 | Forum
Reply | New Rules
at 09:02 24 Oct 2022
1. Head injuries and broken limbs apart, all treatment of “injured” players to be undertaken off the pitch, allowing the game to proceed in their absence.
2. Rather than booking players for time wasting, simply add the time on making such gaming pointless. I suspect added time would then regularly exceed 10 minutes. [Post edited 24 Oct 2022 9:02]
|
| Forum
Thread | I Follow
at 21:59 11 Jan 2021
For the last 2-3 home games, despite adding and applying the discount code and being advised the cost to be £0.00, I have subsequently received notifications by email of a £10 fee.
Has anyone else had similar? |
| Forum
Reply | TVOS: Dale v Wrexham (FA Cup replay)
at 08:59 20 Nov 2019
In the positive performances, a key contributor has been Stephen Dooley. Yes Ollie is a big miss, RNL likewise, but SD hardly gets a mention.
I think it no coincidence that his unavailability coincides with the poorer run of results. |
| Forum
Reply | Vote Labour?
at 14:09 8 Oct 2019
Article 50 legislated to leave by a set date, either with or without a "deal".
The same Parliament who made this law have successively voted against both options in spite of the promises made in the manifestos they presented to the electorate.
It seems many may be accused of misleading the public. [Post edited 8 Oct 2019 19:30]
|
| Forum
Reply | Vote Labour?
at 08:47 8 Oct 2019
Did not both the labour and conservative manifestos promise to respect the referendum result?
Did not almost 500 MPs legislate to leave the EU with or without a "deal" by triggering article 50?
Have not a majority of those elected to parliament subsequently voted consistently against all means of leaving the EU to date?
So is claiming that they are akin to the PM regarding their integrity , disingenuous and simply inaccurate? |
| Forum
Reply | Our prime minister
at 12:21 25 Sep 2019
Bad judgements make bad law.
This is a bad judgement.
Parliament had opportunity following the proregation to either hold a vote of no confidence or support the request for a general election. Either course would have prevented proregation.
To refuse either course was a political decision.
The supreme Court judgement is therefore supportive of an entirely political decision of parliament and therefore in error. |
| Forum
Reply | Theresa May
at 16:58 27 May 2019
And yet according to the Lib Dem's own publicity, brexit was actually overwhelmingly endorsed. [Post edited 27 May 2019 17:03]
|
| Forum
Reply | Theresa May
at 10:18 27 May 2019
I am of the opinion that Cameron's promise of a referendum was one he thought he would never need to deliver as a further coalition after the general election was expected rather than a surprise majority.
Whilst some consider that Brexit is a consequence of internal Conservative divisions, it cannot be denied that it clearly demonstrated the UK to be significantly polarised on Europe. With the "political" majority being significantly pro EU a considerable proportion of the electorate were essentially disenfranchised on this issue.
Having allowed an opinion to be so clearly expressed there is no way to put that particular genie back in the bottle. [Post edited 27 May 2019 10:19]
|
| Forum
Reply | Big Jim handball
at 10:40 10 Apr 2019
"Handball decisions" remain something of a lottery with many unintentional "ball to hand" contacts being deemed a direct free kick (or penalty if in the area).
Currently, it should only be an offence if deemed deliberate, but many interpret "gaining an advantage" or a hand/arm being in an "unnatural" position as grounds to award such a free kick/penalty.
In my opinion the majority of handballs given are nevertheless unintentional.
One solution would be to see any contact with hand or arm as an infringement regardless of intent. (similar to contact of the ball with a foot in hockey).
However I would prefer allowing the award of an indirect free kick for "accidental handball" with a direct free kick (or penalty if in the goal area) for a deliberate infringement.
(PS I would also suggest that instead of allowing goal kicks to be retaken when the ball is played without leaving the area, the attacking side should instead be awarded an indirect free kick. Those that seek to play it out from the back at a restart should not be let off when they misjudge the pressure applied by the opposition forwards.) |
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 16:36 29 Mar 2019
From the outset it was a mistake to separate negotiations on withdrawal from the future relationship with the EU.
The WA has acquiesced to all that was demanded with little in return. It succeeds in maintaining the status quo for the transition period whilst the real negotiations are undertaken. However its obvious weakness is that the UK is left with little else with which to bargain.
