Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[super_realist]

Back in UK tonight for a fortnight so sure something will annoy me about Britain

Edit: what an untidy, slovenly and lazy country. Only been gone 5 months, but even in its most beautiful two months I can see what a filthy country the UK is.

…feel free to add…and a media obsessed with trivial celebrity Poopie

Yes, and a country which now has an American political choice of who is the "least worst" option.

What do you mean "now" have? When was the last time we didn't have a leader that wasn't the least worst option?

Now more than ever I think. Sadly I can't see Just Stop Oil Starmer being any better. Seems to think he can get all his additional tax from scrapping non dim status and putting VAT on private education.
Much as I miss some aspects of the UK, I really hope I don't have to return before any more Net Zero madness creeps in from either side

[super_realist]

So are Spurs going to go for Ange or not...and should they?

On one hand you can't blame Ange for leaving the stepping stone of the SPL to join a better club and challenge himself at a higher level, on the other hand, Spurs would only be getting a manager who has done what a tailors dummy could do in Scotland. We see how poor managers like Lennon, Deila, Gerrard etc have been elsewhere, can't really see how Ange is any different and he's probably going to be another in the Spurs conveyor belt.

[westisbest]

Agree super. Can’t see him doing well there.
Small fish in a big pond.

[Duty281]

And Harry Kane seems set for Madrid, so that'll be a monumental gap in Spurs' side next season.

[JAS]

I’m no so sure you know. There seems to this developing myth that only special managers can operate in the PL, where was Arteta before Arsenal? AP has won titles at everywhere he’s been, albeit what most would call football outposts of Australia & Japan and Jockland but success is success and management is management, the only difference in the EPL is media hysteria and ego shaping wages of players. If your managerial skills are good enough those things will be taken in stride, if not you’ll be found out.
Regarding managing in Glasgow there is also a unique goldfish bowl pressure which AP got pretty quickly, many don’t. Also a bit of a mismatch comparing him to Rodgers, when Brenda was there Rangers were just re-emerging from the lower tiers so yes even Super could have won them titles in those years. When AP turned up Rangers had just won the title by 25 points, Celtic were an absolute shambles. In his first title season his main rivals got to a European final ffs.
I reckon he’ll do fine and as a Gers fan I’m glad to see the back of him
Finally, Spurs have already been down the road of so called elite managers, how did that go for them?

[super_realist]

I’m no so sure you know. There seems to this developing myth that only special managers can operate in the PL, where was Arteta before Arsenal? AP has won titles at everywhere he’s been, albeit what most would call football outposts of Australia & Japan and Jockland but success is success and management is management, the only difference in the EPL is media hysteria and ego shaping wages of players. If your managerial skills are good enough those things will be taken in stride, if not you’ll be found out.
Regarding managing in Glasgow there is also a unique goldfish bowl pressure which AP got pretty quickly, many don’t. Also a bit of a mismatch comparing him to Rodgers, when Brenda was there Rangers were just re-emerging from the lower tiers so yes even Super could have won them titles in those years. When AP turned up Rangers had just won the title by 25 points, Celtic were an absolute shambles. In his first title season his main rivals got to a European final ffs.
I reckon he’ll do fine and as a Gers fan I’m glad to see the back of him
Finally, Spurs have already been down the road of so called elite managers, how did that go for them?

Lennon, Deila, Gerrard and Strachan won SPL titles. Enough said.
Scotland is the least competitive league in the entire world, at worst Celtic have a 50% chance of winning the league, probably in reality they have about a 60% minimum chance of winning.

[JAS]

I’m no so sure you know. There seems to this developing myth that only special managers can operate in the PL, where was Arteta before Arsenal? AP has won titles at everywhere he’s been, albeit what most would call football outposts of Australia & Japan and Jockland but success is success and management is management, the only difference in the EPL is media hysteria and ego shaping wages of players. If your managerial skills are good enough those things will be taken in stride, if not you’ll be found out.
Regarding managing in Glasgow there is also a unique goldfish bowl pressure which AP got pretty quickly, many don’t. Also a bit of a mismatch comparing him to Rodgers, when Brenda was there Rangers were just re-emerging from the lower tiers so yes even Super could have won them titles in those years. When AP turned up Rangers had just won the title by 25 points, Celtic were an absolute shambles. In his first title season his main rivals got to a European final ffs.
I reckon he’ll do fine and as a Gers fan I’m glad to see the back of him
Finally, Spurs have already been down the road of so called elite managers, how did that go for them?

