Quote by deancannock
Any decent prinicipled person
Which Terry isn't, far from it.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
essex34m
2 months ago
Straight Male, 54
0 miles · Suffolk
Forum
Quote by starlightcouple
the jt debacle is a nightmare for english football with a major tournament coming up. no manager and no captain. the FA have as usual done the wrong things and they and they alone are responsible for this total mess.
I strongly disagree with you on this.
I think, for once, the FA have got it all absolutely right.
Whilst I agree that there is a certain degree of the manager (Capello) being undermined by the FA in removing John Terry as captain, I think the decision to strip Terry of the captain's armband is the correct one.
The FA had recently given an 8 match ban to Luis Suarez for a racism related incident, so to have the captain of the England team sitting with a racist related court case, meant that to continue with Terry would have been madness.
I completely agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that is the way it should be, but the Terry case is now a matter for the courts, and should be dealt with as such. But, with a European championships on the horizon, the FA would be facing the position that in any press conference, the media would quickly turn the questions round from the match they are there to report, to questions of the impending court case. This would be a huge distraction to the team and it's preparations, and would heap unwelcome pressure on John Terry.
As a result of this, any bad performances would quickly be marked up as tensions within the camp, and all through this, regardless of the legal situation, it would be said that the FA are turning a blind eye to Terry, due to him being English, whilst punishing Suarez.
I admire Capello for having the principled enough to walk away, although having been on a £6m a year contract, and having already declared his intention to quit as manager at the end of Euro 2012, it wasn't that hard a decision to make.
As for the FA having to replace him, they knew it was happening, it is now happening sooner than later. Nothing has changed.
Quote by Cubes
Well, given that I turned 35 last birthday, I can't say I've ever felt old on the swinging scene.
I kinda liked it when I turned about 32 and all of a sudden hot young men were interested in me as an 'older woman' :rascal: I must say, I've "appreciated"there youthful vigour and enthusiasm lots since!
:welcome: to the forum.
x
:shock: their!
It's okay - old people are allowed to make occasional grammatical errors. It's they're age you know?!
:giggle:
Your wrong to talk about there grammer.
Quote by Freckledbird
Well, given that I turned 35 last birthday, I can't say I've ever felt old on the swinging scene.
I kinda liked it when I turned about 32 and all of a sudden hot young men were interested in me as an 'older woman' :rascal: I must say, I've "appreciated"
:welcome: to the forum.
x
:shock: their!
No wonder standards are falling....
Quote by neilinleeds
Totally agree with that Neil, it is also interesting the inflection that is put on it by different dialects, both regional or international. To my mind it just does not have the same qualities when expressed by say an american or other english speaking nations. The English/British i think tend to express it more with more of a "k" especially when said aggressively.
^This, and more. I've said as much before on a previous thread on this very subject, but spoken with a cockney accent I just can't take the word seriously. 'You fahkin' cahnt', what's all that about?
And don't forget that it is one of the few words where someone with a cockney accent will actually say the letter 'T' as it should be, and not almost silently.
Quote by foxylady2209
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
And yet the MP for Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath became the unelected leader of this country, how much of a say did he have in the decisions of this country?
Quote by Ben_Minx
Yes, travelling times between London and Birmingham would be reduced, but that would only make a difference to those who are travelling between the two cities.
Thats not strictly true. The line ultimately serves places as far flung as Holyhead on Anglesey, Manchester and Edinburgh. And its the bit between Birmingham and London that is particularly shit. Did ya know that bit of line not only has level crossings but some of em are unmanned. Unbelievable for a main line in the 21st century.
There are over 7000 level crossings in the UK, it comes as no surprise that line has some.
Quote by Bluefish2009
I have mixed feelings on this.
As someone who stands to benefit, yes, I would like to see it. However, I am also a naive fool who would love to see the work carried out by British contractors and staff. I'm not entirely sure there is much benefit to HS2 overall.
£33bn would do a lot to the current network, platform extensions enabling longer trains, better maintenance and renewals of the current network would be projects that would make a big difference to rail passengers. Yes, travelling times between London and Birmingham would be reduced, but that would only make a difference to those who are travelling between the two cities.