As no-one intends that the "backstop" should be utilised, its only value appears to be as additional pressure should there be disagreement on eg "fishing rights" etc.
I do believe the economic harm and Irish border question have been massively overstated. I do not consider that the Economic benefits would necessarily be unchanged after negotiation. But growth in the EU is stalling and being able to independently trade world wide should prove advantageous overall.
Chaos need only result if deliberated and wilfully contrived with those who would prefer the UK to "remain".
So, "yes", a starting point of "no deal" would allow for honest and fair discussion on the future arrangements. There need be no chaos as both are in full alignment and problems need only be addressed when and if there is divergence. There would probably be some mutually acceptable financial payment due.
Many who voted "leave" appear to have done so in no small measure due to their many years experience of serious economic, political and social damage, in part attributed to UK membership of the EU. Not all have "enjoyed" the "benefits" of ever more closer union and I have sympathy with them and the reasons behind their decision.
I am less influenced by the concerns of those motivated by corporate greed.
Restoring sovereignty and accountability are the main reasons why I still wish to "leave".
Whatever the future holds I would rather we took charge of our own destiny and decisions and accepted responsibility for the consequences whether good or ill. |
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 22:09 28 Mar 2019
Re 3 .... A consequence of supporting the Irish Republic and the integrity of the EU by means of a non-negotiable "backstop" is less likelihood of an acceptance of the withdrawal agreement.
Were Parliament to honour their decision on article 50 then a "no deal" Brexit would result in the very situation against which the "backstop" was designed to protect. In these circumstances it seems a flawed strategy and an unnecessary gamble by Europe.
Since "no deal" may prove challenging to both the UK and the EU, concessions on the "backstop" could provide a degree of border certainty for an appropriate period and also facilitate an orderly exit mechanism to the benefit of all parties.
The EU, quite reasonably, have concluded that "no deal" is little more than an idle threat. However, with MPs rejecting every "leave" proposal, an inadvertent "no deal" exit is still a possibility as the clock runs down. The extension is contingent on Mrs May's agreement succeeding at MV3 which is far from guaranteed. To not apply some pressure to the EU along these lines may be another missed opportunity.
Regarding the withdrawal agreement......to accept it as it currently stands would be an enormous error.
No-one has any intention of constructing border posts and Eire's "no deal" planning does avoid border checks. Therefore the "backstop" must exist and remain non-negotiable for entirely other reasons. These surely include strengthening the EU's future negotiating position relative to the UK.
"No deal" need hold few fears since the starting point is of alignment across borders. Only if vindictiveness is allowed to triumph over mutual benefit would there be any likelihood of difficulties. Any organisation that was motivated by such petty small mindedness would be one from which the UK would be well rid. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 22:11]
|
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 13:59 28 Mar 2019
If the intention is to try and honour the "leave" vote, there are 3 options only:
1. May's agreement. (Can only succeed if MPs from other parties are willing to support it in sufficient numbers.)
2. No deal ( Might convince some labour MPs to accept May's deal if they actually believed no deal would happen)
3. No backstop. (Would need the EU to be fearful of, and wish to prevent option 2 and make legally binding changes to May's agreement. That would allow Tory and DUP to vote for the agreement. )
All other options will merely continue the chaos and uncertainty. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 14:02]
|
| Forum
Reply | (No subject) (n/t)
at 22:40 27 Mar 2019
I stand corrected......way to young to vote in '75 and much too young to care in '73.
Nevertheless, the essential essence of the point is unaffected; the vote 3 years ago was to leave a much different entity from that which the UK joined in the 1970s. [Post edited 27 Mar 2019 23:29]
|
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 19:12 27 Mar 2019
Perhaps I am in the process of swallowing the bait. (I certainly hope this was not intended as a serious and considered opinion.) In any event.......a reply.
With the benefit of hindsight it is evident that the first referendum was far from honest. The situation is now markedly different and a second "people's vote" entirely justified.
That first ballot took place in the 1970's (when I was too young to vote) and proposed joining a European Economic Community to which the majority assented. Over the decades however it has surreptitiously been transformed into the EU without ever gaining consent from the British public for any of the transfer of sovereignty.
As one who had to wait more than forty years to be given an opportunity to express an opinion, I have sympathy with those who were too young for the referendum 3 years ago. The prospect of having to wait a few seconds at customs when inter-railing during their gap year or being denied access to the Erasmus scheme must be a bitter pill to swallow.
