adamski

I presume the blue tarp covered construction to the right is the urinals (Glastonbury cast offs)

53 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

to allow plenty of time to shag mum,sis,gran and any other female family members before falling into drunken comatose sleep

I'm not sure this statement meets equality regulation, you seem to have made a generalisation that does not include all protected characteristics! Can I suggest you remove any gender specific reference

10 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile.

That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered.

As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is.  A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. 

Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world.  Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. 

Thank you, some very interesting views and presumptions to consider/research. 

1 hour ago, Sandhurst Red said:

I could not disagree more with this comment. I respect your views but I do feel the alternative to a monarch, is a far poorer option.

I do however agree with you and believe that some of the protocols could be reviewed again and the need to have such a pause culture in respect of death, is perhaps outdated.

But to abolish the monarchy altogether, would take away a huge amount of British symbolism and identity. The net gain (commercial and positive view of UK) from having a head of state, of monarch dynasty, generates incredible revenue and also acts as a figurehead for respecting the faith of society. A vast majority of children in this country attend CofE schools, which through history (rightly or wrongly) has been a large proportion of what state and kingdom has come to represent. 

I respect your view, however, one of the main justifications for the monarchy has always been “the amount of revenue they generate” which is a pure estimate, one might ask how much they take out of the economy ? FYI the vast majority of schools, circa 73%, are not C of E schools, of the circa 27% that are C of E, the majority are purely housed in buildings that are owned by the church.

I fear King Charles will not generate as much cash as his mother for the country, perhaps he should subsidise his existence from the massive revenue he has leached out of the Duchy of Cornwall! 

2 hours ago, BS2 Red said:

Is that a recreation of the Blue Few's premature celebration @ Wycombe in 2014?

1964… 58 inglorious years….

5 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

Don't be so bloody ridiculous man.

x, y and z....hell...even n are all far too far into the alphabet for them to know what they are.

Well, you could always substitute a,b,c and d and not worry about the order...TBA the equation is for those striving to solve the answer, so not Gas

37 minutes ago, CiderJar said:

I was watching SkySports News and Jeff Stelling was saying how wonderful they were and that they had been averaging nearly 10,000 all season. Jeff said it, so it must be true. 5,000 is very nearly 10,000.

Jeff got it wrong, Gas logic equates as  z(n= x+y)  x being the reported number in the ground, y being a random locked out number and z being any retrospective number applied to substantiate a ridiculous claim (which the sagger could not calculate anyway)

When a City Forum has a thread like this, predominately for taking the rip out of the Gas, one has to remember it's a two way street... This week it's their turn to revel in their comparative glory, and let's be honest at their level, what they've achieved since Xmas is pretty seismic. Only Mansfield gaining promotion will top it. Their last two games have produced consecutive dramas that will live in the minds of those who were there, and, in time, 30,000 more who say they were there. Fair play to them, every club's fans set expectations in line with their position, this season has undoubtedly exceeded these expectations. Sour grapes will only put sparkly icing on their 21/22 promotion cake. 

To put it in context, currently Rovers are the third best West Country team in league 2

Just now, Club and Country said:

Literally every single country that hosts a major tournament has fan issues, France, Russia, Brazil, South Africa , it makes no difference really

not the issues we had during the final

£10 for golf tees FFS! paid £1.60 at the golf club pro's shop, bonkers

of course the way we handled the Final this year will guarantee it, no coked up nutters, no ticket problems, no security issues, all felt really safe! Unless all games are played in Ireland, Wales and Scotland with England being used as a car park it's going to be a hard sell.

And then there's the Northern Ireland issue that could well see the UK breaking its agreement.

25 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Apparently took 2000 up there, that's decent, but man they get excited quickly. Have they learnt nothing from Wycombe ?

Anyway, lest hope this is just as premature , I do worry they have momentum on their side though.

As to your question, "did they seriously do that?"

