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.

1 hour ago, EmissionImpossible said:

This should happen every time there is racial abuse. Every time. As for people saying it could be used as an excuse, that makes me sad and says more about them than the situation.

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.

19 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

What do you base that on?

The ability of players to learn new languages and having the confidence to give press interviews in what might be a second or third tongue.

The ability of footballers to have the nouse to employ people to help them maximise their career earning - don't imagine many club owners got to where they are by being thick, so for an average player to extract tens of thousands a week out of them much show some intelligence.

Or maybe the ability to retire from the game and then embark on an entirely new career.

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

4 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Do you want to throw in any more cliches?

 

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?

1 minute ago, Galley is our king said:

So if you do as he suggests and do nothing but are happy for the vulnerable in society to "continue to mix that is their choice" knowing they are likely to catch covid and possibly go to hospital and possibly die, what do you think they will do????

What a wonderful society where we care nothing for these people.

Just as well people like you don't make these decisions

 

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?

8 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

Bloody brilliant!

Let's lock away every elderly/disabled/people with underlying health conditions, after all, should they actually want a life but get covid  it's their fault!

Why? Because you and people like you don't give a rats ass about them obviously.

Do have anyone in your life as described above? 

What about the human rights of the people in the above groups?

People like you make me ******* sick.

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.

13 minutes ago, LoyalRed said:

It would seem very sensible to me to get the full facts.  Most of the population know that Boris will lie about just about anything so surely asking full the full facts is a reasonable query ?  Most of us want to know who is actually effected by this and if those that are in the vulnerable categories choose to continue to mix that is their choice.  

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.

1 minute ago, Harry said:

Agreed Pops. Data is vital to understand risk. 

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.

10 minutes ago, Harry said:

Hi Rob. It’s not about the name or date of birth or whatever that is on the pass. I have no problem with ID in general. 
Hopefully I’ve stated my case quite clearly and openly, but as you ask, I’ll summarise with a copy of a message I sent to another friend last night :

“It’s not the here and now mate. It’s where it’s heading. 
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not an anti vaxxer and all that. I’m completely pro-vaccine. It certainly is a good thing for those that are vulnerable. 
But I started to question it about Feb/March ish. Originally it was for the vulnerable groups, but gradually it started creeping. Then it was gonna be 2. And 3. And more. 
My big issue came when I could see that they were gonna make children have it. I saw that coming back in March mate. 
For me, a 47 year old, the benefit analysis is fair. 
For kids, it’s not. They don’t need it. Just like any drugs/medical procedures, there IS a risk. I’m happy for adults to take that risk/benefit but I don’t believe kids should. This virus doesn’t affect kids and they shouldn’t be expected to take a vaccine they don’t need that ‘could’ harm them. I say ‘could’ because yes it is rare, but it is definitely there. The governments own advice makes clear that heart problems do occur and in children it’s been shown to be more prevalent than in adults. 
Yes, still rare. But still a danger that no one should expect their child to take. 
Right now, as an adult, yes flash your pass, no problem. All easy enough. 
But when you have to get your kids jabbed 3 times to be able to go on holiday, will people think any different? 
So that’s where I’m at mate. It’s all fine now, but I’m thinking further down the line and I’m not participating in anything that might mean the government think we’re all happy to comply with, so they can make it mandatory for our kids to have it as well. 
The kids are my red line. And as they say “it’s the hill I will die on”. 
Already they’ve now reduced it to 12 year olds - so as of next month, if your 12 year old isn’t jabbed, no holiday. Won’t be long til they reduce that to 5 years old. 
Why should 5 year olds be injected with something that has a small chance of severely harming them, to protect them against something with an even smaller chance of harming them? 
That’s why I’m taking my stand and not participating. 
Sorry everyone for the long ramble. And sorry if you disagree. That’s fine. Everyone has to have personal choice, but it shouldn’t come with consequences.”

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. 

5 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

It's better to act quickly and scale back than act slowly (like we did with delta) and thousands of people die.

For once Boris has moved quickly, maybe he's learnt his lessons

We're hardly restricted at the minute, mask weearing (not really happening from what i've seen) and vaccine passports or show a test - most venues were requesting this anyway

Cant actually see plan B doing anything tbh, I dont agree with the vaccine passports and testing requirement as I just cant see it doing much. Easy enough to fake a test unfortunately

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.

3 minutes ago, Selred said:

South Africa have a younger population and are currently in their Summer. We know both play major affects.

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

2 minutes ago, phantom said:

Especially as a Dr from South Africa has spoken on LBC this morning saying they are four weeks ahead of us and they don't see why there is a major panic in the UK etc

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".

36 minutes ago, eardun said:

Hopefully not a lockdown, but clearly it will all depend on how well the boosters perform against Omicron. 

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.

1 minute ago, LoyalRed said:

Apparently the 3rd Booster shot prevents you from likely catching covid or passing it on.

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

2 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

You want all of this information from an Individual available openly to the public, yet at the same time you object in being asked to show a QR code that basically says yes or no (covid passport) ?

Extremely muddled thinking

 

 

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.

2 minutes ago, lenred said:

Oke doke. I’ve given my reasons above but evidently believing in science as opposed to that well renowned genius Bridgen isn’t good enough for you and your pals. Call me names all you want I really couldn’t care less what you think  

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.

Just now, lenred said:

Oh well. 

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.

Just now, lenred said:

I choose to use my personal experience of what he has had to say over the last years to know that he is a sensationalist, populist ‘moron’ (that term better for you?) who will say anything and everything to appeal to his audience and who has helped to screw this country (and the very people he claims to represent) into the ground for at least a generation to come. That ok with you? 

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?

48 minutes ago, lenred said:

The fact that you use that **** Bridgen to back you up tells me all I need to know. Most definitely not one of the worlds greatest minds. 

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. 

55 minutes ago, Gazred said:

When he was charged for the one involving his Mrs, Wael said anyone at the club found guilty of such charges would be dismissed.

Not sure where he stands on assaulting opposition managers.

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.

48 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

That is a pathetically weak line of defence. "He annoyed me".

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

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 You'd think so, but..... Danny Simpson, to name but one of a number of possible examples.

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

56 minutes ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

“So if I was defending I would be saying he tripped or Barton bumped into him. Given there was clearly an issue between them he then took the opportunity of Barton being in tunnel to accuse Barton of assault. Of the witnesses how many are actually independent and how many work for Barnsley and had a close friendship with the accuser ? If they were on the payroll at Barnsley they are hardly impartial. This really does seem a case of one man and his friends word against Barton. Might be different if there are any actual independent witnesses.”

**** me they really are the scum aren’t they. Next they’ll be saying his wife was asking for it 

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.

15 hours ago, Better Red said:

Why?

Clearly a player that won’t get anywhere the first team next season.

League 1 player.

Never put in the effort for this level.

Scored a goal in the week but that’s it.

Gives the ball away to much, never gets a tackle in. Does not track back. Lacks effort.

We have all said it week in week out and that’s because it’s what we see week in week out when he plays.

Score a goal and all of a sudden he’s contract renewed and people are saying he is a half decent player.

Look at Scott and Beneraus as a bench mark - effort, skill, tracking back, tackling… He is no where near them.

Compare him to Williams - No where near him.

Compare to James - No where near him

Reality check please.

Should have been to moving him on in the summer.  

 

 

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.