Out of his pie crust

1 minute ago, fat_aj999 said:

Saw this on FB the other day 

"Full English breakfast box at Tilbury FC - £7"

Enough already 

Looks lush, could eat that now tbh

1 minute ago, Globe Trotter said:

A good read indeed. ‘Notorious cuntleroy’ is my new favourite insult 

A nice turn of phrase to be sure

Priceless

Like double deckers

56 minutes ago, Logical-City said:

This is exactly what happened with the Bournemouth tickets for reference to my previous comments I took the morning off work and was online at 9:50 am ready to buy. I will not be putting myself through that rage again good luck to those that try.

I will not be taking time off work for an online ticket lottery rather get paid now if I could go down and que at the ground before 10am where the people in said que could only buy 3 tickets and leave and I know no funny business is occurring I’d be happy to do this

4 hours ago, Jazzy said:

Of course they can but I read one comment saying our season was over already!

It would be an overreaction even if it was confirmed that he was out for the season, to say it without even knowing the extent of his injury is absurd in the extreme

Mate I was joking, we’ll be fine

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

My assumption is that the Fewers will be trying to book the cover band, the Antarctic Monkeys for the same night.

Sure they had Fake That playing at a similar time to when Take That played in BS3.

Not bad the Antarctic monkeys tbf

Seasons over, ah well

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

  So the question is: would he still be Bobby Charlton?

Yes…..but he’d probably have a better haircut

Trying to get to a few away games, Birmingham included, to clock up some points for our three wembley appearances later in the season, and the bernabeu season after next. 

Just gotta go on a good run in October, plenty of points on offer

Bought some tickets yesterday. Looking forward to it 

1 minute ago, IAmNick said:

Norwich goal: https://dubz.co/v/8xzsrg

Wow

56 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The obvious example (and no it isn't myth as I've met some of those who were there at the time,) is the 74 coup against Wilson's Government. With the country in turmoil, bankrupt and with the serious concern of undue influence from a foreign state, a delegation of very senior military heads met with the late Queen Mother explaining they were, within hours,  to seize power to save the country. Understanding the respect for the Constitution they knew the British public would never accept them, hence they wanted her as their figurehead to front the coup. Politely, over a drink, she informed them not to be so stupid, the British didn't do things that way and sent them on their heels sworn to say no more,  she would sort matters. As soon as they had departed The Monarch summoned the PM, discussed how close he was to losing power and that he was under microscopic scrutiny. Wilson survived the crisis. If you don't like that example try the late Queen's and her father's speeches to the British Public at the outbreak of war. A war in which a signal proportion of the populous thought life under Hitler preferable to that they presently enjoyed. Bristol being one of the hotbeds of decent and where Churchill was as popular as a fart in a lift. Both examples remain subject to D Notices. 

In your response you wear your colours with pride, perhaps too much. The Monarch can influence but has no authority over Government, or rather if they exercise the right they technically hold they must abdicate. You appear concerned at the prospect of the UK finally dissociating itself from the ECHR. Why? UK citizens were never asked whether or not they wished to be governed by that body and had no absolutely authority as to how it is comprised, instituted or assured. A body, to remind, that other than in domestic matters fiscal and of national security had an ABSOLUTE right to veto ALL UK Parliamentary legislation, that to which us citizens hold Parliament to account. That's a pretty fundamental principle that folks have died over.

Pseudo reparation talk, do me a favour. The Church, Monarchy, and powerful have subjugated folks since the year dot - all flavours, all ends of the political spectrum, employers and unions all. We could do as Pol Pot and proclaim year zero, but strange how that inexorably leads to famine, starvation and misery, as those under Mao, Stalin, Mugabe et al would have testified had they not died in the process. Life ain't fair. It ain't but it's what you make it, not what others should be obligated to make for you.

A- excellent boy

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

You make a number of points, as have others, that merely suggest you've a poor understanding of how the UK is governed, its very Constitution, that being the subject of my post.