Lennon, Deila, Gerrard and Strachan won SPL titles. Enough said.
Scotland is the least competitive league in the entire world, at worst Celtic have a 50% chance of winning the league, probably in reality they have about a 60% minimum chance of winning.

Ferguson won SPL titles

[super_realist]

I’m no so sure you know. There seems to this developing myth that only special managers can operate in the PL, where was Arteta before Arsenal? AP has won titles at everywhere he’s been, albeit what most would call football outposts of Australia & Japan and Jockland but success is success and management is management, the only difference in the EPL is media hysteria and ego shaping wages of players. If your managerial skills are good enough those things will be taken in stride, if not you’ll be found out.
Regarding managing in Glasgow there is also a unique goldfish bowl pressure which AP got pretty quickly, many don’t. Also a bit of a mismatch comparing him to Rodgers, when Brenda was there Rangers were just re-emerging from the lower tiers so yes even Super could have won them titles in those years. When AP turned up Rangers had just won the title by 25 points, Celtic were an absolute shambles. In his first title season his main rivals got to a European final ffs.
I reckon he’ll do fine and as a Gers fan I’m glad to see the back of him
Finally, Spurs have already been down the road of so called elite managers, how did that go for them?

Lennon, Deila, Gerrard and Strachan won SPL titles. Enough said.
Scotland is the least competitive league in the entire world, at worst Celtic have a 50% chance of winning the league, probably in reality they have about a 60% minimum chance of winning.

Ferguson won SPL titles

Ever such a long time ago. Scottish League wins have been 89% Old Firm since it began 143 years ago.
It's been a guaranteed duopoly since 1985. No other league has that few winners.
Winning that league isn't so much an achievement, but an indictment of how bad it is.

[JAS]

As per usual you divert away from a reasonable question (are Spurs going to go for Ange and should they?) to spout your repetitive vitriolic diatribe about Scottish footballs shortcomings.

What I’m trying to assert is that if you take your emotional hatred of Scottish football out of the equation and judge the man purely on his managerial skills, does he merit a go at the Spurs job? I’d say yes, at the same time from his perspective it’s a gamble (albeit one worth taking). He has a track record of success and therefore relative job security where he is. At Spurs however Levy is developing into a bit of a Poundland Abramovich tribute act. Anyway looks like it’s all signed sealed & delivered. I wonder what terms of reference/definition of success they agreed?

[super_realist]

As per usual you divert away from a reasonable question (are Spurs going to go for Ange and should they?) to spout your repetitive vitriolic  diatribe about Scottish footballs shortcomings.

What I’m trying to assert is that if you take your emotional hatred of Scottish football out of the equation and judge the man purely on his managerial skills, does he merit a go at the Spurs job? I’d say yes, at the same time from his perspective it’s a gamble (albeit one worth taking).  He has a track record of success and therefore relative job security where he is. At Spurs however Levy is developing into a bit of a Poundland Abramovich tribute act.  Anyway looks like it’s all signed sealed & delivered. I wonder what terms of reference/definition of success they agreed?

It's directly linked, you even implied it in your question.
Is he worth a go? Well there's only so much turd polishing anyone could do at Spurs, so in that respect he probably is worth a go, but I don't expect him to excel at all and will probably be sacked in 18 months time.
The silver lining for Spurs is they aren't as bad as Chelsea and that Ange is at least not as useless as Potter or Lampard.

[super_realist]

30c forecast and for some reason normal seasonal weather seemingly requires some sort of government warning? It's 30c ffs, just a nice day, it's not 45c.

[JAS]

30c forecast  and for some reason normal seasonal weather seemingly requires some sort of government warning? It's 30c ffs, just a nice day, it's not 45c.

I hear you Supes, nanny statism at its absolute most banal. Slap on the factor 20, drink a bit more water, use common sense!! I get it that vulnerable groups may need to take a bit of extra care but that doesn’t need a blanket countrywide warning.
All that does is confuse the stupid, my partner has actually had calls this morning…”Will the school be open as normal?” Ffs and these people are allowed to vote!!

