Jump to content

canarydan23

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8,186

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Posts posted by canarydan23

  2. Posted

    56 minutes ago, hogesar said:

    I mean, ignoring the ranting nature of your post...

    The underlying point is none of this points to a "disconnect" as referenced by the general nature of replies to this thread.

    I also think you're a bit naïve to think that a couple Ipswich fans in a box can't cause a problem. I don't know where the box is but in a high-risk game (as far as high-risk exists at Carrow Road) it doesn't surprise me that in areas where there are likely sponsors and club partners attending such a big game, they don't want the embarrassment that they stupidly allowed the possibility of Ipswich fan's getting into a home box.

    The club could probably offer something else or simply donate to the charity which perhaps they will do, although if they mentioned they'd done that i'm sure there'd be alternate criticism that they were "fishing" for gratitude or something ridiculous.

    I think one of the traits of a club that's "connected" to its community is one that supports initiatives by local businesses that support local charities. So by that metric, yes, this is an example of disconnect.

    And naivety? In a thread where people, in their absolute desperation to defend the club regardless of what it does, are positing that;

    Ipswich fans are going to flood a raffle by a local, Norwich-based business to try and get tickets

    AND

    Those Ipswich fans might win the raffle

    AND

    Those Ipswich fans are going to cause significant trouble inside of a corporate box

    That is naivety.

    And had the club done what you said and said "Sorry guys, we can't let you use the box for that purpose because of the T&Cs and concerns over the volatile nature of the derby but here is a contribution to NARS to make up for it", it would never have made the news, would it? And the reason it made the news is because it's a surprising story, as in not many people will read it and think that it was a pleasant way for the club to behave.

    Interestingly, I wonder what thought-process went through the Own the Pitch competition at the end of last year that offered two season tickets for the rest of the year. OHMYGOD! For only £12 Ipswich fans can enter and might win the tickets AND THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE BEHIND GLASS!!! Where is the due diligence?!?!

    Ironically, entering that competition also led to a boost in the number of AEDs in Norfolk. Do you know what saves more lives than AEDs? Norfolk Accident Rescue Service.

    So guys, particularly the intellectual giant that is @Branston Pickle, make it make sense.

    Are the club correct in shutting down something that could lead to Ipswich fans watching the derby behind a box in the home end and therefore incorrect at running their own competition that could lead to two Ipswich fans sitting in the ground for the derby?

    Or were they correct in running the Own the Pitch competition that could lead to two Ipswich fans sitting among fans in the actual seats for the derby and therefore incorrect at shutting down the raffle that would benefit NARS?

    Or have we established that it doesn't matter what the club does in your eyes and I'm actually right about what I thought was a tongue-in-cheek reference to seal clubbing?

  5. Posted

    Listen to yourselves. Just for once.

    You've got nutty nigel having to make out that I, an overtly pro-Delia and MWJ fan, is some anti-club fundamentalist. You've got Branston Pickle making out that there is a genuine threat that a raffle promoted by a Norwich-based company for a Norfolk-based charity is going to be swamped by Ipswich fans that might win and therefore be in the hazardous position of watching the Derby from, *gasps* indoors in a private box?!

    Just be honest with yourselves, the club could take up seal-clubbing for sport and you nutters would watch from the dunes screaming encouragement.

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    Well I for one must say I'm incredibly surprised at the names of people defending the club on this. Let's be honest, the club could put up a roadblock on Carrow Road that prevented a NARS vehicle reaching an emergency and the usual crew would say, "People are berating the club for this?! They're just ensuring ALL vehicles travel safely around the stadium".

    It's a private box. They've stated its for home fans only and if some s(ummers choose to contribute to a worthwhile cause and win, what are they going to do, punch people through the ****ing glass? Years ago there was a load of Leicester fans in a box in the River End that included Robbie ****ing Savage. I bet not a penny of that went to a charity.

    Pathetic, Karen-style, pencil-pushing ***. If the council ever put traffic wardening out to tender the club should enter. They've got the right mindset.

    We were no better under previous regimes when we hounded a local brewery for calling an ale On The Ball or something like that.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  7. Posted

    18 hours ago, Besthorpe-48 said:

    Now what is it that the many know that at least 7 international managers don't?

    I suspect they might know that a squad with that much talent should never be 15 points behind last year's League One runners-up? And that with all that said talent, it might be quite frustrating to watch football that has at times this season been pretty turgid? And again, with all that talent, maybe they could be achieving more with better coaching/leadership?

    You clearly think we've got a talented squad, why do you think we're 9th in the Championship?

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    As has been said, the only way this is even slightly feasible is if Wagner has been told he's off at the end of the season. If that is the case, this works for all parties; Wagner has more long-term job security and we don't have to pay him off as I understand he's on a rolling 12 month deal so will pocket a year's salary when he does get the old heave-ho (I could be wrong on that point).

