NJS

The Journal described his omission as "a change of heart" - probably due to the conditions but said he will be included in the squad on Sunday.

In his recent interview didn't Luque say that Souness had told him he bought him to play on the front left of a 4-3-3?

The only people who say he brandished the leg like a gun are the coppers who shot him. As they would. 47724[/snapback] likewise if anyone he knew had been there, they would have said he wasn't. As they would. Are you really saying you think a copper would go and shoot someone for absolutley nothing ? {BTW, I knew you would be saying that, but just wondered if you would spell it out] The point is, no one else was there, there is only one witness. Tough shit. 47969[/snapback] No I don't think they "just shot him" but I do think it seems over-zealous in the circumstances and its an easy chance for them to cover up something which was probably a mistake. However I think that miistake should not just be ignored. Theres only one witness one one side of the fence in lots of cases - most rapes for instance but they still sometimes get a chance of a trial. Turning your question around do you think coppers should be allowed to shoot people and "get away with it" with the use of a reasonably sounding excuse which can't be questioned?

The only people who say he brandished the leg like a gun are the coppers who shot him. As they would.

Independent witnesses or the word of those involved?

Congrats

I've read that the original letters have been destroyed by the "primitive" testing available at the time but they do have some envelopes which are still pristine which could be used for modern DNA based testing. As an aside I remember it as one of the first "official" acknowledgments that people from Sunderland weren't Geordies or at least spoke very differently.

Their problem with the Airport is twofold - As it was paid for largely by Tyne & Wear Council they reckon they paid for something that is too far away (doesn't stop them polluting it with their deckchair shirts every summer) and also that technically its in Wolisingham, Northumberland and not Newcastle so shouldn't be called that. Petty bastards? no....

I've only ever heard/read so called "real" reasons for the rivalry from the Sunderland side. Crap about the civil war when Newcastle was royalist and Sunderland Cromwellian mainly due to economic reasons. I've always described it as a pure football rivalry - there is no trivial shit like religion or politics to get in the way. I forgot to mention they have a HUGE chip on their shoulders about the recent development and investment in Newcastle/Gateshead. You can also mention things like the Metro and the Arport and get huge bites.

I think its because of Gullit that Shepherd is now "anti-foreign". On the other ones I don't like that they turned us down - one of the positive things about Souness is how he didn't hesitate - I know that will be twisted to him knowing he was on his way out but I still got the sense of him being eager to come to us - none of this "I haven't finished my work at Bolton" bollock.

Well, as long as he isn't another Souness... Of course there is no guarantee that Hitzfeld wouldl succeed and it's far from certain that he will even come. Though, to compare someone who won the CL with two different teams and has been the most succesful manager in one of Europe's major leagues in the last decade with a Swiss nobody is plainly ridiculous. I also don't know what is presumptuous in saying that Souness will fail. That is an assessment by his work over the last twelve months in charge and a string of poor results and poor performances. But of course, it looks very likely that he will be succesful. Is this a flying pig I see outside my window? 46488[/snapback] some people just won't admit they are wrong because they have been wearing rose tinted specs © 46535[/snapback] My position hasn't changed - of the managers on Freddies shortlist (and not any mythical one) I still think Souness was the best choice. If that changes and he will entertain the idea of a Hitzfeld then thats fantastic. If his next list starts Shearer, goes through Allarydyce and Bruce to O'Leary then I will have a similar view - none of them appeal.

What if Hitzfeld is another Gross? I did actually want him "last time" but the way people think its a bang on certainty that he would succeed is as presumptious as saying Souness will definitely fail. I do happen to think he would succeed (though doubt Freddie will go for him) but the weight of this "messiah" burden may be too much for any manager. It would certainly be too much for who we'd most likely get - O'Leary or Bruce.

But then that goes back to what we actually have communities/societies for. The alternative where the "aggrieved" party simply punishes the wrongdoer leads to vigilantism and the breakdown of all law. There has to be a "detached" view when it comes to justice which doesn't mean the severity of the crime is ignored.

LM, doesn't that article contradict a lot of what you have been saying? 46399[/snapback] That contradicts everything he's said and backs up what other like me and Rob have been saying - in the long term if you want "decent" citizens from people who've either made a mistake or are "genetic" scum then prison isn't the answer. As I've argued unpopularly in the past on paedos, if someone like this rapist committed his crimes due to an actual mental illness then I'd rather he was treated and cured rather than "locked up forever" as LM wants. Do we want a society where "ill" people are jailed?

Nobody has said "I hope we lose" but there seems to a futuristic hindsight if you know what I mean where people will say "at least it got rid of Souness". My objection is the degree to which people entertain that notion now and also how much they will use it if we do lose. Thats the "level of devestation" I'm on about PL - if people are as pissed off as they were after any defeat in the past against them (under Bobby or Gullit) then thats fine no matter how that is but if they let a sly "oh well" type thought then I think its wrong.