Oh yes 

2000 eh! Strange, a poor deluded soul, who's son plays rugby with my boy, told me there were 3,500 at Rochdale yesterday. So only 1,500 locked out, quite a drop in travelling numbers. You'd have thought the usual 25,000 would have gone up for this one! 

My memories are of very old rolling stock, beer cans and quarter bottles of scotch, smashed windows coming out of Cardiff, overflowing bogs, lads in luggage racks, running through stations and laughter. A great adventure when you were a teenager, not so sure I'd enjoy the experience so much now.

Never saw a disco on any special I went on, or dancing!

1 minute ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Cheers, thanks for getting back to me - the number of “loyal and true” roverzzzz fans who attend their home games would fit into our Lansdown Stand easily because there would be about 3,000 empty seats - it’s absolutely hilarious - Joey thinks they could sell out our stadium when they’d struggle to fill just one stand within it - given their average crowd ... but, don’t forget, they are coming for us ...

I have one eye permanently facing back waiting for that day

1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

The East Stand?! What is that? 

The Lansdown of course, but I got my East and West muddled, that will teach me to try and be clever!

2 hours ago, BS15_RED said:

They could fill the Gate? They can’t even manage 9000, a third of the Gate’s capacity!

That would not fill the East Stand with room for segregation and a specialist fancy dress restraint unit. However, I'm not sure the surrounding area could cope with the 500,000 locked out!

Never go back Lee, especially to AG. You were average as a player, we are still saddled with your "coach" legacy and the metaphors, simile, cliché and pure gobbledygook of your press statements and interviews have left me scarred for life!

You need a new challenge(radio pundit should not be on your list following Saturday's attempt) several hundred miles away from Bristol!

4 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

Ah Luke Freeman, one of the most overrated footballers I have ever known. Where is he not playing now? Pretty sure that lad has never regularly played for anyone above bottom half Championship 

Freeman did well in League one in the face of some seriously average defences, having several in form strikers (Wibs, Smith, JET and Agard) and wing backs (Bryan/Little) to help him along the way. Was toilet for us in the Championship, kept running around like Dill the Dog from the Herbs

The same as I have approached every season since 1968, with little expectation, knowing there's a 90% chance of disappointment, but hoping for that 10% chance of success. A bit like playing a fruit machine really! 

1 hour ago, RedRock said:

Back in the day, there were unwritten rules. While far from total observance, most complied.

Never forget getting on a train at Newton Abbot heading to Plymouth. Loads of our ‘lads’ on board noisy, well-lubricated and already ‘well up for it’. Mother with young child around 4 years of age in seats both clearly frightened by the numerous characters in close proximity. One of our lads then started a conversation with said child who immediately was put at ease. How it should be. 
 

Back in what day were there unwritten rules? not in the late 60's and 70's, unless the whole end were in on the defend/attempt to take said end, the general public joined in the mass rampages up and down streets and wearing a scarf meant you were prepared to take someone else's! I certainly did not ask to be pushed about or hit/kicked whilst seated in the Dolman, attacked outside of away grounds, pelted with missiles and caught up in the middle of running battles outside of AG/countless away grounds in the 80's and 90's. I doubt this was uncommon for the regular supporter who was not a member of a firm or looking for trouble. The "only dancing with those that want to dance" BS came out of the football hooligan fiction factory after Steaming In was published to try and make the author ***** appear as folk heroes rather than knobs! 

1 hour ago, cider hoss rules said:

Not a dig at the poster here by any means, but references to the ‘glory days’ will only keep these idiots doing what they do.

Making it out that attending football matches without having a dust up in the past meant you weren’t really a fan, just fuels these egos and gives them some kind of justification to carry on like idiots as some great show of bravado among them and their associates.

The reason I put glory days in parentheses was to indicate irony, not an indication that I believe the days of football violence were glorious.

to make that clear-  HEY KIZ, FOOTBALL RELATED VIOLENCE IS NOT BIG AND IT’s NOT CLEVER….unlike an elephant with a non-honorary doctorate  

Russell Osman.... on and off the pitch!