Bobzilla

Go on, put your money where your mouth is. Who is our best CB?

So it's not every traffic offence, just the ones that you consider are bad enough. Right. You're the judge. Got it. What about 102mph on a motorway? Similar level of penalty from the courts...

I wonder how many would be so concerned about a speeding offence…. In fact, I wonder how many on here would be putting their job at risk if their employers took a blanket approach and fired everyone for the simplest of driving offences. Parking on a zig zag line outside a school or on a crossing point? And yes, those are driving offences, not parking offences. There seems to be quite a few on here with a somewhat holier than though attitude who haven’t thought through the full consequences of exactly what they’re proposing.

That’s quite the assumption. It may have no significant impact on them at all. They may simply be thinking that he’s a work colleague and it’s their job to get on with the job at hand.

So actually your position is that all Duffy has done is highlighted that the club has publicly disgraced itself? That is manifestly not the same as Duffy bringing the club into disgrace.

That’s lovely. The Government has a law in place saying that Rwanda is a safe place to send asylum seekers. Doesn’t make it true though.

Not the question though, is it. I’m not saying it’s not a disgrace. I’m saying that it’s his disgrace, not the club’s. Christ there’s a whole load of presumption on here and not a lot of actual reading. Same as other forums I suppose though.

Has he though? Really? Do the actions of one player on their time off bring the club into disrepute?

Which is why we pick juries from the accused's peers, not their victims.

Agreed on all points. To be clear, I've previously walked down to the police station to ask to get breathalysed if I've had a few the night before. Just to make damn sure I haven't forgotten about any I'd had, or if any singles were in fact doubles.

Pretty certain no-one here is ok with drink driving. But there's a whole load of a gap between 'drink driving should be encouraged' and 'drink drivers should be shot on suspicion'.

Perhaps someone here can remind George Best that he should have been really **** all the times he came on the pitch after a night out. Gazza? I'm not suggesting that Shane Duffy is Gazza quality, just that everyone here is making massive assumptions. Jermaine Pennant was out til 5am THE NIGHT BEFORE his Arsenal debut and hit a hat-trick against Southampton. According to you lot, he should never have got anywhere near that match.

I'm not implying that 8 pints isn't a lot. I'm flat out saying that 8 pints isn't a lot, per se. It certainly isn't 'we should fire him' 'a lot'. Would I do it? No. But I don't process alcohol anywhere near as efficiently as I used to. I used to be able to drink twice that and be perfectly fine for 9 am lectures as a student (law degree, engaging with the lecturer). Now 2 pints is a lot for me. The issue is not him drinking 8 pints (and that's a guess, it could be much lower) but getting into a car after that. That's the **** move.

That's a restriction on state in work. You can drink as much as you like before your shift so long as you don't blow over a very low limit as soon as you start. Human physiology translates that into not having x point y hours before a shift, but the point of measure is when you go on shift.

That was in the US. In the UK, you can have policies requiring disclosure to ensure no conflicts of interest and that the organisation can manage its own risk, but I'm not sure whether you can entirely ban it. But in the US you can be fired for no reason whatsoever, and most of the time the advice will be not to give any reason for it. I don't think we really want that over here.

Do you know what 102 is in pints? 35 is about 2 pints of normal strength beer, so 102 is about 6 pints, possibly 8 by the time you add digestion in. There’s an awful lot of tee-totalers on this board it seems. Now, don’t get me wrong. Drinking 8 pints and getting in your car is feckin stupid, especially when you can clearly afford a taxi. But we seem to be crucifying a guy JUST for drinking 8 pints on his relaxing couple of days.

Which wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. Imagine if your employer unilaterally brought in a code of conduct which dictated your behaviour outside of working hours, and then terminated your contract if you breached it. You’re having a laugh.

Who is he?

Three paragraphs of rose tinted spectacly ‘Britain would be great if it weren’t for foreign ownership’ rubbish? 3 lines would be too much. Seriously. Empire’s gone and the bogey man usually isn’t foreign. As for Twitter, it’s owned by a total **** who simply happens to be foreign. It was better under previous ownership, also foreign.

How many of us have spent far less effort failing to even get to the planning stage. Even if he couldn’t step foot on the mountain because of medical issues, he’s got significantly further than probably anyone on this board. Your good (!) self included. *edit* seems from posts above he got 5800 feet up. I’m guessing that’s about 5700 feet more than the vast majority of us, and about 5770 feet more without the aid of an elevator. Better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.

What you wrote could be very easily summarised as ‘rose tinted spectacled ****’. I merely adopted that summation to avoid making an overly long post.

I think you meant hobby. 1 - With the exception of Manchester United, our success in Europe has come at the price of billionaire foreign owners. 2 - With the exception of Manchester United, football clubs have been utter money pits for foreign owners. Billionaire's toys. 3 - if you want to talk about British ownership, my understanding is that Robert Chase's construction companies did quite well out of our building programmes. Ken Bates was British. Mike Ashley? I think you might be selecting your reference points a little narrowly to fit your world view of things. My point? British ownership can be good or ****e. Foreign ownership can be good or ****e. It's more about the investor than their nationality.

Very strange, and one I’m not sure that’s going to go down well with the fans. Admittedly on a survey of one.

As fans we have to understand that if we get promoted it ends one of two ways. Either we get the financial backing from shareholders to compete in the Prem knowing that the financial impacts of doing that will last 3 seasons (and things are already not great on an accounting front) or we accept that next year will not be nice for us if we are expecting victories - it will be, at best, a season of heroic draws and losses. We cannot go up thinking that we can be competitive without significant shareholder support - we tried the self funding model last time and we came back down immediately and are still reaping the rewards financially. It is either Brentford or Farke’s first prem year. There is no inbetween. Personally, I could take either. I wouldn’t want us to spend a lot of money without the shareholder backing and come down anyway, as that threatens the club’s existence. But I’m excited for this season’s end.

My thoughts exactly. It's really sad that their first thoughts on going up aren't 'wow, we're up, we're back to the prem' but 'let's go over to a Norwich board, pretend to be Norwich fans and be all negative about their chances of going up through play-offs'. I kind of feel sorry for them. After their Hull game, I kind of forgot that they existed. My focus was on my own team.