    It'd be pretty interesting if a caretaker came in for the rest of the season, someone from the Youth setup or Neil Adams, and managed to guide us to the playoffs and promotion, what would the club do in that scenario?!

  18. Posted

    49 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

    A constitution doesn’t stop any government anywhere in the world from breaking their promises though. Also what would happen if a situation arose while they were in power and the government was denied the flexibility and means to act accordingly due to some rules written 50 years previously?

    If the constitution can be altered by a simple majority in parliament then how is that any different to the setup we have currently? I also fail to see what having a second chamber, elected or otherwise, adds to anything. If the two chambers were headed by different factions then you’d simply end up in a situation where one constantly blocks the other and nothing would ever get done. I’d simply scrap the Lords and be done with it.

    Politicians may be useless, on that most of us we’ll agree. But having their power curtailed by some rules drafted up by some different politicians who happen to be in power at the time the constitution was written in my opinion does nothing to change that.

    I want parliament to have as much power as it chooses, and for those decisions to be approved or rejected by the electorate at subsequent elections. I’m already uncomfortable with the amount of political decision making that is seemingly farmed out to unaccountable bodies such as the Bank of England so I don’t want to see more taken away from the public 

    You seem to want to empower our current set of politicians. That's a frightening concept, truth be told.

    I've explained the difference already, a constitutional change would require a mandate through a pre-election pledge, any attempt to ride roughshod over it would be met with resistance by the Supreme Court/second chamber. A backstop for a emergency powers could be built in, though would be subject to scrutiny and the prospect of being rolled back.

    Abolishing a second chamber and empowering imbeciles like Johnson, Sunak and Starmer even further is madness. Even with its hereditary privilege and rank nepotism the HoL still provides crucial checks and balances to our democratic process. Radically overhaul it for sure, even take steps to reduce the politics from it, but abolish it? Madness.

    British politics is broken; whether that's down to society as a whole I don't know, but honour simply doesn't exist anymore. I couldn't stand them, but Major and Thatcher would never have contemplated a lot of the behaviours of the likes of Boris Johnson. Even Starmer has abandoned putting any stock in common, decent honesty.

    These bustards needs their hands tying; the executive and the PM have too much power and not enough accountability. Win an election and you are effectively an elective dictatorship and entitled to do whatever you want until the next election,  regardless as to what you said to the nation to earn their votes. A written constitution wouldn't fix it all entirely, but it would be a significant improvement. 

  19. Posted

    Yet another U-turn for Starmer, they won't be reinstating the cap on banker's bonuses and intend to rip up red-tape for the finance sector. We've been here before, haven't we? Have they forgotten 2008 entirely?

    In other, non-related news, Starmer's Labour has been receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds for investment firms and City financiers.

    Tory Lite is back.

    The only hope we have is that this is Starmer doing what Starmer does best; lying to impress people. Once he gets in power we have to hope he abandons this nonsense as quickly as he abandoned pretty much every one of his "pledges" he made during his leadership campaign.

  20. Posted · Edited by canarydan23

    9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

    RB Leipzig fans don't seem too bothered that they invested in it. 

    Does anyone know that it's actually rubbish? Or is everyone just assuming because they don't have the knowledge on it?

    No one knows, but we can make a fairly accurate guess based on two pieces of known information;

    1) Webber was involved in the purchase of it, therefore it's more likely to fail than succeed

    2) No one else has purchased it; if there was even a whiff of evidence that this thing was developing players well, other people would be jumping on the bandwagon.

    The reality is, a two million goes on that arcade game they have in Yarmouth where you punt a ball on the end of a string past a plastic goalie for 50p would have done more for our players.

    Also, a million is buttons to RB Leipzig. For them, it's probably the equivalent to our vegetable patch. Having said that, a few people have moaned about that too.

  21. Posted

    31 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

    This is for littleyellowbirdie in his leather cappie, I very much hope he reads up what this means for all the false propaganda that has been diffusing minds on this non football blog, minds that have been bend by propaganda and outright lies, from the alleged discrimination against Crimean Tartars to the nebulous investigation of the MH-17 flight, all has been debunked.

    Ukraine called Luchansk and Donetzk terrorist organisation when all they initially asked for from Kiev to become autonomous regions.

    What now? will we carry on wasting billions on NATO's drive and war cries against Russia, will our civilians in western Europe be ground up in a potentially nuclear Holocaust of our own design? Will somebody say sorry for getting it wrong?

    I'm sure littleyellowbirie will know better than the ICJ, denounce them as Putinistas and worse, questioning International judges and their well researched work. Maybe littleyeloowtweetie has done his own research.

    https://karlof1.substack.com/p/international-court-of-justice-rulings

    I don't think you've even fully read your rank piece of propaganda that you ironically offer as a remedy to other propaganda.

