IAmNick

89, somehow!

Thanks for the examples, I didn't know of either. Unfortunately unverifiable and adding more anecdotal evidence onto the pile does nothing to strengthen that however. I find it odd that a group of senior military leaders content with overthrowing the government were accepting of being talked down by the Queen Mother, who then just told the PM to sort himself out a bit. Hmm. The Hitler example is interesting, but I don't think it's the best example for you to bring up here which implies to me you're struggling a little to back up your words with anything concrete: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute “We know that after ’45 there was a big cleanup operation,” Urbach said. “The royals were very worried about correspondence resurfacing and so it was destroyed.” Historian Alex von Tunzelmann suggested on Twitter that the lack of access to the royal archives for historians and the public “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public”. Protecting our democratic values and stability indeed. Probably getting into politics forum territory, but I also wasn't asked to be governed by anyone in our current cabinet as far as I'm aware...? I hear the "they can veto UK legislation" line a lot, but when we get down to fundamental reasons why, or how often it actually happens to our detriment, people are rarely so forthcoming. I am concerned by almost everything our current government does. It's a fair point that I made and one you've completely skirted rather than answering, because you have no answer. I'm not talking about reparations. I simply think it's dishonest to point at countries around the world as examples of states in turmoil with the implication it's because they are lacking a monarchy, when we (while BEING a monarchy) had a large hand in their current turmoil. I'd include a fair portion of Africa and the Middle East in there which are both in your list of examples. You are happy to point at (sort of) examples from the past of where the monarchy has been a force for good, but if we bring up where it has presided over awful suffering (such as the famine, starvation, and misery you mention in fact!) then that's summarily dismissed. Either you accept it into the discussion, or you day-zero it as you've said. Which is it?

Away fixture in the politics forum is bloody tough to get a decent result in, if Dave can manage that he totally deserves the title tbh (yes I got the reference btw)

It sounded like queen, I presumed as some kind of tribute, but I live getting on for a km away so it wasn't easy to hear the individual words! I recommend posting shitty goal videos to farm reputation

I only liked this to give you more because I felt sorry for you Just wait until people discover the leaderboard: https://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?/topmembers/

It's a well written post (which is why I suspect so many liked it) but I almost entirely disagree. Correlation does not equal causation. Do you have any examples from this past 50-100 years or so, let's say, of our monarchy delivering constitutional or political stability? We don't seem very constitutionally or politically stable currently. This is a genuine question by the way. What impact do you think they have had on our security, conflicts, economic stability, or personal liberty in recent history? I can think of large impacts on all of them from illegal wars we've entered, to recessions, and current plans to leave the court of European Court of Human Rights. If they haven't had any impact on events such as these, then what are they impacting exactly? If we have a recent prime minister who has broken the law while in office and they do nothing, for example, then how are they increasing any of the aspects you mention above? Oh, and half of the African states (and the others too!) you probably mean were/are in turmoil in part due to OUR influence while a monarchy in their recent history. It's an utterly laughable argument. We subjugate a nation under imperialist ambitions, screw it up beyond belief, they kick us out, for you to then point at them and go "Ah, no monarchy eh! No wonder you're in a mess!" Are you including their wealth of almost £30 billion in this, or is it just a simple money in / out? How about how they historically earnt the majority of that on the backs of incredible suffering of normal people like you and I around the world for many years, should that factor in or just be forgotten? Genuine question - can you give any examples of the monarch being held to account by the privy council recently?

In the garden and can hear GSTQ ringing out from Ashton gate. What a shame it wasn't coming from city fans!

People are trying to do their best I agree, in a system that isn't fair and doesn't reward them appropriately. In 2017 (so before COVID etc.) The welfare budget was £264 billion. Of that, £2.2 billion went for jobseekers allowance, so less than 1%. Is that a lot of money? Sure - But I think your anger is misplaced. The Tories gave dodgy COVID contracts out to their mates worth many more times than that for example. It's an incredibly small minority who'd choose to struggle on the dole (and it is a struggle). In my opinion the solution is to improve working conditions, and give people help, support, and a route to work if they're able. Not to just abandon them and leave them even further behind. They aren't hurting you.

I agree with your post in part, but what's this got to do with postponing a game of football tomorrow?

There will be a few thousand people getting drunk out their heads down the waterfront, love island (or whatever) on TV, and Rugby on at Ashton Gate. It's just another day. Why the football can't be played tomorrow I still don't really understand.

Sure but it's not that simple is it. Food and drink will have been bought, preparations already started. Loads of staff no doubt on crap or zero hours contracts with work cancelled when they probably need the money pretty badly right now. Fans who have made travel arrangements, booked hotels or insanely expensive train tickets. Swapped dates at work. It's not just a switch you can flick on or off.

Surprise all these deep mourners are spending any time in this 12 day period posting endlessly on a football forum. Surely more important things for them to think about, and this is no doubt taking away precious grieving time from them - maybe that's why they're glad to had 2 hours back tomorrow afternoon to make up for it?

Er, is the self entitlement not actually from the ones expecting the country to grind to a halt so they can mourn? Many of us feel some sadness because someone has died, but want life to continue. It's bizarre that to you that means people would be worse in a war?! What an odd equivalence to make. Pretty sure there's a fair amount of death in a war and you just have to get on with it. Bizarre post!

