Paddy31

3 hours ago, Leveller said:

As the article points out, goal dimensions were set in the 1860s for men. What I can’t see is any reference to how much taller men are now than 160 years ago. I bet the average keeper then was closer in height to what the women are now.

English Football League top Division

Mean goals per game in 1889 - 4.6

Mean goals per game in 2021 - 2.8

Correlation is not causation and there are a dozen other confounding factors (rule changes, increased professionalism and training, etc), so I am NOT saying that the taller keepers reduce the number of goals, but it could be a contributing factor.

And you are correct about the mean height of men in 1880. It was about 167cm (5'5") , compared to a modern woman being 165cm (5'4").

17 minutes ago, maxjak said:

It does make me laugh when even the most mundane of saves by women goalkeepers are described as if  a mixture of Alisson and Courtois at their finest.......women goalkeepers have most definitely improved markedly.........but still looks a weakness in women's football. IMHO.   But i am certain it will continue to improve.

Goal sizes are designed for male player dimensions. Females tend to be shorter and have less explosivity when it comes to jumping. That means that female keepers generally need to play closer to their line in order to avoid being caught out by a lobbed shot.

This can make them look less dominant than their male equivalent and also means that there are shots that a man would reach, that a woman will not.

Also:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/07/19/womens-euros-2022-goalkeeping-goals-sexism/

Yes - religion.

And looking at your murdering raping paedophilic worshiping one - I'm bloody glad.

 

Funny thing is  - when pretty much everyone on this forum is challenging you to defend the atrocities of Muslims - you can't.

 

Because there is no defence.

 

I find it impossible to believe that with your extensive alleged work history, and your plethora of supposed qualifications, you believe all this bollox.

 

You have been challenged by multiple posters. Defend the rapes, paedophilia, child-abductions and murders carried out under the instruction of the highest legal authorities in most Muslim countries.

 

You don't , and prefer to call them all "backward".

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Brunei - all backward peoples?

 

I'd be called a racist if I said that.

 

Debate all this with your alleged African wife, or ask the middle class Indian Muslim neighbour you supposedly have, and get back to us.

Or call up your ex-army chums.

I'm sure a white lefty middle class wet liberal like you will fill us in on how we are all missing the "peace" from the Religion of hate.

 

Pretty much the whole forum has called you out. Over to you Dhimmi. Davros.

This kind of abuse of another person is disgusting.

SX225 - you should be ashamed of yourself. This is simply vile. You are abusing an actual person here.

I am reporting this post .

Can you justify this comment please.

If I called you "backward", would you find it complimentary?

Some is, just like some meat is stunned in normal abattoirs, many abattoirs regularly mistreat animals.  

 

What  if Religion offends me and I do not want to eat Blessed meat?  Serious question.

Then why would you worry about which imaginary deity has been invoked before your meat was killed? Serious question.

It would be very difficult to live in this country (or most western societies) and be offended by Christmas presents, Easter eggs and St George's day.

no more insulting than getting killed for leaving it though eh? Heaven forbid become a Christian!    In the circumstances I think Backwards is quite generous!

I'm not defending religion. I'd like to see a debate about the humane slaughter of our meat without resorting to name-calling.

_{Most modern factory farming methods are disgusting. I don't like halal, I don't like kosher, I don't like battery farming either.}

 

_{I think it is a positive thing that people are starting to reject the dominance of halal meat. Liberal left types should be calling for a total ban on non-stunned animal slaughter - not pandering to some backward religion.}

What you said is offensive. Calling someone's religion "backward" is insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude and simply dislike animal cruelty. You may consider all religions to be out dated in a modern society, but the way you have phrased your post is not making that point.

This arguement that if you don't want halal then you are racist is nonsense.

 

If you think all animals deserve the same humane treatment then you will logically come to the conclusion that halal is unacceptable.

I agree that the welfare of the animals that produce our meat is very important. Killing a living creature is something that needs to be done as humanely as possible. However, there is not a huge difference between halal slaughter and the standard method of killing a chicken.

RSPCA factfile

I believe that a large number of people do not care about the animal welfare at all. Many people choose to be outraged by halal slaughter simply because it is Muslim. The lack of discussion of Shechita slaughter tells it's own story.

The key here is choice, if there really was choice, there would be two preparation areas.  

 

Likewise  at supermarkets, there should be Halal Counters and standard meat counters.  What we have here is a lot of meat products not being marked as  Halal (why hide the fact?  because many many would probably not buy the product if they knew!), the reason in all likelihood, because it is too expensive to install separate service and product areas, so many people get what they are given, and there is no choice.  It is so much easier to get Halal meat, then sell a section as Halal meat, knowing full well you don't have to worry about cross contamination as it is all Halal meat.  Choice it is not!

It is the retailer's choice in this case, not the customers'. The retailer's have chosen, where they think it will enable them to make more money, to sell a halal menu.

What has the EDL got to do with 3% of the population bigging it up over the other 97%?