If the entire network is overhauled, then everyone benefits, and not just the general rail passenger either. Felixstowe port has undergone extension plans to their rail operations, with more freight being taken by rail than ever. Ford have their own rail freight depot's to take vehicles and parts by rail.
The rail network dates from the Victorian times, it is (in many places) in need of renewal, and the building of HS2 will (IMO) detract from that.
• The new business case shows that 7 out of 10 jobs created by high speed rail will
be in London, not the Midlands or North of England.
• Most of the jobs claimed will not be genuinely new employment but moved from
other areas within that region. Other parts of the region will therefore lose out as a
result of HS2.
One big problem that I find offensive is those living along the planned route being the most affected they will gain little or no local benefits. There are no proposed stations outside London and Birmingham.
If you honestly believe the piece you bolded, you deserved to be bludgeoned with a trout.
The same was said the same about the Olympics, then the Evening Standard came out with:
Hence me being the naive fool that would like to see HS2 being constructed with British firms and labour. However, seeing the Government give a significant railway stock tender to Siemens of Germany, over the bid of Bombardier, I know it will not happen.
I have mixed feelings on this.
As someone who stands to benefit, yes, I would like to see it. However, I am also a naive fool who would love to see the work carried out by British contractors and staff. I'm not entirely sure there is much benefit to HS2 overall.
£33bn would do a lot to the current network, platform extensions enabling longer trains, better maintenance and renewals of the current network would be projects that would make a big difference to rail passengers. Yes, travelling times between London and Birmingham would be reduced, but that would only make a difference to those who are travelling between the two cities.
If the entire network is overhauled, then everyone benefits, and not just the general rail passenger either. Felixstowe port has undergone extension plans to their rail operations, with more freight being taken by rail than ever. Ford have their own rail freight depot's to take vehicles and parts by rail.
The rail network dates from the Victorian times, it is (in many places) in need of renewal, and the building of HS2 will (IMO) detract from that.
As someone who stands to benefit, yes, I would like to see it. However, I am also a naive fool who would love to see the work carried out by British contractors and staff. I'm not entirely sure there is much benefit to HS2 overall.
£33bn would do a lot to the current network, platform extensions enabling longer trains, better maintenance and renewals of the current network would be projects that would make a big difference to rail passengers. Yes, travelling times between London and Birmingham would be reduced, but that would only make a difference to those who are travelling between the two cities.
If the entire network is overhauled, then everyone benefits, and not just the general rail passenger either. Felixstowe port has undergone extension plans to their rail operations, with more freight being taken by rail than ever. Ford have their own rail freight depot's to take vehicles and parts by rail.
The rail network dates from the Victorian times, it is (in many places) in need of renewal, and the building of HS2 will (IMO) detract from that.
An Englishman is told he has to call himself British, a Scot is allowed to be classed as that, despite holding a UK passport. The Scot's have a greater sense of national pride than we do.
And it is encouraging to see that Cameron is happy to let the Scottish have a referendum, yet we are not allowed to have one on Europe.
And it is encouraging to see that Cameron is happy to let the Scottish have a referendum, yet we are not allowed to have one on Europe.
I watched this match last night, and wondered what it was that had affected has been mentioned, the use of CCTV and full weight of the law is something I hope comes to those that have been alleged to have made these comments.
You ask how those from the club that openly supported Suarez and wore t-shirts might be thinking, I am will to guess that they are sickened, and hope that if true, they will be punished. The abuse that Adeyemi is claiming he received, is different to the Suarez incident, according to what I have read today, people deliberately, and maliciously were openly and blatantly racist towards Adeyemi, and if so, they deserve everything coming to them, and would hope that they are banned from every club and ground in the country, and dealt with by the law.
You ask how those from the club that openly supported Suarez and wore t-shirts might be thinking, I am will to guess that they are sickened, and hope that if true, they will be punished. The abuse that Adeyemi is claiming he received, is different to the Suarez incident, according to what I have read today, people deliberately, and maliciously were openly and blatantly racist towards Adeyemi, and if so, they deserve everything coming to them, and would hope that they are banned from every club and ground in the country, and dealt with by the law.
