Rayvin

Looking forward to this being officially announced, but is this pretty much all of our budget gone now?

Translation: I found fuck all.

This is a fair comment. As a public figure, he does have a level of responsibility.

Have thought about this a little more - I think I'd say that the singing/standing would be tacit acknowledgement of their position and a demonstration of the level of acceptance in our society that we have for this hierarchical system. So no, the anthem in itself, if considered alone, is not worthy of ire. When considered as part of our social conditioning however, for me at least, refusal to take part is necessary.

Fair enough, I do accept that I this may just be one of my (many) hair triggers.

I've heard the argument that since the BBC is criticised by both the left and right alike, it must be doing a fairly good job in the impartiality stakes. Am concerned about the Tory attacks though, the right wing media outlets already far outnumber the left.

I feel hugely uncomfortable whenever I've stood up for the anthem in the past (which I now don't do) because I simply don't believe in the words on the level of principle. I do not owe them my allegiance, and I will not stand respectfully for them while singing for their good health. I think it's a farce that the anthem that represents 60 million people is dedicated to a single old woman. I'm not going to protest about it though, I'm just expressing personal preference. McClean is a slightly different case if his issue is more with the UK, as that does raise the spectre of 'well you're happy to earn a living here'; but if it's directed at the Royals as mine is, then I can't fault him. I doubt it's the latter though, that doesn't seem to be the political angle for Ireland. That said, I can understand his position and the sentiment, even if it is a tad misguided.

If bloodline lotteries didn't have so much influence over the respective social positions of most of the people in this country, then yes, it'd be an irrelevant position to take.

Dunno like, I struggle with the national anthem. I'd refuse to stand, sing, bow, whatever if it came on. Not sure I'd turn my back in his position, but I'd be doing my best to look disengaged. That said, if we had an anthem that wasn't praising and singing for the good health of a small number of 'elites' then I'd be on board with it, so maybe that is a difference.

One vote no, one vote yes. Says it all about our transfer business, really.

Agree with this - plenty of sides around us are strengthening in quite significant ways. We could be very much in the shit if things don't improve.

So is this transfer now not happening then?

I woulda taken Santon for the other flank...

Jonny Evans to Everton for c.£8m... I reckon we could do worse than Evans tbh, especially considering, y'know, Williamson.

The shit we have to put up with in the build up to signing anyone...

Ok I get where you're coming from. That said, I think it's important to remember that the running of the country doesn't actually *require* politicians. The civil servants run the country, the politicians just tell them which strategies to implement. As such, having government in the sense of having politicians is largely not required for the actual day to day functioning of the country. In much the same way as the board of directors isn't required for the day to day running of a company. I mention this just because I don't think there's a burning imperative to elect a political government when the time comes, and therefore minimum quotas would not derail the country, in the short term at least. But anyway, I take the point on the yes/no vs. multiple options bit. Presumably unions could get around this by making mandatory voting a part of the membership requirement anyway... that said, I'm not certain how relevant they are in this day and age.

No? Can you elaborate on that one? It's not something that I've put a lot of thought into but aren't they both supposed to be vehicles of democratic elections? EDIT - For clarity, my knowledge on the way unions work is limited.

Isn't the principle that they're requiring a level of participation, in tandem with a level of backing, that would make the vast majority of strikes untenable for unions? Ironically, were the same criteria applied to the General Election, they wouldn't have been allowed to form a government. Ultimately though they're just eliminating Labour's power base - which is a totally rational thing to do from their point of view. Why in fuck have Labour not sorted themselves out yet, they've almost bloody lost the next General Election, let alone the last one...

To who...? Surely it'd be better promoted against teams who actually bring in a decent amount of fans...?

How depressing... sounds about right though. I guess the scramble to the top of the pile will continue but with added desperation.

This looks pretty much over now. I work with a Greek guy (who now holds most of his parents' assets and cash, and is trying to secure British citizenship as quickly as possible) and he puts the blame squarely at the feet of the Greek governments through the past couple of decades. He says he's struggling to blame the EU because Greece has played this so poorly. They have played it poorly to be honest; that referendum backfired spectacularly. That said, it was strange when I was arguing with him that the Greek people, his people, didn't deserve this. And he was arguing that after years of government funded excess, that actually yes, they did. He's been living in Britain too long I reckon...

Was he hit by a stray bluebottle or something? Fucks sake...

Dunno like, they've played their hand so well in a political sense... Labour are in oblivion, the Lib Dems are utterly destroyed, who the fuck else is there? They've played an absolute blinder in this last election, the utter cunts...

Good call. All sorts of nonsense on Twitter. Certain accounts masquerading as famous people, others as comedy accounts, it's a minefield.

I think you'll find that most get their info from the crazed ravings on Twitter...