All Matches Postponed Until At Least 12/9/22

[Monkeh]

59 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Does this mean our football body doesn’t trust it’s fans?  Backlash incoming if so!

There is still racist chanting and crowd trouble quite regularly I think they have a point where they don't trust football fans, mainly due to a minority of ********

[Betty Swallocks]

9 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

There is still racist chanting and crowd trouble quite regularly I think they have a point where they don't trust football fans, mainly due to a minority of ********

It’s all bollocks, the FA, PL & EFL are trying to shift the blame for there almighty cock up on to the supporters. As a football supporter that should annoy you. 
 

What crowd disturbances were they expecting at my step daughters under 8’s game tomorrow? 

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

There is still racist chanting and crowd trouble quite regularly I think they have a point where they don't trust football fans, mainly due to a minority of ********

 

Controversially, I think football fans - with their pantheon of black and mixed-race heroes - are less likely to be racist than many non-fans.

Not always the case, of course, but I think the isolated incidents of racist language you might hear at football are treated as unacceptable by the vast majority of the crowd, as they are by clubs.

I am talking about football in the UK, of course: There are more backward areas when it comes to this behaviour.

[Portland Bill]

21 hours ago, man in the middle said:

Totally agree I was hoping to pay my respects by having a minute’s silence and singing the National anthem but instead I’ll probably be doing some DIY? 

Exactly, and all these grass-root teams who are now meeting in the pub, instead of having a minutes silence and respecting the queen, will be going on a massive all day drinking session.
The FA are out of touch, pandering to a few right wing journalists who not content with telling the country lie after lie, would have attempted to say the football authorities haven’t shown respect. 
They should have grown a pair, ignored these hate stirrers, and let football fans show their respect throughout the country.

[East Londoner]

2 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

There is no public clamour whatsoever for what you suggest.

Ironically, as they have lost the best of the best, it appears to me from the public mood that if anything the monarchy is only likely to be strengthened by the death of our beloved Queen.

Renewed and reinvigorated by her son who is looking increasingly like he's matured in to a chip off the old block.

God save the King.

It’s a bit difficult to accurately gage anything when no descent is allowed on the mainstream media. 

I know twitter brings out the worst of a lot of people and it’s easy to be a keyboard warrior but there is plenty of descent to be found there whether that could be called a public clamour or not I’m not sure 

Incidentally there’s a video of Liz Truss doing the rounds on there when as a Lib Dem she was denouncing the idea of a hereditary monarchy and now here she is trying to proclaim herself as mourner in chief 
 

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Incidentally there’s a video of Liz Truss doing the rounds on there when as a Lib Dem she was denouncing the idea of a hereditary monarchy and now here she is trying to proclaim herself as mourner in chief 

Many people say misguided things in their youth that they come to regret when older.

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, robin for life said:

Providing people followed protocol.

By reading this thread and the levels of anti monarchy, it's no wonder the FA did not trust the fans.

Not so much this thread but social media in general people defending the idea of having a monarchy have been more abusive. The favourite one being ‘go live somewhere else then’ to anyone who dares question whether a system of hereditary monarchy is in keeping with 21st century society 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Edgy Red said:

I certainly wasn't calling for a full UK shutdown Mr P... infact quite the opposite.

I was responding to a post regarding British Identity, and made the point that this has eroded beyond repair over the previous few decades and the love for the Royal family is part of this. I won't get all political and start discussing the reasons for this erosion on a football forum, but i'm sure everyone has their own thoughts.

If a similar figure had passed away in many other countries around the world, then i'm sure it would have been handled very differently, but the way the UK has dealt with it purely reflects where we are at, and the lack of "Britishness" that now exists (rightly or wrongly)

Tbh Edgy I misunderstood your point probably and apologies for that, the slightly angry response too. Part of it also thinking after the visceral response to any kind of lengthy attempt to impose post Covid.

Yeah perhaps not the place but I do think they are less revered than they once were, not including the Queen who has great respect across the board IMO..

I dunno, depends which countries doesn't it? I saw a similar point on social media, was wondering when I saw it. Are we talking Western European democracies, parts of Asia, Africa?

Certainly I could see it in parts of Asia or Africa, unsure about Europe in the 21st century- okay yes in a sense we are separate to Europe being an island but closer to that than Africa or Asia.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[pl00peh91]

Assuming the funeral happens on Monday 19th September, do people think the mid-week games and next Saturday’s games will be going ahead?

