TheReds

A mate of mine refuses to go the Gate for anything. He wouldn't watch a gig down there so travelled to London and paid for taxis, train and hotel to watch the same band. He even refused to book his vaccine down there, even though he was bricking it about catching the virus, and couldn't get in elsewhere. Bizarre, but there will be a fair few like him.

So what is the threshold? In the game that got abandoned the fans got the person, so it looks cut and dried. What happens if a player goes to the ref and says he heard something, but nobody else has, and nobody in the crowd has. Should the players word be the final word, and they all walk off and game abandoned? Surely there has to be some sort of proof, ie others have heard it as well. Quite easy to hear something that hasn't actually been said. The huge amount (and I mean nearly 100%) of fans won't stand for it anymore so some will easily point out who it was if something racial was said.

Maybe he bases on his own bigotry, something what he was accusing others of not so long ago....

I don't know where you live but he is pretty spot on with every Spoons I have seen. I go for a breakfast every few weeks to a spoons with a mate (living the dream I am), and it is the same faces at 9-10am every single time, drinking and going out smoking with a few scooters left outside.

@Galley is our king unsure why you seemed to have missed my reply to you. Seriously - what do you expect my old man to do? It seems you want him to stay in as he's vulnerable because @LoyalRedthinks he should make his own choice which is some sort of disgraceful thing to say, but you are now saying that every vulnerable or elderly person would need to hide away from society and that's unfair. Are you saying it's unfair for people to stay in, but unfair for them to make a choice to go out?

You've lost me. He has asked for the full facts, and said it is up to the vulnerable if they want to continue mix. What is wrong with that? Should I tell my old man who is triple jabbed not to go to the City game or any other football match, not go to the shops, not go to the pub and not go to the bookies for his Saturday bet, and whatever he does don't chat to friends and family? Shouldn't that be his choice?

Where has he said lock them away? Seems you are reading stuff that he hasn't even wrote. He has just asked for transparency/full facts in the data, what is wrong with that.

I would imagine that if we had total transparency then it would easily upset too many people as it wouldn't suit their stance, after being fed the sh1te for nearly 2 years. Even though we all know that the ones in control are being disingenuous when they bring out their graphs and spout their stats, as it suits their decisions better. Pretty simple to add why someone went into hospital in the first place, Covid symptoms or not, tick a box and job done. How many had stayover BECAUSE of Covid and not WITH Covid. Seriously simple stuff to record and feed the public. The same people won't expect the first Omicron death to be questioned either, even though we seem to be weeks behind SA who hasn't recorded one. It surely isn't a coincidence now more people are questioning the restrictions where all know data tells many it is an overreaction.

Surely one major bit of data is how many people are admitted to hospital because they have Covid, and need to stayover x amount of days/nights because they are that ill? I wonder what this first person who died 'with' Omicron was admitted for, I am sure if it was Omicron it would have been stated to add some more fear into the population.

Agree with that - and I have had my first two jabs as well. My issue was when anyone questioned anything that they could see happening in the future with the first restrictions they basically got ridiculed by the mob. The amount of times I have read about not to go down the argument of the "slippery slope", as any suggestions was automatically a "conspiracy theory". It seems more and more of these "conspiracy theories" keep coming true. We are now at a point when lockdown talk just seems "normal" conversation, showing vaccine passports and wearing a mask is simply "nothing", even though there doesn't seem to be any evidence what they are achieving by it. After all of the Xmas party stuff and the cover up by actual so called journalists who knew what happened, then I basically called it a day with the lot of it, and the media in general. They seem to want to push one agenda and one agenda only, have no debate or have anyone with a different view, and anyone with a different view simply gets called all sorts of names. This new panic and fearmongering is ridiculous, and I for one have gone past caring. Still at least all the data and figures are nice and transparent.

I agree nothing will change as the measures are just ridiculous. Seems to just be a ploy to get more people jabbed to me. Passports are pointless as people will still be entering venues with Covid and passing it on, and masks do eff all imo., if they did they would never have been taken off the table and put back in as a half way measure now - it is plainly obvious even the advisers can't think they do anything. I have just been shopping and plenty walking around without wearing one.

