Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bentley Bullet on July 18, 2019, 02:28:43 pm
-
https://youtu.be/y7QyFEnqwCk
-
He was never that dynamic when he had a bat in his hand - however he’s bang on
-
I don't know if he still holds the record, but he held the record for the fastest century in a one day game for a long time, and he scored it in the final.
In a period when bowlers were not restricted, wickets left uncovered in county matches, bowlers who could drag the back foot, therefore letting the ball go nearer to the batsman, fielding restrictions, and nowhere near the protection equipment worn in todays game, technically batsmen had to be much more aware of conditions and probably were better all round batsmen.
In the last fifty years there has not been one rule introduced that has benefited the bowler.
-
he should stick to cricket
-
I admire Boycott and he was a boyhood hero of mine..
I’m not sure the Dunkirk spirit will be enough to deal with the economic forecast for a no deal Brexit as reported today (Office for Budget Responsibility - an independent watchdog)..
Plus didn’t Boycott say that about 3 week ago.?
-
Is that the best you can do BB? Cheap media shot. I love your cricket commentary Geoffrey but stick to what you know about.
-
Iateallthepies. What is cheap about showing a clip of someone with good old fashioned British spirit? I say old fashioned because it is not fashionable to show such positivity nowadays, for fear of ridicule from pessimists.
If positivity is cheap, doesn't that make negativity costly?
-
Irrespective of his politics I’ve always loved Boycott. I saw him playing for Yorkshire at Scarborough in the 80’s and he had a chat with supporters after the game. It was evident that most of his team mates had no time for him though.
-
Irrespective of his politics I’ve always loved Boycott. I saw him playing for Yorkshire at Scarborough in the 80’s and he had a chat with supporters after the game. It was evident that most of his team mates had no time for him though.
Of course his teammates had no time for him, he was only interested in himself.
-
Positivity is everyone's right. I'm positive about the case for remaining a member of the EU, or does that not count? Besides, if positivity is the subject I'd say you are the least qualified to comment on it since you have never ceased telling us how you voted one way and have since done your best to ridicule everyone else who voted with you.
-
Old man with anger management issues supports Brexit. Big wow.
I stuck it out long enough to see if my guess of how long it would be till he said "We fought two world wars" was right.
In fairness, I'd guessed 2 minutes and it was 3:40, so he lasted longer than I expected.
Yet another one who never fought a war raising the War(s) as a reason for us to get out. Fascinating how his generation harp on about that topic, whereas those left of the generation who DID fight WWII are much more supportive of the EU.
-
Not everyone, 'Pies, just the silly bad loser ones. By silly, I'm referring to those who are positive about remaining in the EU. Don't you find it even ever so slightly a bit silly being positive about something that isn't going to happen?
In fear of repeating myself, being negative about the result of the vote is one thing, but not accepting it is playing right into the EU's hands.
That is and will continue to be a major reason should Brexit fail. At the very least it will contribute greatly to the delay in its success.
-
Go on BB. I'll ask yet again.
In what way do you think we could or should have got a better deal from the EU than the one May negotiated. And how, precisely, have the EU played on us being disunited, to give us a worse deal than we should have got?
-
If you don't understand the old saying United we stand, Divided we fall I'm surprised you're from a mining village.
Even you should understand that the EU didn't have to work too hard at an agreement in the knowledge that the UK had its own people who wanted it to fail.
-
So. Go on. What better deal should we have got?
-
he should stick to cricket
I agree; and Lineker should stick to football.
-
he should stick to cricket
I agree; and Lineker should stick to football.
Brilliant post SS
-
So. Go on. What better deal should we have got?
So I guess we mark that down as a zero return then. Again.
-
https://www.balloonsoverbritain.co.uk/
-
So. Go on. What better deal should we have got?
So you think we should have accepted May's deal?
-
No. I don't.
Now, are you going to answer the question I've been asking you for a year? Or are you going to babby it again?
-
Are you that singer David Gray? I ask because you don't half babble on. Now then, if you answer MY questions we might just get somewhere. Why shouldn't we have accepted May's deal?