I'm quite willing to accept the "for good of the club" argument - there was a spell when Jim Smith was manager the season after we'd failed in the play-offs where I almost got to the "hope we lose" stage and if I was as vehementally as unhappy with Souness as some are and was offered a humiliation agsint West Brom or even Chelsea then I'd be tempted. But this Sunderland. Anyone who entertains the "maybe if we lose" thought for a second should not go to the match. I also stand by my "banned for life" comment. In hindsight it may have been right for Gullit to leave but after that match all I could do was think about losing to them bastards. None of this "greater good" entered my head. Even when he left I didn't think "maybe losing was a good thing" as I thought that as others have said other events will take care of that. Coming from South Shields I've had to occasionally put up with grief from "proper" Geordies from the city or just from north of the river who have questioned my right to be a toon fan and gone as far as to call me a mackem, I tell you one thing - I have no doubts where I stand on Newcastle/Sunderland - it looks like some of you do.

I agree - anyone who isn't 110% behind the team next week should seriously consider not going and giving their ticket to someone else. If we lose and anyone isn't as devestated as they should be because "ah well it hurts Souness" (whether it does or not) should be banned for life. If it goes as far as a humiliation that gets some kind of "celebratory" reaction from a sizeable section of the ground then I hope we are relegated.

In some ways that result was more of a blow than the Belgrade game - the 7 or 8 games after that were were poor and that continued generally into the next season.. Results and finishing position do count but there wasn't that much difference between the last two seasons in terms of overall "excitement" or "satisfaction". Something like 11 points and 9 places don't really matter to me - I think we've been in a rebuliding phase for two years. If anyone honestly thinks the "3rd top" team were only a couple of players away from being higher they're dreaming imo.

Do you honestlly think the squad as at august 04 would have qualified for europe under Bobby last season? Do you not think money needed to be spent anyway? We may disagree about the manager to a degree but I thought we'd all pretty much accepted that the "good" squad was on the wane. In answer to your question I don't know but I think key major purchases have been made. I'd like to see a few "middle notch" squad player brought in plus a couple of first teamers. 45974[/snapback] totally wrong mate. Almost every single person, and not just on these message boards, thought we were underachieving and finishing 5th was a real pisser. That is why Bobby Robson was sacked. We also, almost to a man, thought that we needed to replace Shearer and find a new partner for Bellamy, almost everyone also didn't see Newcastle without him, and thought we were only a couple of good buys from being a lot closer to the top 3 than we were at the time, along with Liverpool. Correct ? Nowt like changing history ......... Souness and his spin cronies have done a good job brainwashing quite a few people from the true situation before he came it would appear. 46043[/snapback] No not correct imo. That squad had stuttered over the finish line to 3rd the previous season and needed to be freshened up in 2003. We got Bowyer and nothing else. The next season was generally piss poor - 2 away wins? - that squad as DK had said had punched slightly above its weight. Looking from the outside as people did Souness thought it was an excellent squad when he arrived - it is to his credit that he realised that it wasn't. As I've said before putting all of your faith in one player - be it Bellamy, Shearer or whoever has been a major problem for us and needs to end.

Do you honestlly think the squad as at august 04 would have qualified for europe under Bobby last season? Do you not think money needed to be spent anyway? We may disagree about the manager to a degree but I thought we'd all pretty much accepted that the "good" squad was on the wane. In answer to your question I don't know but I think key major purchases have been made. I'd like to see a few "middle notch" squad player brought in plus a couple of first teamers.

I think the thing that is pissing Souness (and the rest us) off the most is that its all the "creative" type player who are injured at the same time. LM mention the "going forward" thing but when your midfield is limited to Clark. Parker and Bowyer then "eye of the needle" passes aren'ty going to happen no matter how well they are coached or whatever. I do however completely accept the point of PL that the squad as a whole isn't good enough which is down to him (and Freddie).

The no claims bonus is the starting point but then other factors are applied - type of car, age, gender and strangely occupation. You can then of course have a protected no claims bonus which means I can "recklessly" have accidents without losing it. I guess you're right about the likelihood thing but I see it in terms of the ratio of accidents per amount driven as an indicator of "safeness". Perhaps the future technology will be used in the exact opposite way to that I've suggested earlier and "heavy use" drivers will be charged more.

I don't think there was that much difference between how Thatcher saw Scargill and his like ("the enemy within") and how Hitler saw the jews. Not saying she'd have gassed them but she held the same contempt.

Yes. When Dennis died I had a moment of false hope that it was her. My Mam who is the nicest person in the world told me off for wanting someone dead. She reckoned it would be better if Thatcher lived for as long as possible to "see her sins" which would make her suffer - only problem is she never will.

I would add that what made her different was the intent. All "civilised" governments set out with the intent of doing the best for the country no matter what their "beliefs". Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't and people suffer. Thatcher on the other hand was driven by an idealogical "mission" to destroy what she thought were powerbases. Peoples lives (most people in our part of the world have a story like Cath's) became incidental "collateral damage" in her crusade to get revenge for what she saw as past battles and to give the middle classes their "dreams" of home and share ownership. People say she thought she was doing what was right and I'm sure thats true but there was an indifference to the cost that set her apart and makes me define her as evil.