I am certain that those who voted "leave " were equally as knowledgeable as those who wished to "remain". I am further convinced that few have changed their opinion during the last 3 years.
As others have mentioned, it appears logically perverse for those who do not wish to accept the "leave" verdict, to somehow reason that a further public vote could be in anyway considered decisive. This alone is sufficient grounds on which to conclude such a proposition an inadequate way forward.
As for the suggested 3 options "deal", (what deal?) "May's deal" or no Brexit,......I sincerely hope that was written in jest. [Post edited 27 Mar 2019 19:23]
|
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 22:59 26 Mar 2019
1. "First of all - this incessant oversimplification of an incredibly complex debate is what got us into this shambles in the first place."
On the contrary, it is very simple; the vote was to leave.
The moment that the UK leaves, it is still in full alignment with the EU. Only if and when there is subsequent divergence are any decisions or negotiations necessary between the EU and Westminster. (Of course it would be pragmatic for any such to be planned for sensibly and reasonably in advance)
It only becomes complex if a decision is made to pretend that the starting point is one of non-alignment. Only an idiot, or someone who wanted to deliberately make matters unnecessarily complex would take such a stance, talk of cliff edges or preclude any discussion on future trade arrangements until after departure. Of course the anti Brexit EU Commissioners and "remain" supporting Westminster MPs are not idiots.
2. "And is that now written into law that a referendum decision can not be revisited until a second point"
On this point there is no enshrined rule, possibly just custom and practice. Referenda are rare events in the UK. I can recollect 7 in 5 decades (with 4 of these relating specifically to Scotland (x2), Wales and NI only). Only one has ever been on the same theme twice and that after a period of more than forty years.
In every case thus far the outcomes were accepted and where necessary legislation passed to comply with the stated wishes of the voters.
Those seeking a "second" referendum are by all previous precedents significantly premature in seeking a "peoples vote" to include "remain".
3. "The populace aren't the ones "frustrating democratic decision"....that's the politicians."
I agree absolutely. (see point 1 above)
4. "Wasn't "taking back control" quite important to you chaps a few years ago?"
Absolutely correct, and that is still the case. It will only be realised however once the UK has left the EU.
Representative government abrogated responsibility when MPs delegated their decision making function to the people. Having done so they are now on questionable political and moral ground when backtracking on the clear mandate delivered in the referendum, voting against all outcomes enshrined in the statute they passed into law when triggering article 50, and reneging on their manifesto commitments at the last general election.
5. "If "remain" WAS a third option on such a ballot........
To place "remain" against an agreement equally loathed by eurosceptics and europhiles would be tantamount to rigging the ballot.
To split the "leave" vote between two options against "remain" might be considered gerrymandering.
The logical reason why "remain" should have no place in a second referendum has been enunciated previously. If Parliament requires popular endorsement then ask between whatever "leave agreement" they wish to propose and "no deal" as per article 50.
One might hope that an injustice were righted; that Dale might take their deserving place at Wembley on FA cup semifinal day. Sadly, common sense suggests that instead they will have to await the completion of the competition this May, before embarking afresh on a new campaign in the first round next season. [Post edited 26 Mar 2019 23:02]
|
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 10:46 26 Mar 2019
Dale lost in the FA cup to Portsmouth. It was a deflected free kick in added time; a marginal decision; a bitter pill to swallow. Aggrieved as many felt however, they cannot now campaign to be in the semifinals.
Had the result been reversed can anyone imagine "leave" getting a further opportunity within a generation?
"Remain" lost the referendum. Frustrating a democratic decision should not be rewarded by a second opportunity 3 years later having deliberately chosen not to implement the expressed choice of the country.
Therein lies chaos.
By all means have a second referendum. Whatever "leave agreement" the politicians can cobble together v "no deal".
[Post edited 26 Mar 2019 11:00]
|
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 21:19 25 Mar 2019
Stubborness? Kettle......pot.....sooty face.
1. Whilst there may be debate regarding the fairness of FPTP vs a form of PR, it is nevertheless an excepted democratic process. The UK head of state is a titular role and has little other than a symbolic function. The Civil service may advise but cannot legislate.
The EU has a sham democracy with essentially symbolic MEPs and an unaccountable Commission of civil servants who are the means by which the Union is governed.