-
Bore off BB. Same every single time. The child's approach to discussion.
Never, ever an answer. Just stir the pot.
You make an assertion.
I ask you for clarity on it.
You refuse to clarify and instead insist I answer your question. A question, by the way, that I've answered dozens of times in here.
It's bizarre and, frankly, rather sad behaviour. I assume you get something out of this, but I'm buggered if I can see what.
-
No Billy lad YOU'RE the one not answering, and you know why you're not answering because if you did answer, you'd answer the question for me.
Now, I'll try again. Why shouldn't we have accepted May's deal? What did she have to achieve to get your acceptance of a deal?
-
put your bat and ball down Geoffrey and come and join us
Remainiacs Podcast Retweeted Cambridge Stays #FBPE
Remainiacs meeting point for #MarchForChange is corner of Curzon St and Park Lane from noon. See you there. Bring EVERYONE...
NO to #Brexit 🛑
NO to Boris Johnson 🤡
YES to Europe ♥️
Follow Follow @cambridge_stays
More
-
Go on. I'll humour you once again. Although you clearly haven't been listening these past 12 months when I've answered that time after time.
May's deal was a dog's breakfast.
It was clear from the start that, to minimise the economic hit of Brexit, we had to stay closely connected to the Single Market. And it was clear from the start that the only way to solve the Irish border issue was to remain in the CU.
May unilaterally announced that we were leaving both. (Watch last night's Panorama: she didn't even discuss this with her Chancellor before announcing it.)
Having announced that we were leaving the CU, she totally failed to understand the EU position. She assumed that she could then negotiate a favourable trade deal. But the EU stuck to it's long term position. UK leaving the CU would badly damage the economy of an EU member state (Ireland). And so, the EU would not enter into negotiations on trade until that was sorted.
That's why we ended up with the backstop. Which effectively ties us into the CU with no say in CU rules.
So, May's deal is comprehensively, on every point, worse than staying in and worse than the sort of Norway+ deal which would have got a grudging majority of support in the country. Worse, her deal is supported by a tiny fraction of the population. So it had to be rejected.
No. Over to you. What better deal could we have got by being united?
-
Multi millionaires wanting to stop the EU letting them keep their money offshore , and leave the paying of tax to us peasants , that I can understand . it is despicable , but I can understand he greed.
What I find hard to fathom is why this legion of well off pensioners ( like Boycott),
who won't be affected , want to wreak havoc on the next generations , so they can strut around their ' little England ' , trying to feel superior because 'we won the war'.
( the allies conveniently forgotten )
meanwhile the damage ( project fear ? ) is well under way.
Ed Conway @EdConwaySky 6h6 hours ago
sterling is the worst performing major currency in the world over the past 24 hours, over the past month, over the past three months and over the past year
Peter Timmins 🇬🇧 🇫🇷 🇪🇺 @petertimmins3 2h2 hours ago
More
I see the pound is continuing it's downward trend making imports to the UK even more expensive for UK consumers, as well as continuing to erode the pension incomes of those of us who've made our homes in the EU. Tell me again what are the #Brexit benefits for ordinary folk?
I was never totally convinced about Boycott , though a magnificent batsman , the actual game seemed to be about his batting figures rather than a successful team performance. Perhaps that answers the question.
He may be Yorkshire , but his opinions are from another planet as far as I am concerned.
-
Go on. I'll humour you once again. Although you clearly haven't been listening these past 12 months when I've answered that time after time.
May's deal was a dog's breakfast.
It was clear from the start that, to minimise the economic hit of Brexit, we had to stay closely connected to the Single Market. And it was clear from the start that the only way to solve the Irish border issue was to remain in the CU.
May unilaterally announced that we were leaving both. (Watch last night's Panorama: she didn't even discuss this with her Chancellor before announcing it.)
Having announced that we were leaving the CU, she totally failed to understand the EU position. She assumed that she could then negotiate a favourable trade deal. But the EU stuck to it's long term position. UK leaving the CU would badly damage the economy of an EU member state (Ireland). And so, the EU would not enter into negotiations on trade until that was sorted.
