[Siderite]

Who will play alongside him? Jonjo Shelvey, Luke Chadwick, Eric Djemba Djemba and Bebe?

[Siderite]

Is there any Trump intervention that doesn’t lead to catastrophic failure for the USA? Tariffs, Ukraine talks, Iran and now this. It’s a shame because those here were actually enjoying the USA, but it will now be remembered for them and FIFA being corrupt.

It wasn’t the only reason, but I think this put a lot of pressure on the team, who looked like rabbits in headlights at times.

[Siderite]

Iron Age wrote:

Do we need any more evidence of the corruption of Infantino, FIFA and Trump after the unbanning of the US’s top player?

Trump confirms it now and FIFA have opened a huge can of worms. The attorney general for the UK has opened the door in speaking to FIFA about overturning Quansah’s red card, citing the Trump talk and FIFA response. France have done the same in trying to get Olise’s yellow card overturned from the Paraguay game.

[Siderite]

What a win, what a performance. I get that performances have not been great against Panama and DR of Congo, but we need to give these teams credit. It isn’t the world cup of 30 years ago; these teams are more of a challenge and we aren’t the only ones to have struggled. Germany lost to Paraguay, Spain and Argentina struggled against Cape Verde, Brazil lost to Norway. Ultimately, our quality shone through and Tuchel made the right tactical and strategical decisions against DR of Congo and Mexico. The right substitutions, the right changes of shape and he appears to love the job, which is more than what could have been said for Capello. Southgate was a good man manager, he changed the ethos of the England camp, but he was lacking strategically. If Southgate was manager, I wouldn’t have been surprised if we had lost against Mexico for that reason, so I am happy having a coach who can manage the game better and still have that same team spirit.

People have criticised England and expect little based off the failed, egotistical ‘golden generation’ and the weak squad from 2010-2018, but this England is different. They showed it under Southgate, and they showed it yesterday – that they do have pride in the shirt, which is more than what could be said for Rooney, Lampard, Ferdinand et al. It doesn’t mean we are bound to win the world cup, Norway will be a tough proposition, but we can surely have some pride in our team and think we can have a chance of winning against whoever we play.

1 user thanked author for this post.

BigLeftToe

[Siderite]

Game of the tournament so far. Unbelievable from Cabo Verde. To play so well and make Argentina sweat when they have a population of Sheffield. I hope the players wake up tomorrow and are proud of their performance. Drawing with Spain was something, but that will be forever remembered.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Siderite]

There are many things I don’t like about the club’s handling of communication with fans and the money making schemes are becoming too exploitative, but I prefer this to the dying embers of Swann and the farce of dodgy Dave’s conning run.

[Siderite]

Reminiscent of the Slovakia game last Euros. Only our defence looks weaker now.

[Siderite]

No, I don’t want the club dead.

[Siderite]

Gratuity fees being added to kiosks. 20% tip for an ovepriced coke.

[Siderite]

There were some among the Strasser faction who had aspects that fit with a more socialist angle when it came to economics. All were purged in the Night of Long Knives and any resemblance to socialism was lost after that, where Hitler loathed actual socialism and socialists. The name was useful for PR and propaganda for disaffected Germans.

In the end, the Nazis were as socialist as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democracy.

[Siderite]

Not impressed with the running from the press and much was made about Starmer not delivering on manifesto pledges, but when did anyone vote on anything Burnham puts forward? Some of it may sound good, but it all sounds utopian and after Starmer gets railed by the press for not delivering in 2 years, I don’t think his 10 year plan will get any patience and he would reap what he has sowed there, given his own undermining.

Not sure how a number 10 in the north would work. There would be a lot of time needed for it to happen, with the civil service roles being moved there. Sounds like a soundbyte to me and wouldn’t be surprised if it gets dropped.

[Siderite]

We haven’t looked convincing, but we didn’t last Euros and got to thr final. We aren’t the only ones. Germany aren’t convincing and Spain look just as bad.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

People bigging up the Rolling Stones. Yeah, probably a good live band if you’re in to that stadium shit, but artistically manure. Do one. Music for idiots.

Correction: I do like a few tracks by them but the whole deification of them is unjustified. Some may say that about The Beatles of course but they are either tone deaf or aliens.

I shan’t introduce a friend of mine to you then who thinks they’re the best of all time. He can be quite opinionated too.