[super_realist]

Exactly JAS.
Perhaps you saw it when you lived abroad, but coming back for a bit makes you realise what a truly pathetic country this is in so many ways.
Why would anyone need a warning about a moderately warm day, even if it was 35c you don't need a warning or advice. Everyone knows what to do, just like no one needs trigger warning on books, paintings, statues etc or a lecture on what food is good for you.

Other countries have a bit more respect for common sense.

[JAS]

Therein lies the problem, the authorities clearly believe there’s a large swathe of our population rather lacking in the common sense department, if I’m honest they probably have a point :-p

[super_realist]

Therein lies the problem, the authorities clearly believe  there’s a large swathe of our population rather lacking in the common sense department, if I’m honest they probably have a point :-p

It is funny how as soon as you enter the departure gate for a flight to Britain you can pick out instantly who is British.

[navyblueshorts]

Therein lies the problem, the authorities clearly believe  there’s a large swathe of our population rather lacking in the common sense department, if I’m honest they probably have a point :-p

It is funny how as soon as you enter the departure gate for a flight to Britain you can pick out instantly who is British.

Good grief. You do talk some nonsense...

[super_realist]

Therein lies the problem, the authorities clearly believe  there’s a large swathe of our population rather lacking in the common sense department, if I’m honest they probably have a point :-p

It is funny how as soon as you enter the departure gate for a flight to Britain you can pick out instantly who is British.

Good grief. You do talk some nonsense...

It is so true. I've been on about 30 different flights this year. It's as easy to spot a Brit as it's as easy to hear an American before you see one. Bad clothes, overweight, chavvy haircut, tattooed calf, drinking beer at 4am, desperate to board the plane etc.

[BlueCoverman]

Super, I didn't realise we had met. You should have said hello...

[navyblueshorts]

Therein lies the problem, the authorities clearly believe  there’s a large swathe of our population rather lacking in the common sense department, if I’m honest they probably have a point :-p

It is funny how as soon as you enter the departure gate for a flight to Britain you can pick out instantly who is British.

Good grief. You do talk some nonsense...

It is so true. I've been on about 30 different flights this year. It's as easy to spot a Brit as it's as easy to hear an American before you see one. Bad clothes, overweight, chavvy haircut, tattooed calf, drinking beer at 4am, desperate to board the plane etc.

None of which describes me when awaiting departure of a flight I've ever been on. Maybe I have some perfect Scandinavian blood and I just didn't realise? Your stereotyping has never really done you any favours and doesn't here either.

[super_realist]

Covid inquiry requiring a negative lateral flow test if you want to attend. WTF?

[super_realist]

Therein lies the problem, the authorities clearly believe  there’s a large swathe of our population rather lacking in the common sense department, if I’m honest they probably have a point :-p

It is funny how as soon as you enter the departure gate for a flight to Britain you can pick out instantly who is British.

Good grief. You do talk some nonsense...

It is so true. I've been on about 30 different flights this year. It's as easy to spot a Brit as it's as easy to hear an American before you see one. Bad clothes, overweight, chavvy haircut, tattooed calf, drinking beer at 4am, desperate to board the plane etc.

None of which describes me when awaiting departure of a flight I've ever been on. Maybe I have some perfect Scandinavian blood and I just didn't realise? Your stereotyping has never really done you any favours and doesn't here either.

Oh come on Navy. British people often stand out in the same negative ways Americans stand out.

[navyblueshorts]

Covid inquiry requiring a negative lateral flow test if you want to attend. WTF?

Ironic, eh? Talk about stupid.

[JAS]

Covid inquiry requiring a negative lateral flow test if you want to attend. WTF?

Ironic, eh? Talk about stupid.

So when Johnson gets called he'll just turn up without a mask :-p

[super_realist]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

[JAS]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

Of course we won't, there is no way we'll see anything out of it before the next election, that's a given. Personally I think they should publish any interim findings during the campaign but I would say that wouldn't I?