That's why we ended up with the backstop. Which effectively ties us into the CU with no say in CU rules.
So, May's deal is comprehensively, on every point, worse than staying in and worse than the sort of Norway+ deal which would have got a grudging majority of support in the country. Worse, her deal is supported by a tiny fraction of the population. So it had to be rejected.
No. Over to you. What better deal could we have got by being united?
I never suggested that May's deals were any good. I have in fact said all along that Brexit has been handled badly by people from all parties, many of whom are determined to stop Brexit. If those people didn't have support from the public they wouldn't have had the backing to turn their backs on democracy.
WE are in a situation where our division weakens our stand in negotiations. If the UK is a laughing stock it is because we have divided ourselves while the EU just sits back and waits for us to implode. If the EU is laughing at us it is because they know they can rule because of our division. They can exploit the situation in such a way that they don't have to offer us any compromise. They can even sit back and laugh until we go cap in hand begging for them to let us back in.
If that's not the situation and they are willing to compromise, a better deal could mean one that allows us to design our own immigration system. That, in my view, was the biggest reason why we voted to leave. We could also agree on a trade policy that allows us to be fully independent.
Alas, I fear it could be too late and they'll probably choose to put nothing else on the table. If that's the case then our only option is to leave with no deal. A contributory factor to that could well have been because of our disunity.
-
And once again, you don't answer the question.
It's very simple.
In what way would our unity on this topic enabled us to negotiate a better deal?
What SPECIFIC things about May's deal do you not like, and how could we have negotiated better terms?
You can't just say "it would have been better." That's crap. You have to explain HOW it would have been better.
You MUST have an answer because you've been babbling on about disunity being the problem for months.
So. Give us the answer.
-
The only option to leave with no deal.?
There is the option of going of back to the country again, now that the electorate knows much more about the potential realities of Brexit than in 2016.
It isn’t a case of voting until we get the right result, nor is it ignoring a democratic result. It is simply a reflection of being able to know a hell of a lot more than was clear in 2016..
-
And once again, you don't answer the question.
It's very simple.
In what way would our unity on this topic enabled us to negotiate a better deal?
What SPECIFIC things about May's deal do you not like, and how could we have negotiated better terms?
You can't just say "it would have been better." That's crap. You have to explain HOW it would have been better.
You MUST have an answer because you've been babbling on about disunity being the problem for months.
So. Give us the answer.
The general view of May's deal was that we would have still been tied by EU rules but with no say on them. I agree with that. I don't blame May solely for it, she had a difficult task made impossible by having to firstly please 27 other countries along with politicians at home some of whom were determined to make Brexit fail under any circumstances.
Of course, striking a deal would have been easier if it was the UK versus the EU instead of some of the UK versus the EU!
-
Still no answer BB. Nothing at all about how unity was supposed to make the EU give us a different deal. You haven't given any indication of what it is that the EU could have been forced into offering us that they didn't do so.
Tell you what. I'll lay out the argument from my side and you tell me which bit you don't agree with.
My take is that there WAS a moment where a decision could have been made in the interests of national unity. But it's cause and effect. It wasn't ever a case of unity getting us a better deal. It was a case of a better deal getting a more unified country.
That time was in 2016/17. We COULD have gone into negotiations with the EU wanting a deal that kept us in, or close to the CU and in, or close to the SM. Something like Norway and Switzerland.
Polls have shown that would have been an acceptable compromise to a large majority of the country, myself definitely included.
That was a possibility in 2016.
May rejected that unilaterally in Jan 2017. She didn't discuss it with anyone. She didn't gauge the opinions of other political leaders and try to find a unifying way forward. Get this. She didn't even consult her own Chancellor.
May decided that Brexit meant leaving the SM and CU. That was a position supported by about 25% of the population, and by the hard right of the Tory party.
Don't lecture me on unity. That decision blew the concept of unity out of the window.
Now, having made that decision, May was faced with negotiating with the EU. But the EU had said from Day1 that they would not negotiate a preferential trade deal with us if Brexit seriously damaged Ireland. And May's decision to leave the CU would seriously damage Ireland.