Quote by deancannock
Absolute total bullshit ....maybe he would like to tell us what Health and Safety rules he wished to dismiss. Maybe he thinks gaurds over saw blades are not required !! Maybe he feels people can walk up a ladder without it being secured first !! Maybe he doesn't want fire detection systems in a building !! Maybe he wants it so shops can sell food that has gone past its sell by date...oh I know even better get rid of the sell by date altogether, so we don't know how long its been there !!!
Come on Mr Cameron tell us what rules you wish to abolish !!! The Health and Safety exucutive constantly review rules. They update and extend some, and they relax others, as is neccessary.
Or maybe, just maybe, he wants to lose the stupidity that exists, such as:
Quote by neilinleeds
Blue, to answer your specific point that bullying with words is wrong regardless of the words used, you're right, except of course that noone ever got strung up from a tree by a gang of racist thugs above the law for being ginger, or fat, or ugly
If that were to happen, Mick Hucknall would be shitting himself.
Quote by Too Hot
in what context could it ever be acceptable for you to use the word and why would you want to?
When used as the name of the dog owned by Guy Gibson, and was the mascot of 617 Squadron, who gained the nickname 'Dambusters' after raids on various dams in Germany. The dog died the day before the raids, and it's name was used to confirm the breach of the Dam Guy Gibson had bombed.
So in that context, I feel the word is acceptable, it is a part of the history of the 617 Squadron.
However, when the word is used in a racially derogatory way, then there is no place for it, and I see no reason why a person shouldn't be punished for it.
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
New 'Iron Lady' orders Cameron to win back powers from Brussels
Incoming head of Tory Eurosceptics has drawn up 'shopping list' for PM
Top of her shopping list is a new EU rule allowing member states to opt out of Brussels directives whenever they have a change of government. That would allow the Coalition to end the maximum 48-hour week under the EU's working time directive, agreed when Labour was in power.
Is it time to loose the max 48 hour week?
Thought there was always an opt-out from the 48 hour maximum which workers can "volunteer" to sign up for.
John
There is. I have signed one of these forms each time I join a new agency.
Looks like they are quietly putting this one to bed....
A statement from Liverpool FC:
It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated.
The FA and the panel chose to consistently and methodically accept and embrace arguments leading to a set of conclusions that found Mr. Suarez to "probably" be guilty while in the same manner deciding to completely dismiss the testimony that countered their overall suppositions.
Mr. Evra was deemed to be credible in spite of admitting that he himself used insulting and threatening words towards Luis and that his initial charge as to the word used was somehow a mistake.
The facts in this case were that an accusation was made, a rebuttal was given and there was video of the match. The remaining facts came from testimony of people who did not corroborate any accusation made by Mr. Evra.
In its determination to prove its conclusions to the public through a clearly subjective 115-page document, the FA panel has damaged the reputation of one the Premier League's best players, deciding he should be punished and banned for perhaps a quarter of a season. This case has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation.
Nevertheless, there are ultimately larger issues than whether or not Luis Suarez has been treated fairly by the Football Association in this matter. There are important points we want to make today that overshadow what has occurred during the past two months.
The issue of race in sports, as in other industries, has a very poor history. Far too often, and in far too many countries, the issues of racism and discrimination have been covered over or ignored.
In America, where Liverpool ownership resides, there was a shameful bigotry that prevented black athletes from competing at the highest levels for decades.
English football has led the world in welcoming all nationalities and creeds into its Premier League and its leagues below, and Liverpool Football Club itself has been a leader in taking a progressive stance on issues of race and inclusion. The Luis Suarez case has to end so that the Premier League, the Football Association and the Club can continue the progress that has been made and will continue to be made and not risk a perception, at least by some, that would diminish our commitment on these issues.
Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act. Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his teammates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant.
Continuing a fight for justice in this particular case beyond today would only obscure the fact that the Club wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the Football Association, the Football League and the Premier League to put an end to any form of racism in English football.
It is time to put the Luis Suarez matter to rest and for all of us, going forward, to work together to stamp out racism in every form both inside and outside the sport.
It is for this reason that we will not appeal the eight-game suspension of Luis Suarez.
A statement from Liverpool FC:
It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated.
The FA and the panel chose to consistently and methodically accept and embrace arguments leading to a set of conclusions that found Mr. Suarez to "probably" be guilty while in the same manner deciding to completely dismiss the testimony that countered their overall suppositions.