[Sheltons Army]

3 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

While I take your point that kids sport being cancelled seems OTT, does all kids sport these days have to be organised?

Is there anything to stop them getting the vital socialisation and interaction you speak of by going down the park with their pals for a kickabout like I used to just about every day in the school holidays?

Another way of looking at it is a short pause in their normal routine gives them an opportunity to take in and at least begin to understand the enormity of the current events in their country - the death of the Queen is an historic landmark event they will remember for the rest of their lives - which could be argued is a good thing.

As they watch events unfold, culminating in the Queen's state funeral, they'll be absorbed in momentous scenes they'll no doubt remember in the same way I still remember Churchill's state funeral (just about) and the moon landings in my own Primary School days, and, inbetween, there's nothing to stop them meeting up with their friends to play football or anything else.

 

 

Blimey Nogs , you must have had a top primary school

When the tele got wheeled into class , we all got excited , only to see a grainy recording of the Green Cross Code or a safety film 

 

[Super]

6 minutes ago, pl00peh91 said:

Assuming the funeral happens on Monday 19th September, do people think the mid-week games and next Saturday’s games will be going ahead?

Yes. Maybe London games might be affected.

[pl00peh91]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Yes. Maybe London games might be affected.

Silver lining is that there probably won’t be any rail strikes to affect the Burnley away game then 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Not so much this thread but social media in general people defending the idea of having a monarchy have been more abusive. The favourite one being ‘go live somewhere else then’ to anyone who dares question whether a system of hereditary monarchy is in keeping with 21st century society 

Saw an interesting poll the other day, albeit briefly not checked veracity or if it an outlier so treat with caution.

However public consent for thecurrent system about 60 pct whereas a decade ago it was listed as 75 pct. Granted the 40% was split between indifference and desire for change.

[Port Said Red]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw an interesting poll the other day, albeit briefly not checked veracity or if it an outlier so treat with caution.

However public consent for thecurrent system about 60 pct whereas a decade ago it was listed as 75 pct. Granted the 40% was split between indifference and desire for change.

As I said earlier in this thread, there was definitely a period around Diana's death where you would have had a good chance of getting a high figure against the monarchy. People seem to have forgotten how Charles was public enemy No1 and his mother was portrayed as emotionless and out of touch.

[Tinmans Love Child]

Apologies if already posted but although a great gesture by Man City, as discussed earlier in this thread, there is a bigger impact of the cancellations at a time when most people can I’ll afford the impact and clubs shouldn’t have to cough up on behalf of a decision by the EFL which didn’t have to happen.  The EFL should compensate any club following suit

[Lanterne Rouge]

Sky are already plugging the EFL midweek games in the breaks in the cricket coverage. 

[Sir Colby-Tit]

I'm very much anti-monarchy, I simply can't accept that anyone should be considered "superior" to anyone else based on their bloodline.

I haven't watched any terrestrial TV or looked at any news at all since she passed.

However, I've just found out that my stepson has been selected to be part of the gun carriage carrying the coffin, and my Mrs has made it clear that I WILL be watching the funeral!

 

[Hamdon Mart]

Just in case you missed the start of the cricket at The Oval, here it is courtesy of the Barmy Army's Twitter feed....

https://twitter.com/TheBarmyArmy/status/1568544470131425280

[Dr Balls]

4 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Queen Elizabeth II: Macmillan cancer charity walks cancelled - BBC News

Not football obviously but this seems like a ridiculous decision to me.

Even more ridiculous when you consider that 20,000+ Geordies are still going on their mass organised run tomorrow:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/62809442

And particularly baffling as many on the Great North Run will be running for charity, including McMillan.

[Sleepy1968]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Does this mean our football body doesn’t trust it’s fans?  Backlash incoming if so!

The feelings mutual then.

[McNasty Filth]

8 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile.

That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered.

As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is.  A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. 

Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world.  Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. 

A very well put argument, best on the thread.

I'm defo in the anti-monarchy crowd, but open to debate and you sir sound like a very well balanced human being. Your parents should be proud.

I doff my cap to you, or should that be 'I doff my crown to you'.