Why shouldn't they have to work? I'm having to work today, and so is everybody else.

Wait, I thought football was meant to be people's escape from the reality of the world and should be kept separate from things like this?

Lots of clear ones here if that's what he's after: https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/ashton-gate-erupts-for-euro-2016-england-game/

Yeah you're spot on in your first line, I have nothing against him personally and it's broadly not his fault for living in the system we have, although how much you choose to exploit that is another question. It does make it hard for me to care when he gets more than most of us will earn in a lifetime (or ten lifetimes) wiped off his net worth though. I think personally it's an intentionally perpetuated lie though that you benefit the rewards from how hard you work - many people work incredibly hard and barely benefit, while others benefit hugely from other people's hard work. If people believe it's just hard work to get to the top rather than the system being broken then that benefits those in the system. The fact is though we all have to exist together somehow, so short of going to live in a hole on Dartmoor (or at the Mem) eating mud we all participate in these systems, and that shouldn't preclude us from criticising them or wanting them to change. I think we can and should strive as a society to do better regardless of what other countries are doing (i.e. not just try to be the 2nd worst) and a huge part of that will be to tackle this wealth inequality somehow. I'm not quite going to go all "The workers must seize the means of production!" but there will be a shift one day, hopefully to a middle ground that's fairer for us all. People shouldn't have to put up with this. Great change has been made in the past to pull people out of deeply unfair systems, there's no reason it can't or won't happen again. The real question is what's more likely to happen first - Steve L somehow funding us into the premier league, or social turmoil and the evolution of a complete system change? Of course, and broadly it's those who have most to lose from the system changing (i.e. those at the top) who ensure that things stay the same or enable them even more, because they're the ones with the power to do so. It's not his individual responsibility no, and he probably is inspirational to many! There's nothing wrong with that. I don't find it inspirational, because it perpetuates the myth that it's just hard work to get to the top. Examples of wealth inequality don't inspire me at all. Are you a billionaire? Do you not work hard? What about your friends/family? Hmm. As I said above, it's the system I disagree with - and that's why I find it hard to care when some tens of millions are wiped off his net worth.

He has worked extremely hard, and I applaud him for that. He has every right to do so and become very wealthy as he has. I completely support that. I don't support people owning such an incredible amount of wealth when others in this country are starving or unable to heat their homes. I think that's morally wrong. I support people being rich and others having the ability to become rich through hard work (and a lot of luck), I don't support some people having more wealth than thousands and thousands of others combined who work extremely hard but chose to teach children, nurse injured people, or drive a bus instead of get into financial services (or whatever). It's not the fact he's rich, it's how rich some people are in comparison to others. That's what I think is obscene and depraved! I don't think some people realise quite how big of a number a billion is.

I have a decent amount of respect for the man, and am not as anti-Lansdown as some here - when it comes to City anyway. I think he's misguided but his heart is mostly in the right place when it comes to City. The fact I morally disagree with the existence of billionaires in our society is another matter however!

Yes of course - and as I said, I'm sure the man has more than enough money to continue wasting as much as he desires on City due to FFP, without these few tens of millions troubling him! It's not like he'll be struggling to drum up the cash to fund our losses if he wants to continue doing so (and thank god he does). The amount he can invest is capped by FFP, not his bank balance. Who'd lose sleep over a few tens of millions anyway, eh?

I know these aren't you words but oh please. Cry me a bloody river. Millions around the country seriously worrying about being able to heat their homes this winter and we're meant to give two shits about a billionaire with a few tens of millions wiped off his net worth? It's already an obscene and depraved amount of wealth for anyone to have. It's not like he can even invest it all in City if he wanted due to FFP. I personally could not care less about the H&L share price.

Not sure I really agree with you about sorting our second half out - the sample size is way too small. For example on that link: West Brom are 21st 1st half, 1st 2nd. Milwall are 23rd 1st, 4th 2nd. Watford are 5th and 17th. Huddersfield are 8th and 22nd. Does that make our 1st and 13th seem so bad? That seems within expected margins to me given it's only been a handful of game so far. I don't think we can keep the intensity up for 90m with the people we start with, so we have to make changes - especially when people like Scott are on a yellow. With our squad size we also don't have the luxury to make the perfect tactical or like for like change. It's only natural, especially away from home, that the opposition will attack more as the games goes on if they're behind - Are you taking into account that not only are we changing shape, but if the opposition are losing as it passes 60/70m they will be making attacking substitutions... we can't just keep blindly playing the same way we have all game no matter what they do, that's incredibly naive. I'd argue by and large what we're doing is working so far. Like when Pring (wasn't it?) last season went for goal right rather than the corner at the end of the game, lost the ball, and they scored? You have to play what's in front of you - and if you're winning as the clock runs down adapt accordingly. I get the point people are making in general but I think it's a) looking at a small sample size of games, and b) ignoring what the opposition are trying to do. If they're piling on attacking subs or formation changes and we're not reacting that's a recipe for disaster. In my opinion most opposition managers, when we're 3 - 1 up, would happily take a 50/50 shot at either side scoring... that's a much better chance for them to potentially get something from the match (3-2 or 4-1) than for us! And continuing what we've been doing all game blindly is going to play into that.

Blackburn goal: https://streamja.com/62NkN

City goal (Wells): https://streamja.com/V0O9R

Blackburn goal: https://streamja.com/Av1qr