ChezGiven

From the club's perspective, they had 3 options. 1. Get him to sign a new contract, keeping him here on big wages until he is 31 / 32. Not likely given the club's dealings in the past. 2. Assess him positively for fitness / attitude and keep him for one more year hoping he would improve on last season and let him go for free. 3. Assess him negatively for fitness / attitude and try to sell him and re-coup some of the money invested in him. With him coming back over-weight, its not just a signal to his fitness, its a very strong signal that he was not taking the forthcoming season seriously. Therefore, 1 and 2 are out of the question. If he is prepared to do nothing for a season, he can find a better contract as he can take some of the transfer fee as wages. The game becomes, if you stay you are frozen out and waste a year of your career so find a solution with another club. In the end, if nothing happens, like countless times in the past the player will be 'brought back into the fold' after a 'reconciliation' with the manager in late August early September. Its just a game until then and if he does say 'fuck you i'm not moving' the club wont let him 'rot in the reserves' unless there has been a massive bust-up. The cliches in quote marks should convince that this is all just standard.

If they are sticking a tube in to your groin, i think it might be to have a look at your arteries. In this case, i would have thought its to evaluate the arteries feeding the tumour before the surgery so when they take it out, they know how many blood supplies the tumour has and can more accurately perform the surgery. Best of luck mate, anything i can do just let us know.

The line with a cherry tomato on top.

I could get high off that tbf.

Garden sheds, indoor gyms, budgies..... drugs.

As i neither work in finance, law or medicine i'm afraid i wasnt referring to myself. Just the parochial view that drugs are for bamps.

Is that why you edited the post? If i was twisting what you said then there would be no need to edit it. The fact that you have shows that you know the post made you look bad. I was just pointing out what was bad about it. You don't know where you are with all this do you, you poor thing.

You said an "argument was suggested in this thread" and then described the logic "in derogatory terms". You were therefore using that term to describe the people representing that argument. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of logic, nor how to argue without throwing childish insults.

Its legal to smoke it in the home in Belgium. Doesn't really count as its not really a country.

Uruguayans, Spanish, Colarado, Washington.....

Except that isn't the logic that was used. The argument that was used drew upon the poiltical and moral philosophy of Aristotle who was the first writer and thinker to describe the principle of fairness requiring equal situations to be treated equally. The principles of 'law' are not ad hoc, based on history or the childish algebra of someone willfully mis-representing an argument. They are based on fundamental principles which are arrived at through careful thought. I was listening to a judge being interviewed on Radio 4 this morning and he said in every case, the judge must ask 'what is the principle at stake in this case'. For substances, the principle is harm. From this principle, the arguments relating to alcohol are very relevant and the arguments against decriminalisation look weak and incoherent. Nice use of the word spastic btw, do you use that when disagreeing with your colleagues in the NHS?

Odd conversation to have during sex.

Keep up.

Consistency is non-negotiable and historical norms are irrelevant.

Historical norms like 'it was the 1970s, our attitude towards paedophilia was different back then'? Nonsense.

Its not desirable, its usually non-negotiable. e.g. "Thou shalt not bugger under-age boys unless you are a Tory politician, in which case its fine" is unacceptable. Treating equivalent situations equivalently is the fundamental principle of the law.

Completely agree. The moral and legal basis for drugs being prohibited is harm, for the law to be coherent (an absolute must for any moral code) then equivalent harm needs to be treated equivalently.

Just to be clear, Incidence = event / total population.

I do wonder what the incidence of serious injury and fatality is amongst cyclists and the incidence of fatality amongst traditional drug users. The reason why i say this is that the incidence of harm is used as the argument against drugs, if the incidence of harm was found to be similar to e.g. riding a bicycle in London, would that make the case for prohibiting it?

You fucking idiot. I was drawing an ironic comparison between the risk / harm perspectives in two active threads.

Because teenagers are out of control and embrace chaos and escape. I think if you're curious, trying drugs in middle age is safer than riding a bike.

'I might die' is not an excuse for lack of exercise Meenz.

Fair enough, i wouldn't hang out with me either in that case.

Don't worry, you're not invited.

Track suit, shit trainers, bong-eyed in a panama hat.