They are right to initially focus on preparedness and clearly we weren't.
We disagree on mask wearing and testing (certainly in the initial waves pre vaccine). You seem to forget that the initial virus and variants were quite a bit more potent and destructive that later ones like omicron and beyond.
The other big thing that needs very public airing is the awarding of contracts to cronies, we cant afford to keep nurses wages in line with the cost of living yet we can afford to spunk up over £37bn to the likes of Baroness Mone and her mates for equipment of dubious quality/usefulness...really??

[super_realist]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

[JAS]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY.

Ah, that makes sense...too late though, I'm already off on one :-p

[navyblueshorts]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

Of course we won't, there is no way we'll see anything out of it before the next election, that's a given. Personally I think they should publish any interim findings during the campaign but I would say that wouldn't I?

They are right to initially focus on preparedness and clearly we weren't.
We disagree on mask wearing and testing (certainly in the initial waves pre vaccine). You seem to forget that the initial virus and variants were quite a bit more potent and destructive that later ones like omicron and beyond.
The other big thing that needs very public airing is the awarding of contracts to cronies, we cant afford to keep nurses wages in line with the cost of living yet we can afford to spunk up over £37bn to the likes of Baroness Mone and her mates for equipment of dubious quality/usefulness...really??

Isn't that what the Enquiry has said it will be doing?

[navyblueshorts]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

We've been through this; you're wrong.

[super_realist]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

We've been through this; you're wrong

Am I? Hancock's text show exactly why the government decided to make them mandatory, and it wasn't based on science.

[super_realist]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

Of course we won't, there is no way we'll see anything out of it before the next election, that's a given. Personally I think they should publish any interim findings during the campaign but I would say that wouldn't I?

They are right to initially focus on preparedness and clearly we weren't.
We disagree on mask wearing and testing (certainly in the initial waves pre vaccine). You seem to forget that the initial virus and variants were quite a bit more potent and destructive that later ones like omicron and beyond.
The other big thing that needs very public airing is the awarding of contracts to cronies, we cant afford to keep nurses wages in line with the cost of living yet we can afford to spunk up over £37bn to the likes of Baroness Mone and her mates for equipment of dubious quality/usefulness...really??

Isn't that what the Enquiry has said it will be doing?

I'm presuming they will go at it from a particular agenda. They won't bother discussing whether lockdowns work, whether masks are necessary or effective in real world situations or whether it was worth the effort, lives and utter ruin of the economy or whether it was worth ditching WHO pandemic response for that of a communist dictatorship.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

We've been through this; you're wrong

Am I? Hancock's text show exactly why the government decided to make them mandatory, and it wasn't based on science.

Yep; plenty of studies have shown that mask wearing, even non-surgical bits of Cross of St. Andrew rags, prevent vapour dispersion from coughs etc. We can argue all day about the level of their effectiveness, and whether therefore worth wearing in light of the pathogen etc, but they definitely 'work'. To be clear, far less so (if at all) in prevention of the wearer picking up an infection from surrounding population.

[navyblueshorts]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

Of course we won't, there is no way we'll see anything out of it before the next election, that's a given. Personally I think they should publish any interim findings during the campaign but I would say that wouldn't I?

They are right to initially focus on preparedness and clearly we weren't.
We disagree on mask wearing and testing (certainly in the initial waves pre vaccine). You seem to forget that the initial virus and variants were quite a bit more potent and destructive that later ones like omicron and beyond.
The other big thing that needs very public airing is the awarding of contracts to cronies, we cant afford to keep nurses wages in line with the cost of living yet we can afford to spunk up over £37bn to the likes of Baroness Mone and her mates for equipment of dubious quality/usefulness...really??

Isn't that what the Enquiry has said it will be doing?

I'm presuming they will go at it from a particular agenda. They won't bother discussing whether lockdowns work, whether masks are necessary or effective in real world situations or whether it was worth the effort, lives and utter ruin of the economy or whether it was worth ditching WHO pandemic response for that of a communist dictatorship.

Rather than presume, why don't you wait for the outcomes and perhaps trust in the professionalism of those running the investigations? Also, try not to prejudge based on your own assumptions, so that if the Inquiry outcomes don't match those assumptions, you then don't presume the Inquiry is a complete waste of time/cover up?

[super_realist]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

We've been through this; you're wrong

Am I? Hancock's text show exactly why the government decided to make them mandatory, and it wasn't based on science.