Yes, that’s coming from me, but I am a lot more mild in real life, unless I have had a few pints and someone is chatting cobblers. I did have a debate about climate change with someone last summer at a bar (nostalgia for the Bucks days) and he went hone to print off material to try and show I am wrong when he came back. That was enough for me to call the debate off and have it deescalate.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Can’t remember a wc where most commentators and pundits haven’t fawned over Brazil.
Happening a bit with Argentina and even Portugal now too.

Spain too, but at least with Spain and Argentina they have among the best squads now and have won tournaments recently. Portugal have a good squad, but are hindered by Ronaldo, even though some of the fawning comes from that. I don’t think Ronaldo is ‘back’ because he scored 2 goals against a really bad Uzbekistan. He hindered them last Euros and am not convinced catering for him won’t harm Portugal against better teams.

Pundits seem to live off the past with Brazil. They were great in the past, so we must adore them now. When Germany beat them 7-1 I was in awe of a great German performance and one of the best of this century. Yet, at the end of the game, pundits like Alan Hansen were gloomily proclaiming it as a dark day for football because Brazil got thumped and we all want a great Brazil. If the scores were reversed, I doubt they would mourn the defeat of Germany if scores were reversed.

2 users thanked author for this post.

alcazar, RedMistTorpsFist

[Siderite]

Why is it that whenever Brazil have a half-decent performance, we have commentators purring over them as if they are champions elect? Brazil looked the better side than Scotland, but the Scots did threaten them at times, and better teams may exploit that. Yet, the commentators I had on were speaking as if that was some all time classic Brazil performance, where no team could possibly defeat them. They weren’t that good; they had Vini and Cunha threaten, but other times, they looked vulnerable. Netherlands or Japan could well beat them and I would laugh if they did, given how much fawning they got today for what was a standard solid performance.

[Siderite]

I thought we were good in game 1, but that was not very good. That said, we drew with worse and played worse with Southgate. Still, I am not convinced about a deep run. Quarters, I feel.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

The mob got what they wanted. How long before they’re chanting ‘Andy Burnham is a w***er’ till they finally get who they really want in power? Farage.

Not even waiting until he becomes PM:

https://x.com/GBPolitcs/status/2069426033510502571

[Siderite]

And, for clarity, I bring up the actions of who they support to demonstrate that they weren’t quite so kindly and for context. It’s an offence to support a proscribed group and that is what they were doing, so their arrests were perfectly legal. Just as it would be for any other banned group, be it Islamist or far-right. Starmer may have set in motion the banning, but when that is done, the police need to enforce the law as it stands and people are not above the law, no matter their age and how presentable they appear.

I was not speaking of the actions of PA with intent to say you support that, but to hammer home the reality of them supporting criminal thugs. I don’t intend to imply that anyone with a different view is like them. However, any criticism of Starmer should be about his decision to proscribe them, because arrests for supporting proscribed groups come from long before Starmer, but given the nature of PA I can understand why there were bans. Even if the terrorist reading may be more in contention.

[Siderite]

Siderite wrote:

I did find the left turning a blind eye to a group of radicalised thugs who used GBH against a police woman staggering. Violent assault for the cause is ok if you self-identify as having the ‘right views’. Oh, and you support ‘genocide’ if you don’t think a bunch of self-righteous thugs can go round committing crimes for the cause without consequence.

Not saying this is your view at all, but the thugs in question deserved the punishment they ended up getting, no matter the pious pleas of their fans saying how ‘caring’ and ’empathic’ they are. They clearly had none for those trying to enforce the law; potenital life changing injuries or death is ok for them.

However, this is the modus operandi of Palestine Action and why they were proscribed. As such, supporters coming out to express fandom for this group will face arrest, just as far-right fans of prohibited far-right groups would. Being old or presenting themselves more respectably than your stereotpical National Action thug doesn’t mean they should face different consequences. I had reservation about labelling PA as a terrorist group, but they are still a radicalised group that aim to disrupt important state apparatus, like defence.

No state would accept that because the culprits think they’re so moral (everyone thinks they have morality) and if they think they are being silenced, they should question why they would be able to protest with no issue if they weren’t trying to disrupt state apparatus or thwack police with slegdehammers for doing their jobs.

Correction for brain fart

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

As expected the question is not answered.

I think previous comments should be a strong indicator as to what I think of national mood without Starmer.

[Siderite]

I did find the left turning a blind eye to a group of radicalised thugs who used GBH against a police woman staggering. Violent assault for the cause is ok if you self-identify as having the ‘right views’. Oh, and you support ‘genocide’ if you think a bunch of self-righteous thugs can go round committing crimes for the cause without consequence.