Don't eat Pork? - piss off to somewhere that doesn't serve it. Like a Muslim restaurant or shop - pretty simple

I think you have it backwards. The Subway shops have chosen to introduce a halal menu because there is a demand* for it in the area. This means that the shops feel that they will make more money by having this menu. You could argue that this is freedom of choice, and it is a cornerstone of the British way of life.

*Demand in this case is an economics term, as in supply and demand.

I agree with you. Many people dislike it because of it's Muslim background rather than what happens to the animal.

Having witnessed a halal slaughter in Egypt. No stun involved.. That was my mind made up.

I've seen it in Turkey. A cow hanging from its leg, bleeding into the gutter. I don't think that there is much difference between the well cared for meat that is halal and non-halal in the UK. Most halal meat is stunned before it is stuck. Our ordinary meat is also stunned and then stuck, mostly using the same processes (the exception being the bolt to the brain used on some larger animals).

By the way, KFC are doing a halal trial, and Nando's also has halal shops.

No I didn't. But. Then I don't use domino's. Do they publicise it Widely? As i have never seen one of their adverts saying now with only halal chicken. That said I have just googled this and it seems if people are buying domino's pizza because it is halal, are in for a shock as it seems young kids they employ regularly cross contaminate the meat as they don't wash their hands. So a few pizza lovers maybe going to hell and they don't even realise it!

Personally i don't think halal should be forced upon you, there must be choice or you end up pandering to a minority. Time business used both types of meat. I would not eat halal meat if I knew it was halal. I don't like the way the animal dies. I am fully aware that many slaughterhouses badly abuse our meat products. But many don't. I can only hope I am getting meat from one that stuns properly. What I won't do is choose meat which I know has been slaughtered in such a way. So as much as it may seem hypocritical' it is a choice I make.

I'm not sure if some people who are complaining about halal meat are aware of how non-halal meat is slaughtered.

RSPCA Animal Slaughtering Factfile

RSPCA Religious Slaughter Factfile

I'm with you on the need for a humane method of slaughter for our meat. Nearly 90% of halal meat is stunned before slaughter and the RSPCA continue to campaign to improve this figure.

However, I firmly believe that the great majority of people who are offended by the existence of halal foods in the UK have little interest in the welfare of the animals.

There are over 1750 Subway shops in the UK. Only 185 have chosen to serve a halal only menu.

Did you know Domino's only offers halal chicken.

Does it matter?

I think so, had loads of athletes doing it.

 

Reckon I should go in and ask for a BLT my way

I think you'll be okay. It's only 2 shops in Bristol that have gone halal (Montague St and Stapleton Rd).

It was also Subways years ago, probably before it arrived in the UK, but it is a well known slogan that has stuck with the brand.

 

Edit

 

and here is a slogan they were running in the UK not that long ago, not your but my, all the same thing really, which they have now gone and undermined

 

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/05/01/subway-introduces-my-sub-my-way-strapline-part-new-2m-advertising-campaign

Oh yeah....forgot that. Olympics branding wasn't it

You are quite correct, it was their old slogan, but I guess slogans stick, so best stick to what the advertising man is selling you

If we are being pedantic, the previous slogan used by Subway it the UK was "the way a sandwich should be", which was used until 2000.

"Your burger, your way", was a Burger King slogan.

I think you must mean at a depreciated rate. Introducing it at a devalued rate, 'with respect to a foreign reference currency', by your definition, would mean Christmas come early for speculators.

Its not my definition. It is the definition used throughout economics. This is taken from the New York Federal Reserve:

• Under a fixed exchange rate system, devaluation and revaluation are official changes in the value of a country's currency relative to other currencies. Under a floating exchange rate system, market forces generate changes in the value of the currency, known as currency depreciation or appreciation.

• In a fixed exchange rate system, both devaluation and revaluation can be conducted by policymakers, usually motivated by market pressures.

• The charter of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) directs policymakers to avoid "manipulating exchange rates...to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members.

So in leaving the Euro, the government would have to set the new initial exchange rate - probably at a lower rate - which would make it a devaluation.

To be fair, many people, even up to A-level, use the terms currency depreciation and devaluation synonymously.

''A rose by any other name.....''

 

Ok so it was revalued in a downwards direction and we were fully aware of the consequenses of the action of withdrawal. It was a de facto devaluation ''with respect to a foreign reference currency''...actually lots and lots and lots of them.

I believe the difference is significant. The government (or the Bank of England) didn't set the value of the pound - it was set by the market.

.....you've fallen for the EU political propaganda hook, line and sinker. Here's a short and concise explanation as to the problems in Greece, as Nigel Farage rightly states, it's politicians and banksters versus ordinary people......

 

Propaganda...

You do realise you have posted news piece from Russia Today?

Hello Mr Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11873

 

Any thoughts on this?

You are choosing to quote an article in the American Free Press.

Really?

This is a website and newspaper that carries holocaust denial stories and 9/11 conspiracy stories as if it is real news. And, by the way, the Jews killed JFK.

It is hateful.

Bristol Rovers' move to Frenchay hit by judicial review warning

This report (posted today) says that the council is aware that someone is considering lodging an application for a judicial review, but that they have not done so yet.

I wonder if there is any truth in the rumour that the person involved is based in the Channel Islands?