Yep; plenty of studies have shown that mask wearing, even non-surgical bits of Cross of St. Andrew rags, prevent vapour dispersion from coughs etc. We can argue all day about the level of their effectiveness, and whether therefore worth wearing in light of the pathogen etc, but they definitely 'work'. To be clear, far less so (if at all) in prevention of the wearer picking up an infection from surrounding population.

 Jesus Navy, regardless of whether masks in a practical everyday use are effective or not is IRRELEVANT to why the UK made them mandatory. 
England mandated mask because Sturgeon did. That was the point, the efficacy of the masks whether effective or not wasn't the driver for mandating them.

[super_realist]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

Of course we won't, there is no way we'll see anything out of it before the next election, that's a given. Personally I think they should publish any interim findings during the campaign but I would say that wouldn't I?

They are right to initially focus on preparedness and clearly we weren't.
We disagree on mask wearing and testing (certainly in the initial waves pre vaccine). You seem to forget that the initial virus and variants were quite a bit more potent and destructive that later ones like omicron and beyond.
The other big thing that needs very public airing is the awarding of contracts to cronies, we cant afford to keep nurses wages in line with the cost of living yet we can afford to spunk up over £37bn to the likes of Baroness Mone and her mates for equipment of dubious quality/usefulness...really??

Isn't that what the Enquiry has said it will be doing?

I'm presuming they will go at it from a particular agenda. They won't bother discussing whether lockdowns work, whether masks are necessary or effective in real world situations or whether it was worth the effort, lives and utter ruin of the economy or whether it was worth ditching WHO pandemic response for that of a communist dictatorship.

Rather than presume, why don't you wait for the outcomes and perhaps trust in the professionalism of those running the investigations? Also, try not to prejudge based on your own assumptions, so that if the Inquiry outcomes don't match those assumptions, you then don't presume the Inquiry is a complete waste of time/cover up?

What track record have inquiries in getting to a credible conclusion? If you're already starting an inquiry from a viewpoint of REQUIRING attendees have a negative lateral flow test it already shows they have a particular agenda. 
If lateral flow tests are not required in ANY other aspect of our daily lives, why are they required now?

[JAS]

Why wouldn't you? 
I think this sets the tone for how they are hoping this inquiry is actually going. 
They should be considering whether masks, lockdowns etc which were against WHO advice were justified. We have seen from Hancock's texts that they were not. It. Is beyond retarded to have mask wearing and testing. 

Sweden were done and dusted years ago, but when a commons committee wastes five hours on something like considering Boris's Parliamentary pass, which should have taken no longer than five minutes I doubt we will get to see any outcomes from this waste of time for 10 years. 

Waste of space Britain.

Of course we won't, there is no way we'll see anything out of it before the next election, that's a given. Personally I think they should publish any interim findings during the campaign but I would say that wouldn't I?

They are right to initially focus on preparedness and clearly we weren't.
We disagree on mask wearing and testing (certainly in the initial waves pre vaccine). You seem to forget that the initial virus and variants were quite a bit more potent and destructive that later ones like omicron and beyond.
The other big thing that needs very public airing is the awarding of contracts to cronies, we cant afford to keep nurses wages in line with the cost of living yet we can afford to spunk up over £37bn to the likes of Baroness Mone and her mates for equipment of dubious quality/usefulness...really??

Isn't that what the Enquiry has said it will be doing?

I'm presuming they will go at it from a particular agenda. They won't bother discussing whether lockdowns work, whether masks are necessary or effective in real world situations or whether it was worth the effort, lives and utter ruin of the economy or whether it was worth ditching WHO pandemic response for that of a communist dictatorship.

Rather than presume, why don't you wait for the outcomes and perhaps trust in the professionalism of those running the investigations? Also, try not to prejudge based on your own assumptions, so that if the Inquiry outcomes don't match those assumptions, you then don't presume the Inquiry is a complete waste of time/cover up?

What track record have inquiries in getting to a credible conclusion? If you're already starting an inquiry from a viewpoint of REQUIRING attendees have a negative lateral flow test it already shows they have a particular agenda. 
If lateral flow tests are not required in ANY other aspect of our daily lives, why are they required now?