And only 25% vaccinated, where as we are at 70%+ which should be making a huge difference as well.

Bloke on news just reported that in South Africa the case fatality rate was 1 in 33 with Delta and Omicron is currently 1 in 200 so far, so 6 times less - small sample numbers though. Also have to take into account that only 25% in South Africa are vaccinated. Our people in charge may well be right, but everything suggests they are massively overreacting at the moment. And now we have Sajid Javid saying "we are not like South Africa".

Surely it will depend on how ill people get with Omicron? What evidence is there that there will be a lockdown as it currently stands - that will just kick the can down the road and ruin more peoples livelihoods, mental health, economy, education, longterm future of everyone. Or if the numbers are low as South Africa seem to be predicting then the people in charge will say it is ALL down to the booster, it won't be down to the variant being mild. That's a guarantee.

Is that until we all need the 4th jab for super duper protection.

You won't have any details of any individual though? I think the basic hospitalisation data should be public. How many are going to hospital because of Covid, and how many are severely ill and have to stay in for x amount of days. I read a few weeks ago regarding the 900 average per day being hospitalised that only 300 were staying overnight. That should be known to the public. Also how many of the hospitalised are unvaccinated but cannot be vaccinated due to their health.

How do you know he isn't following the Science? Or is it only "your" Science that counts? There are hundreds of Scientists out there with different views on multiple parts of Covid and restrictions, are they all right because they "follow the Science"? The Science tells me that 20 thousand people in a stadium who are all double jabbed showing a vaccine passport means nothing, there will be people carrying the virus into the stadium and no doubt passing it on to other double jabbed people who in turn go and mix with other people when they leave, go to pubs, go on public transport, go back home etc etc. Why not have every person show a negative test instead? That is me following the Science - please tell me where I am wrong.

So you cannot even answer why such a moron is wrong, and why you are right? That says more about you than the poster who believes him, shows how you cannot even open up and listen to any other point of view whatsoever, purely because of who it is saying it, unless it is Boris and his people.

No, not really. What has he said "in this instance" that is incorrect and why is he wrong in what he is saying? If people are believing what he has said is true and correct in their opinion, then simply counter their argument of why he is in the wrong believing him, rather than just have a pop at the poster on here for believing him in the first place. What he has done previously is just a very poor excuse not to counter his view on this, if he is sensationalising this then tell us why. Unless you actually think he is right, or has a valid point but cannot bring yourself to admit it?

Why do you simply dismiss a viewpoint (and with expletives) just because you don't like the person? Why not counter what he has actually stated and make him look stupid with why he is wrong iyo? Most people who are dishing out advice and rules are not the Worlds greatest minds either (many on here) - it doesn't mean they are wrong though.

He did say they were against any form of violence, if that's the case how the hell did he appoint Barton in the first place? I think if he gets found guilty here Al Quidi will be under pressure to get rid. "Firstly, I think it is really important to confirm that as a club we stand firmly against any form of violence. Any individual that is found guilty of any such offences will be dismissed immediately. I understand the concerns expressed by a number of you.

First thing I thought when reading that. That's basically an admission of guilt isn't it.

Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick seemed to walk straight back into football after being released from prison after causing death by dangerous driving.

Didn't he say he never touched him though. The issue he has with "one man and his friends word against Barton" is the fact that he has injuries. Did Stendel just think "I really hate him and want him to get into trouble so I will smash my face into that metal bar". As much as we may want him to be guilty, if this was any City player or staff I would think the same as it looks pretty obvious he has pushed him. Did he want him to smash his face into a metal pole, maybe, maybe not, but he did. Was probably hoping for Stendel to have a go back and then have a row - especially if he thought nobody else was around, ends up getting split up and it's a 50:50 thing and no charges at all and everyone walks their own ways.

Disagree. He has plenty of ability, I will agree he gives the ball away, but at least he is trying to make something happen on many occasions. He has got better at different parts of his game, and if Pearson can see that then that is good enough for me. As for he is "nowhere near James or Williams", who said he was. I reckon Williams and James are big players for us - but how often have they been available? Scott and Benarous are different types of players aren't they.