[East Londoner]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw an interesting poll the other day, albeit briefly not checked veracity or if it an outlier so treat with caution.

However public consent for thecurrent system about 60 pct whereas a decade ago it was listed as 75 pct. Granted the 40% was split between indifference and desire for change.

Thought this was interesting as didn’t realise it was quite so many. Can only assume the majority full into the don’t care category 

 

[pongo88]

The most ridiculous of all - the Met Office said it would be scaling back its weather forecasts during the time of national mourning! 

[Denbury Red]

1 hour ago, Hamdon Mart said:

Just in case you missed the start of the cricket at The Oval, here it is courtesy of the Barmy Army's Twitter feed....

https://twitter.com/TheBarmyArmy/status/1568544470131425280

That was superbly done and the crowd were impeccable - shame that football didn't get the chance to do the same.

[phantom]

2 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Sky are already plugging the EFL midweek games in the breaks in the cricket coverage. 

Midweek games ARE ON as long as local police forces have the required numbers 

[pillred]

1 hour ago, Denbury Red said:

That was superbly done and the crowd were impeccable - shame that football didn't get the chance to do the same.

Apparently, there was quite a lot of booing at the Hearts and Arsenal (not sure whether it was the Swiss fans) Thurs games during the minutes silence, so perhaps they were worried it would be repeated elsewhere.

Edited September 10, 2022 by pillred
Opinion

[The Gasbuster]

9 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile.

That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered.

As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is.  A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. 

Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world.  Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. 

Excellent post

[Northern Red]

Funeral now confirmed as Monday 19th September. 

[Sheltons Army]

5 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Funeral now confirmed as Monday 19th September. 

Do you know if it’s on the red button NR ?

[red panda]

10 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I think you'll find the main justification for 'Monarchy' these past 3 centuries is it appears to deliver constitutional and political stability it, after all, meaning 'the rule of the many by the one for the purpose of good'. Look at the remaining 46 monarchies around the globe and they tend to be decent, peaceful and prosperous places to reside. When monarchies fall they're invariably replaced by President Republics or Confederations. A quick scan of the major Presidencies of late doesn't exactly promote the concept: Trump , Biden, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Bolsanaro, Kim Jong-un, Salih, al-Assad, Maduro. Add in just about any African nation, ex-Soviet state and central American dictatorship, consider security, conflict, economic stability and personal liberty and monarchy wins out by a mile.

That's not to say the present form of the UK Royal Family should remain, rather their very function within the constitution should be preserved and for good reason, it provides an essential buffer to political extremism and stasis.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if folks bothered to review the Royals funding position rather than fixate on the Privy Purse, as anti-monarchists so love to do, they'll see The Exchequer receives far, far more in revenue from them than is paid back and that's before any 'benefit' to UKPLC's economy is considered.

As for Charles having 'leached out' fortunes from the Duchy of Cornwall (I assume you also include his other income streams,) its worth noting he's cost the taxpayer nothing, has paid all his own costs and voluntarily paid top rate income tax on all surplus (he didn't have to.) As per your suggestion he may subsidise his existence from 'The Duchy' he can't, its no longer his. He will, however, and as with ERII, more than pay his own way given all that he has inherited by way of income streams is paid to The Exchequer. But when I say 'he has inherited' I really should have said 'the function has inhetited,' for that's what it is.  A functional, not personal, existence. The accounts are public record. 

Presidents BTW, do not come cheap. Amazing how many have PERSONALLY become the richest people in the world.  Unlike monarchs that wealth doesn't transfer to the next in line, preserved ultimately for a nation's benefit. It sits in personal bank accounts around the globe. 

Lots of people seem to have been agreeing, so I'll take up the challenge.  Just to put my cards on the table, I am not in any way anti-royal.  They bring a lot of pleasure to many people in the country, they are great for tourism, and they are mostly harmless.  I was surprised myself how sad I felt on Thursday.

However ... I'm sorry but your argument doesn't stack up.  You've cherry picked a few examples of bad presidents, but that doesn't prove a thing.  Nothing personal, but I'm amazed you put forward these arguments in the very week that a new UK PM has been sworn in, elected by a few thousand totally unrepresentative morons and not even the first choice of her own MPs, and she looks likely to introduce new policies that are quite different from the manifesto on which the current government was elected.  Do you really think that's a good system.  I certainly don't.