Leveson? Mind you it depends on your definition of credible conclusion, the press are arguably no better, possibly even worse now.

[JAS]

Speaking of the press & media...does anyone else think there's an odd imbalance in terms of the blanket coverage of the struggle and life threatening danger of 5 rich blokes on a scientific sub versus the almost complete radio silence on the plight of 500 refugees (78 known dead and over 400 missing) from a sunken boat in the Med. What does that say (if anything) about the moral compass of our media feed?

[super_realist]

Not at all.  Migrants dying in the sea are ten a penny, so another ship going down is hardly a revelation. When things happen all the time, the story just doesn't have as much impact. 

The shambolic Titan sub affair is a much rarer story, much more interesting and hence garners more publicity. Nothing to do with how wealthy they are, it's just a much more captivating story, especially as it also involves Titanic and the "will they, won't they" rescue element.  I expect now they are undoubtedly dead the story will subside, so maybe you can hope for another migrant boat story to fill the news. 
Don't see any "moral compass" bending going on at all. 

Speaking of morals and moral compasses I see Gary Neville is being a moral hypocrite again. What's wrong with that moron? Take a look in the mirror pal before opening your mouth. If only he had a brain to engage. Can't expect much of a bloke called Gary though. Being an idiot seems to be a prerequisite, especially if you're involved in football too.

[JAS]

Not at all.  Migrants dying in the sea are ten a penny, so another ship going down is hardly a revelation. When things happen all the time, the story just doesn't have as much impact. 

The shambolic Titan sub affair is a much rarer story, much more interesting and hence garners more publicity. Nothing to do with how wealthy they are, it's just a much more captivating story, especially as it also involves Titanic and the "will they, won't they" rescue element.  I expect now they are undoubtedly dead the story will subside, so maybe you can hope for another migrant boat story to fill the news. 
Don't see any "moral compass" bending going on at all. 

Speaking of morals and moral compasses I see Gary Neville is being a moral hypocrite again. What's wrong with that moron? Take a look in the mirror pal before opening your mouth. If only he had a brain to engage. Can't expect much of a bloke called Gary though. Being an idiot seems to be a prerequisite, especially if you're involved in football too.

Yep pretty much proves the point that the media at least know their audience.

[Duty281]

Speaking of the press & media...does anyone else think there's an odd imbalance in terms of the blanket coverage of the struggle and life threatening danger of 5 rich blokes on a scientific sub versus the almost complete radio silence on the plight of 500 refugees (78 known dead and over 400 missing) from a sunken boat in the Med. What does that say (if anything) about the moral compass of our media feed?

British people being affected by something are always going to get more prominence in the British media. Further, the boat that sank in the Mediterranean just sank, it didn't go missing, so it stayed in the news cycle for less duration than another vessel which went missing and for which there was a long rescue attempt (a bit like those Chilean miners, that was in the news for ages, and they weren't rich).

There also wasn't almost complete radio silence on the migrants who died in the Mediterranean. It was the main headline news on the BBC site, for instance.

[super_realist]

Not at all.  Migrants dying in the sea are ten a penny, so another ship going down is hardly a revelation. When things happen all the time, the story just doesn't have as much impact. 

The shambolic Titan sub affair is a much rarer story, much more interesting and hence garners more publicity. Nothing to do with how wealthy they are, it's just a much more captivating story, especially as it also involves Titanic and the "will they, won't they" rescue element.  I expect now they are undoubtedly dead the story will subside, so maybe you can hope for another migrant boat story to fill the news. 
Don't see any "moral compass" bending going on at all. 

Speaking of morals and moral compasses I see Gary Neville is being a moral hypocrite again. What's wrong with that moron? Take a look in the mirror pal before opening your mouth. If only he had a brain to engage. Can't expect much of a bloke called Gary though. Being an idiot seems to be a prerequisite, especially if you're involved in football too.

Yep pretty much proves the point that the media at least know their audience.

It's not about that, it's about human nature. Saturation of the same type of story time and again lessens impact and reduces interest. 
It would be EXACTLY the same if Submersibles were imploding every week and the only migrant ship in 50 years which sank would take priority. 
I don't know why you have a problem with it, as if the media are being callous or something. There was plenty evidence  of the migrant boat in the media anyway and it happend WELL BEFORE this story. It was all over the media last week, especially lefty media like the BBC. 