You may consider this democratic. I do not.
2. So who exactly elected Barnier, Junker, Tusk et al to their non-symbolic policy making roles?
When will the monarchy be held to account? Whenever the people so determine. Whilst Republicanism remains a minority view it's unlikely...that's democracy for you.
3. The erosion of sovereignty by successive EU treaties generated increasing eurosceptism in the UK. Whilst other nations were given referenda this was denied to the British public. Whenever countries had the temerity to make the "wrong" choice they were required to vote again.....truly democratic. A UK referendum was long overdue.
I accept your point regarding binding future Parliaments. However this Parliament, with few exceptions, stood on the premise of honouring the vote to leave. They placed in law a date by which this would occur, with or without an agreement. The statute is still lawful. They have no agreement. It is time to honour the vote. The ballot was to leave by 29 March. This includes quitting the EU institutions, Custom Union and Single Market as clearly stated time and time again during the campaign. The EU categorically states there is no other deal possible......
4. The nub is that Parliament abrogated their responsibility and determined to have a Referendum. It was made clear the outcome would be enacted. Labour and Conservative manifestos pledged likewise. There would be no conflict if MPs acted with honesty and integrity, kept the promises made to the electorate and fulfilled the statute they passed into law.
In contrast, most of the last 2 years have proven an exemplar on how to frustrate what is often cited as the largest democratic vote in our history. The fact that the minority "remain" opinion is still seen as an option is little short of scandalous.
I have no issue with political parties campaigning to rejoin the EU once the UK has left. I look forward to reading it in their manifestos at the next General Election. However to do so prior to actually leaving is duplicitous in the extreme. |
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 13:42 25 Mar 2019
1. It is not a claim that our democracy is superior, just that the EU is by design and its very nature undemocratic with the unelected and unaccountable European Commission dictating policy.
2. For all of their shortcomings, Chris Grayling, Anna Soubry, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Corbyn or any other MP will be accountable to their electorate in due course. The political parties'performance in the approaching local elections are also likely to be influenced by recent events in Westminster. Who knows what would happen were the UK required to field MEP candidates in May?
Sooner rather than later the voters will hold British politicians to account.
When will Barnier, Tusk, Junker be held to account and by whom?
3. The intention of the referendum was to decide once and for all the UK's position with regard to the EU.
A majority in Parliament voted for a referendum.
A majority in Parliament stood on a manifesto to uphold the referendum result.
Almost 500 MPs voted to trigger article 50 and pass in to law leaving with or without an "agreement".
A majority in Parliament have rejected the "agreement" twice.
MPs should now accept the consequences of their decisions and act accordingly.
Their choice is simple......which is the better option, the "agreement" or "no deal"?
4. In this instance, direct democracy should take precedence over the representatives personal opinions and views.
If they cannot resolve the impasse, by all means allow the public to decide in a referendum between the "agreement" or "no deal" as enshrined in law by Parliaments support for enacting article 50. |
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 20:52 24 Mar 2019
The main difference is that the " anomolies" in the EU are by design and inherent in their structure and procedures.
Not much nuance in "leave " or "remain". Nor, (with almost 500 MPs having triggered article 50), leaving with an agreement or without.
There are many Republicans in the UK. To my knowledge none are on trial for treason. |
| Forum
Reply | Sign it...
at 19:04 24 Mar 2019
Many thanks for agreeing that the EU is undemocratic.
It seems by reference to shortcomings in our system you agree that such practice is wrong.
In the UK such instances are infrequent and there is a Parliament that holds the executive accountable. By design, these failures are the very entrenched means by which the EU is structured. By your own logic we appear in agreement that it is undemocratic to have unelected, civil servants deciding policy.
In the UK, Parliament has the final say on policy , even those improperly influenced by the civil service. In the EU all policy is determined by the civil servants and the MEPs graciously permitted to only pass comment.
Many dislike the monarchy in the UK. It is entirely possible that at some future date this institution may be dissolved at the behest of UK citizens.
Tell me, does anyone living under the EU's duristriction ever have a hope of removing the unelected elite that rule and dictate EU policy and treaties?
And of course the most democratic system of all allowed the electorate to state clearly whether they wish to "leave" or "remain".....
[Post edited 24 Mar 2019 19:10]
|
| | steofthedale
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 38 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 5 | | TOTAL: | 43 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.