.

If that is true, why is there currently an AFC Wimbledon playing in League Two in a brand new £34 million stadium that the club owns, with a higher average attendance than MK Dons, and generating a profit? (£400k profit last set of accounts). Sorry but think you are completely wrong here. Winkelman and a consortium were planning to build a large retail development in MK to include a football stadium as far back as 1997 and offered the site to Luton, Wimbledon, Barnet, Crystal Palace, and QPR, and Wimbledon announced in August 2001 that they intended to relocate to Milton Keynes. When a Winkelman led consortium took ownership in 2003 and he changed the name to MK Dons, he was doing what he was always planning to do, find a way to start a Milton Keynes football club without having to start at tier 15 or whatever. Even Winkleman has admitted that he is not proud of his actions. Which brings me to my answer, I hate absolutely Wolves and their fans. Including Pete Winkelman, the Wolves fan from Wolverhampton.

Off course I do, it's very strange on here . WE win , some people scrutinise that win , as if it wasn't deserved or we were lucky or something else. Why can't we just be happy we won and talk about the positives. I blame social media . WTF is social about it tell me. This internet has made people absolute geniuses ; guess what and they believe they are geniuses. Its a mad mad world.

Not the divorcees in the SnakePit, obviously.

Close.

He's basically Webber's man (worked with him at Wolves, Huddersfield, Norwich) so will presumably follow him to his next club wherever that might be.

Lovely line from Starmer at PMQ's. Have you read your predecessor's book? I have the only unsigned copy...

Essex in defensive midfield is bold- he's going to be going on strike after about 10 minutes unless you give him and his family free tickets for eternity.

Nope! (See above) You are conflating two connected but different things; "belief" and "knowledge". Atheists believe that God doesn't exist because there is no empirical evidence that points to the contrary. It is only those seeking to discredit atheism that make the further claim that atheists believe they can prove God doesn't exist. The history of epistemology (theory of knowledge) is as old as philosophy itself, and concerns the fundamental question of when a belief can be considered to constitute certain knowledge (I'm sure you are aware of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" for example). Atheists will differ to the degree of certainty with which they believe that God doesn't exist, but none (on pain of contradicting their very own criteria of empirical evidence) will claim to know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. I can't prove there are not thousands of invisible homunculi inside my brain responsible for all my thoughts, but I have absolutely no evidence for believing that there are. Likewise the Atheist believes there is no evidence for believing that an invisible omniscient deity is responsible for the natural phenomena we encounter in experience. The power of the atheist position lies in the fact that human history has involved a long process of debunking religious claims through a process of empirically verifiable (scientific) evidence. An earthquake, once "explained" as the wrath of God, is now understood as an effect of natural geophysical phenomena.

Preston on the beach after last Saturday.

I may have been born into a methodist family, had a baptism as a baby and spent quite a long time as a kid at Sunday school but honestly as an adult i'm much more agnostic. I think its rather pompous to think we either can or can't know for certain how the universe and reality works. Honestly feel we probably can't understand with our limited monkey brains and that the universe itself is far more complicated and nonsensical than anything we can ever hope to understand

Although most of the fans are ok i can’t really stand Manchester City. The money that has been spent has changed the football landscape forever and not for the better in my opinion.