For the record, the migrants and submariners have the same level of stupidity. Both got on laughable vessels for a needless risk

[JAS]

Not at all.  Migrants dying in the sea are ten a penny, so another ship going down is hardly a revelation. When things happen all the time, the story just doesn't have as much impact. 

The shambolic Titan sub affair is a much rarer story, much more interesting and hence garners more publicity. Nothing to do with how wealthy they are, it's just a much more captivating story, especially as it also involves Titanic and the "will they, won't they" rescue element.  I expect now they are undoubtedly dead the story will subside, so maybe you can hope for another migrant boat story to fill the news. 
Don't see any "moral compass" bending going on at all. 

Speaking of morals and moral compasses I see Gary Neville is being a moral hypocrite again. What's wrong with that moron? Take a look in the mirror pal before opening your mouth. If only he had a brain to engage. Can't expect much of a bloke called Gary though. Being an idiot seems to be a prerequisite, especially if you're involved in football too.

Yep pretty much proves the point that the media at least know their audience.

It's not about that, it's about human nature. Saturation of the same type of story time and again lessens impact and reduces interest. 
It would be EXACTLY the same if Submersibles were imploding every week and the only migrant ship in 50 years which sank would take priority. 
I don't know why you have a problem with it, as if the media are being callous or something. There was plenty evidence  of the migrant boat in the media anyway and it happend WELL BEFORE this story. It was all over the media last week, especially lefty media like the BBC. 

For the record, the migrants and submariners have the same level of stupidity. Both got on laughable vessels for a needless risk

For the record, I don't have a problem with it I was merely provoking thought on the contrasting coverage and I get the fascination we all have about hope (which is where the sub story resonates with the Thai caves Chilean miners etc). Humanity will always want to push boundaries, christ space exploration is a needless risk in some context, so in your view did shuttle astronauts have the same level of stupidity?
Regarding migrant boats and people dying on them, yes sadly it has become normalised, just like mass shootings in the US. Does it make major incidents less newsworthy, from what you're saying the answer is yes. If they're not as newsworthy where is the pressure going to come from to stop the carnage?
On another tack there will now no doubt be a clamour to make small submersibles safer and/or put limitations on them.
Finally, throwing another pebble in the pond to see the ripples...do you think US taxpayers will be ok footing the bill for the search and recovery (or the uk if they send the bill to us) Were they insured?

[super_realist]

I just think you're coming at it from a rather Ash Sarkar commie view. 
Clearly from a journalistic point of view it's a much better story. It has much more human interest and clearly it's more interesting. 
There was blanket coverage of the migrant vessel sinking anyway last week. Plus it isn't the media's responsibility to stop migrant ships sinking. Their job is to report news that people will be interested in. 

It's really obvious why there is contrasting coverage and it has nothing to do with wealth, race etc. It's simply a better story with much more aspects to it. 
Besides I'm sure there's loads of hand wringing lefty news outlets doing a migrant boat sinking daily update. 

Like it or not, there is less interest in migrants making such journeys.

[JAS]

I just think you're coming at it from a rather Ash Sarkar commie view. 
Clearly from a journalistic point of view it's a much better story. It has much more human interest and clearly it's more interesting. 
There was blanket coverage of the migrant vessel sinking anyway last week. Plus it isn't the media's responsibility to stop migrant ships sinking. Their job is to report news that people will be interested in. 

It's really obvious why there is contrasting coverage and it has nothing to do with wealth, race etc. It's simply a better story with much more aspects to it. 
Besides I'm sure there's loads of hand wringing lefty news outlets doing a migrant boat sinking daily update. 

Like it or not, there is less interest in migrants making such journeys.

Yeah it's not about the right kind of hope is it?

Not sure about why you continually feel the desperate need to bring commie and lefty into the discussion (other than to counter the underlying feeling that a "couldn't care less about migrants dying" is a raving righty thought process)

[super_realist]

I mentioned the commie stuff because morons like Ash Sarkar were saying if you can afford 200k to go on a trip you aren't paying enough tax and she also said migrants are seemingly "meant" to die at sea, as a seeming backhanded insult as to why this is ahead of it in the news and it seemed to me that you were focussing on the fact they were billionaires as the reason why this was pounced on by the media rather than it being a rare and far more intriguing story than yet another migrant boat sinking. 