    The ICJ did not rule on MH-17, its remit was to only cover financial funding of terrorists and not the supply of weapons that a Dutch court ruled were essentially supplied by Russia (and convicted two Russians to boot). So if you're claiming the theory (fact) that Russia were involved in downing flight MH-17 has been "debunked" you're talking total hogwash.

    It did rule that Russia violated conventions on both financing terrorism and racial discrimination. And whilst it stated Ukraine had not proven the ban on the Mejlis had a racial motivation, the ICJ had already rendered the ban illegal and ordered Russia to lift it, an order Russia continues to ignore.

    In your desperation for this ruling to make Russia look good, you've failed to conduct a thorough analysis.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, king canary said:

    I'm not sure that stacks up to be honest- it doesn't really explain why voter turnout and voter numbers dropped across all three parties. If it was driven solely by disappointment in Labour you'd expect to see other parties numbers increasing. I'd argue it was more one of those elections where the country felt reasonably prosperous, the economy was going well and a result that felt like a forgone conclusion.

    That the election result was a given would certainly have contributed to the low turnout, but it'd be ridiculous to suggest there wasn't more to the lowest turnout for almost a century (second lowest was 2005, common denominator?). 2019 was a foregone conclusion and go close to a 70% turnout.

    There was widespread disillusionment about Labour's failure to deliver on its promises, accompanied by an uninspiring opposition and Lib Dem party. In 1997, there was an almost universal belief that there was clear water between the two parties. Four years of Tony Blair shattered that illusion and millions just couldn't be bothered to drag themselves to the polling stations. An Electoral Commission study in 2001 found that 58% of people were very or fairly interested in the election, 6% up on 1997, and only 10% of non-voters cited apathy as the reason for staying away.

    Pre-1997, Labour promised to deal with the big issues of the day and to recharge the public's faith in politics. People had concluded that it was all **** so stayed home.

    It's another absolute joke of British democracy that the second least popular winning government since WW2 returned such a thumping majority. At the time it was the least popular winning government since WW2, but Blair would beat his own record in 2005.

  23. Posted

    13 minutes ago, king canary said:

    I'd say those numbers lack some context.

    Attlee may have added more votes but he lost vote share and lost a huge amount of seats, to the extent he was out of power a year later.

    Blair lost votes from 97-2001 but this was mainly due to a much lower turnout- the Tories vote numbers also went down and both parties saw minimal change in vote share. 

    Number of votes is the number of votes. And lower turnout was indicative of the disappointment of his four years in office.

    And for context, Attlee added both votes AND vote share in between 1950 and 1951, it's only because of our utterly **** "democracy" that he was out of power. In fact, in 1951 no candidate had ever received more votes than Attlee, and wouldn't again until Major in 1992 when the population was 15% larger. And he didn't win the election. Democracy, ladies and gentleman.

  24. Posted · Edited by canarydan23

    1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

    I don’t get the fascination with a written constitution. To me they simply lock in the values of the time and then make it incredibly hard to change as society alters, Americas gun laws or Irelands battles for divorce abortion being prime examples.

    I much prefer the British system whereby the elected government is largely free to pursue its policies, as long as it can carry a majority of parliament. These can then be repealed at the subsequent election by the current electorate if they prove unpopular.

    I’d hate for the government of the day to be hamstrung by the opinions of a society that’s long since disappeared 

    I think you're opinion has been understandably clouded by the American experience. A British constitution would only need to provide a broad-brush overview of society's values. That they reflect them at the time they are written is absolutely correct and not a drawback. A manifesto pledge followed by a general election victory would be sufficient to remove or amend part of the constitution. The constitution could make that a requirement, so any clandestine behaviour from duplicitous politicians who pledge things just for votes and then abandons it all when they get power (sadly it would only work at government level and wouldn't present the rank dishonesty the thread's titular subject in the leadership election) would be stamped out; the Supreme Court and/or a democratically representative second chamber would have the authority to block any unconstitutional legislation that wasn't previously pledged.

    Our politicians have consistently proven that they are not fit to wield the power they have, diluting it is a good thing.

    Anyway, it's a pipe dream, along with PR; the majority of our MPs are power-hungry narcissists, on all sides of the House, so they won't vote anything that might limit their sway. And the lack of a written constitution allows them to do so.

    • Thanks 1

  25. Posted · Edited by canarydan23

    4 hours ago, king canary said:

    I'm sure this is what will happen because it is basically the same thing that happens with every government over time. 

    Not really, the UK public tend to be kind to governments in their first term, Attlee, Wilson and Cameron all added votes after the public had a chance to see them in office, Thatcher only lost a few hundred thousand.

    Blair lost 3 million. I suspect Johnson would have lost more but thankfully we won't get the chance to see it.

    There is an alternative reality somewhere that saw John Smith govern for three terms, potentially handing over to an untainted Blair with experience of high office, where we didn't involve ourselves in Iraq, have a proper, written constitution and a Tory Party that was dragged left in a similar way to how Thatcher encouraged Blair to drag Labour right.

×
×
  • Create New...