Mr. Evra was deemed to be credible in spite of admitting that he himself used insulting and threatening words towards Luis and that his initial charge as to the word used was somehow a mistake.
The facts in this case were that an accusation was made, a rebuttal was given and there was video of the match. The remaining facts came from testimony of people who did not corroborate any accusation made by Mr. Evra.
In its determination to prove its conclusions to the public through a clearly subjective 115-page document, the FA panel has damaged the reputation of one the Premier League's best players, deciding he should be punished and banned for perhaps a quarter of a season. This case has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation.
Nevertheless, there are ultimately larger issues than whether or not Luis Suarez has been treated fairly by the Football Association in this matter. There are important points we want to make today that overshadow what has occurred during the past two months.
The issue of race in sports, as in other industries, has a very poor history. Far too often, and in far too many countries, the issues of racism and discrimination have been covered over or ignored.
In America, where Liverpool ownership resides, there was a shameful bigotry that prevented black athletes from competing at the highest levels for decades.
English football has led the world in welcoming all nationalities and creeds into its Premier League and its leagues below, and Liverpool Football Club itself has been a leader in taking a progressive stance on issues of race and inclusion. The Luis Suarez case has to end so that the Premier League, the Football Association and the Club can continue the progress that has been made and will continue to be made and not risk a perception, at least by some, that would diminish our commitment on these issues.
Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act. Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his teammates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant.
Continuing a fight for justice in this particular case beyond today would only obscure the fact that the Club wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the Football Association, the Football League and the Premier League to put an end to any form of racism in English football.
It is time to put the Luis Suarez matter to rest and for all of us, going forward, to work together to stamp out racism in every form both inside and outside the sport.
It is for this reason that we will not appeal the eight-game suspension of Luis Suarez.
Quote by st3v3
Its Internet Explorer, although its not affecting everyone with Internet Explorer, until we can get the issue resolved would you try either Firefox or Chrome.
I am using Chrome, and it is rare I can be logged in for more than 10 mins, I am only using one room (BBW) and it is dropping my connection repeatedly, one at least 4 occasions, it let me into The Beach Bar, and as soon as I click on the rooms list, it dumps me again.
I'm one of the lucky ones who has a free account, if I had to pay for this, I'd be going seriously ballistic, wheras at the moment, it is just immensely frustrating, I'd be in mid conversation, and by the time the server lets me back in, the conversation has changed, or moved on.
Seriously not impressed.
The report has been released, it is 115 pages long.
It still boils down to one man's word against another. The following has been taken from a Liverpool supporters forum:
"FA's case:
The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black".
LFC case:
Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black- haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match."
Both statements are a world apart, if Evra's version is correct, that was quite an exchange, surely someone else would have heard it? Surely one of his team mates would have jumped in? Surely complaint's would have been made to the ref at that point?
It still boils down to one man's word against another. The following has been taken from a Liverpool supporters forum:
"FA's case:
The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie". As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he just called me a fucking black".
LFC case:
Mr Suarez denied the Charge. His case, in short, was as follows. He agreed with Mr Evra that they spoke to each other in Spanish in the goalmouth. When Mr Evra asked why he had kicked him, Mr Suarez replied that it was a normal foul and shrugged his shoulders. Mr Evra then said that he was going to kick Mr Suarez, to which Mr Suarez told him to shut up. As Mr Kuyt was approaching, Mr Suarez touched Mr Evra's left arm in a pinching style movement. According to Mr Suarez, at no point in the goalmouth did he use the word "negro". When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra spoke to Mr Suarez and said (in English) "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez replied "Por que, negro?". He says that he used the word “negro” in a way with which he was familiar from his upbringing in Uruguay. In this sense, Mr Suarez claimed, it is used as a noun and as a friendly form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned (or even just black- haired). Thus, it meant "Why, black?" Mr Suarez maintained that when he said "Por que, negro?" to Mr Evra, it was intended in a conciliatory and friendly way. Mr Suarez said this was the only time that he used the word “negro” in his exchanges with Mr Evra during the match."
Both statements are a world apart, if Evra's version is correct, that was quite an exchange, surely someone else would have heard it? Surely one of his team mates would have jumped in? Surely complaint's would have been made to the ref at that point?