Not saying this is your view at all, but the thugs in question deserved the punishment they ended up getting, no matter the pious pleas of their fans saying how ‘caring’ and ’empathic’ they are. They clearly had none for those trying to enforce the law; potenital life changing injuries or death is ok for them.

However, this is the modus operandi of Palestine Action and why they were proscribed. As such, supporters coming out to express fandom for this group will face arrest, just as far-right fans of prohibited far-right groups would. Being old or presenting themselves more respectably than your stereotpical National Action thug doesn’t mean they should face different consequences. I had reservation about labelling PA as a terrorist group, but they are still a radicalised group that aim to disrupt important state apparatus, like defence.

No state would accept that because the culprits think they’re so moral (everyone thinks they have morality) and if they think they are being silenced, they should question why they would be able to protest with no issue if they weren’t trying to disrupt state apparatus or thwack police with slegdehammers for doing their jobs.

[Siderite]

Resigning is a bit of an odd decision for someone who was building a totalitarian state, apparently.

[Siderite]

Youtube and other social media influencers, especially now they are being seen on TV. Self-centred egos out for drama. As amusing as it was to see Zlatan Ibrahimovic shut that Ishowspeed prat down when he was claiming Portugal would win the world cup because of Ronaldo (alongside past comments about being faster than Zlatan and other stupid comments to get views), it seemed scripted when the camerman then decided to follow the idiot around, acting like some child. I am also forever seeing Thogden and his cringeworthy antics, acting like every football game is amazing, like he is some big name with players and clickbait rubbish. Another one I have seen on Sky as some serious figure. Now we have Mark Goldbridge doing “what’s this overreaction to a heatwave nonsense, wasn’t like this in my day” Daily Mail tosh on twitter.

[Siderite]

The pensioners who were showing how much they believe in peace by supporting a group of vandals who had slegehammered a policewoman.

[Siderite]

To be fair, I think the hypocrisy from politicians and silly games is part of the reason why trust is so low, but people do excuse it for their own side and vilify it from others.

Darren Jones and Al Carns rumoured to be thinking of leadership runs.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Siderite wrote:

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

But that was the idea.
Pot of money, stored, invested.
But they couldn’t resist spending it.
Now they whine.
Look it up.

It hasn’t worked that way, so my original point stands. The state pension is something the current workers pay for and will be a contribution to lack of growth in our stagnant economy. It’s a challenge for our governments that they haven’t faced and this belief about pension pots paid into over time funding the state pension makes it harder for the government to find solutions because no-one will be happy.

The country faces hard decisions and challenges, which will likely take years to address, but we all want immediate solutions and this causes rapid decline in trust in the PM. As we have seen over the past decade. I don’t think the next PM will change this, Burnham or otherwise. None have shown much will to address it. Starmer tried somewhat and got stick, so we’re left with pretending there can be no short term harm in trying to rebuild a more affordable economy, where wages can match expenditure. Which will lead to the next PM likely facing the same loss of trust when reality bites.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

The state pension fund has never been about taking money away for future use. The money taken away through taxes has always been to fund current pensioners. The money they took from you or anyone 20, 30, 40 years ago was to fund the retirees of then, not for you. The amount you get is based off your NI to see how much you’re entitled to, but the money comes from today’s taxes, not from some stored pot anyone paid into.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Looks like he’s going, then?

I hope we get a leadership challenge and it isn’t just a coronation for Andy. For one, it would be a way to test him in a leadership electoral system. Rayner and Streeting have shown interest, so could run.

Out of that lot, I am currently leaning Rayner, but not enthralled by any and think thd problems in the country are too deep, with a system not favourable for any PM.

Though, I don’t think Starmer, for his many weaknesses needs to account fir handling of grooming gangs while at the CPS. Prosecutors have attested to his willingness to deal with the culprits.

[Siderite]

alcazar wrote:

Siderite wrote:

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

Oh dear.
So near, yet so far.

The money taken for the state pension from the government is to fund current pensioners, not for some magic pot to fund you later. This isn’t an opinion, but fact.

[Siderite]

You don’t pay into any pot for the state pension. The government tracks your national insurance, works out how much you should get from work history and the money comes from taxpayers. It is a benefit and I am not using that term as a pejorative. The only pot for a pension you get is private.

And I can very much believe Russians targeted Starmer given the Russians have targeted other European countries in similar plots, including the UK with Salisbury. It’s very much their MO.

[Author]

Posts