As was attested today, Parliament serves the Monarch yet the Monarch consents to obey the will of the people as reflected through members elected. The Monarch inherits great wealth, but offers it all back to Parliament in return for sufficient funds to discharge the Monarch's state functions. In the UK, at National (Parliamentary) election, one doesn't vote for a party, one elects an individual to represent one in a first past the post ballot. The individual elected owes no allegiance to any party nor the policies they promote, as evidenced by MPs being able to vote against party whips to which they might profess allegiance or by them  'crossing the floor' as they see fit. They do not have to adhere to the wishes of their constituents, once elected they've free reign to do as they wish. The largest group of like-minded MPs (usually a political party) is invited by the Monarch to form a Government. Should the largest group be a political party its for its membership to decide who both their leader and PM should be (usually the same but it doesn't have to be.) Parties have their internal procudeures as to how this is discharged. In the case of political manifestos there's no obligation on that elected to Government to fulfill any if its promises. For various reasons most  commitments are never delivered. In which case the majority of your second paragraph is nugatory. Fair to criticize if you think the system flawed (as do I,) but you snipe and carp as though there's been connivance and wrong-doing this week when all you describe is how the system is prescribed to work.

The opening to your second paragraph hasn't been 'cherry-picked' and is a pragmatic demonstration as to why tinkering with the UK's model constitution isn't necessarily a good thing, even should some consider wholly elected bodies to be in some way 'more' democratic (sic). If you've ever spent time in Parliament you quickly realise having a second, non-elected chamber isn't such a bad thing. As with the Monarch, the elected peoples will must always triumph, but what the non-elected body is able to do is to consider and influence legislation it is tasked to consider, importantly not always from a politically partizan angle. Contrast nations who've tinkered our constitution, USA is a fine example. There you've 3 wholly elected functions (Executive, Senate and House,) all on different election cycles and split proportion of election, and they've ended up with stasis. Usually the President, laughably called the most powerful person in the world but who in reality isn't even the most powerful person in Washington, ends up delivering little (or what gets delivered is instantly annulled within a couple of years.) As there, a good comparison here are National and Local elections where historically the party in Government gets thrashed by its opposition come Local elections. All that does is make delivering benefits of policy to the people more difficult and antagonistic, Local power thwarting National policy whether or not its for the best. Tit for tat politics.

Without question there is a signal difference between the continuity of Monarchy, where the incumbent is a function not an individual (hence the affirmations of allegiance required today.) Matters not palaces, jewels and crowns, they're functions of state, not for sale. They exist on behalf of us subjects. For that reason it matters little a Monarch is for life (or until they abdicate,) unlike many Republics where Presidents, once elected, have enacted legislation that may never see them (in some cases their chosen successors,) removed from office. Ditto wealth. What was ours through ERII becomes ours through CRIII. Contrast the likes of Putin. A President paid around $130k per annum who in the past decade has amassed a personal wealth in excess of $200bn, no need to declare or explain, no questions asked (unless one is unafraid of poisons and falls from great height.)

Our Constitution is far from perfect, but on balance its hard to think how immediately it might signally be improved given the present poverty of political understanding and debate in our nations.

 

B+ , student is showing improvement 

1 hour ago, Flounder said:

A fitting tribute.

Is it a Tribute though?

Ffs again

Ffs

Yeasshhhhh Antoine …….get in you beauty

3 minutes ago, man in the middle said:

But we’re all have to carry on going to work to pay our taxes whilst we’re unable to go to football or enjoy ourselves. I have upmost respect and love for our Queen but in a time when life is so bleak and dark god let us have something. We can then all stand together and pay our respects, what better way to do this than 20k all singing god save the queen this Saturday? 

I concur

Good to see Manchester fans gracious in their defeat to ‘Bristol’. One day, people, they will address us correctly  

Fair play to them actually, some nice stuff there

14 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I hope that’s not from experience…although of course they do hair-stuff too, don’t they.

Cheeky b*****

14 minutes ago, Gazred said:

Happy to hear NP 'aroused' but keeping things in check.

Credit due to Numan