It has nothing to do with one life being worth more than another, it's simply a better story in every respect from a journalistic point of view and what captures public imagination. 
Like I said, if migrant boats hardly ever sunk, and submersibles imploded weekly, then guess what, you'd get your migrant boat story top of the news. That's how it works. It's not about moral compasses, not about the "wrong kind of hope" not about recognising wealth or giving those with it more time and resources. 
I can just imagine how frothing Sarkar would be if they were all rich white men and if there hadn't been a couple of Pakistani men in there. She must be seething that they are getting more column inches than the white British billionaire who died alongside them, because she can't use it in her disgusting agenda.

Chilean miners and Thai footballers were hardly billionaires, but it's just a more interesting story than another boat sinking.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

We've been through this; you're wrong

Am I? Hancock's text show exactly why the government decided to make them mandatory, and it wasn't based on science.

Yep; plenty of studies have shown that mask wearing, even non-surgical bits of Cross of St. Andrew rags, prevent vapour dispersion from coughs etc. We can argue all day about the level of their effectiveness, and whether therefore worth wearing in light of the pathogen etc, but they definitely 'work'. To be clear, far less so (if at all) in prevention of the wearer picking up an infection from surrounding population.

 Jesus Navy, regardless of whether masks in a practical everyday use are effective or not is IRRELEVANT to why the UK made them mandatory. 
England mandated mask because Sturgeon did. That was the point, the efficacy of the masks whether effective or not wasn't the driver for mandating them.

If you say so. Moving on...

[navyblueshorts]

Speaking of the press & media...does anyone else think there's an odd imbalance in terms of the blanket coverage of the struggle and life threatening danger of 5 rich blokes on a scientific sub versus the almost complete radio silence on the plight of 500 refugees (78 known dead and over 400 missing) from a sunken boat in the Med. What does that say (if anything) about the moral compass of our media feed?

Yeah. Completely agree.

[super_realist]

Jas, just to be clear. I am disagreeing with wearing masks and prior testing IN ORDER TO ATTEND THE INQUIRY. That is ridiculous that they are asking for that now. It is ridiculous that people are being asked to show a negative covid test for that. 

Masks were mandated during covid not because of any scientific efficacy but because Sturgeon had done so in Scotland. This was revealed in Hancock's texts. If there actually was a scientific case, we would have been required to wear a particular standard and Krankie wouldn't have work a toy tartan one just to show how Scotch she was.

We've been through this; you're wrong

Am I? Hancock's text show exactly why the government decided to make them mandatory, and it wasn't based on science.

Yep; plenty of studies have shown that mask wearing, even non-surgical bits of Cross of St. Andrew rags, prevent vapour dispersion from coughs etc. We can argue all day about the level of their effectiveness, and whether therefore worth wearing in light of the pathogen etc, but they definitely 'work'. To be clear, far less so (if at all) in prevention of the wearer picking up an infection from surrounding population.

 Jesus Navy, regardless of whether masks in a practical everyday use are effective or not is IRRELEVANT to why the UK made them mandatory. 
England mandated mask because Sturgeon did. That was the point, the efficacy of the masks whether effective or not wasn't the driver for mandating them.

If you say so. Moving on...

I don't say so, Hancock's texts say so.

[super_realist]

Speaking of the press & media...does anyone else think there's an odd imbalance in terms of the blanket coverage of the struggle and life threatening danger of 5 rich blokes on a scientific sub versus the almost complete radio silence on the plight of 500 refugees (78 known dead and over 400 missing) from a sunken boat in the Med. What does that say (if anything) about the moral compass of our media feed?

Yeah. Completely agree.

You can't see why this story is more interesting than yet another boat sinking?

PS, who said they were refugees rather than migrants? They were from Pakistan according to the story which was widely reported in the media, so they aren't refugees.

[super_realist]

What do you all think of schools indulging school pupils "identifying" as cats, foxes and mushrooms?

It is ridiculous isn't it?

[Sponsored content]