So now we get to the nub of it. I'll spell it out really simply. There is nothing that anyone at home could do to change that. The EU were simply not going to back down on that because it is existential to the concept of the EU. That's the bit that folk in the UK don't seem to get. It is preferable to the EU for them to see a hit to the German car industry,than to weaken the solidarity of the EU nations.
Realise that, and it's clear that the unity or disunity of the UK is irrelevant. May put us in a position where there was nothing to negotiate.
What the EU DID do (which they didn't have to) was to offer May a way out. The Backstop. It was a mess, but it was the only way that Ireland's position could be protected while still giving May a fig leaf. It would mean we WOULDN'T be leaving the CU, but May could spin it that we would...eventually. But that was rejected by the ERG and DUP.
Now, we did have one other option. That was to leave with No Deal. But that would be insane. To unify on that theme would be the equivalent of 25% of the population deciding to shoot their kneecaps off, and everyone else agreeing to do so in solidarity.
Now. Which bit of that don't you agree with? Where do you think May was hobbled by folk scheming to Remain, when, if we'd had unity, she'd have got us a better Brexit.
-
It was always only 'some of the UK' because the Tories kept it all to themselves, set out unnecessary 'red lines' and didn't bother trying to find a consensus until they'd completely ran out of other ideas - by which time it was far too late. The Tories had full control of everything that happened, no-one else had a say let alone any responsibility for it.
-
Glyn. A far more concise version of what I just said.
BB's take seems to be that we should have just let the worst PM in history interpret what Brexit meant, then follow her unquestioningly like lobotomized sheep.
-
Glyn. A far more concise version of what I just said.
BB's take seems to be that we should have just let the worst PM in history interpret what Brexit meant, then follow her unquestioningly like lobotomized sheep.
I know. And when it comes to the votes in Parliament, they don't seem to be able to comprehend that when an MP votes on Brexit, it is their duty to vote according to what they think is best (or, more likely, what is least harmful) for the country - and that is why they vote the way they do. But no, they're expected to deliberately vote for something that the MP thinks is bad for the country 'just because' it's a 'betrayal' if they don't.
-
Now you're just being a silly Billy, aren't you!
-
How is my life going to improve post brexit, and how long will it take? How will my daughters lives be better outside of the EU?
I've got my bingo card ready....
-
Now you're just being a silly Billy, aren't you!
Expecting a sensible response from you? Of course he's being silly.
-
Much as I'd have liked a second referendum, I think it's far too late now.
The brexiteers would probably win again.
It seems the mantra now is 'Let's just get on with it and leave.'
Everyone's sick of it which is why Boris will be PM next week as he's promised we'll be out by October 31, despite having to get whatever deal or no deal he comes up with through a reluctant parliament.
If and when he fails to do this then there'll almost certainly be a GE when the shit will really hit the fan for all parties except Farage's lot. What a nightmare.
-
Tommy.
Boris is going to be PM next week because he's told 160,000, mainly old, white, wealthy men what they want to hear.
There is no indication whatsoever that a majority in the country just want him to get on with whatever kind of Brexit he deems fit.
-
I thought all those old, White, wealthy men were now dead?
-
Oh I'm not so sure BST.
I've seen a few vox pops recently where people who are obviously not part of the 160,000 (and to be kind to them not really politically aware) are all for him as he's promised to get us out.
That interview with Boycott sums up the vast majority of my generation. The Dunkirk spirit will see us through.
What a load of b*llocks.
-
The problem with vox pops is that you only get to see the ones the editor wants you to see.
-
I'm 67 next week and I've not spoken to ANYONE around my age who voted remain except me and Mrs Toes.
Even my brother who's a businessman and imports stuff from Germany voted leave ffs.
-
The problem with vox pops is that you only get to see the ones the editor wants you to see.
Well that's s whole other argument but hopefully the BBC are even handed
-
I'm 67 next week and I've not spoken to ANYONE around my age who voted remain except me and Mrs Toes.
Even my brother who's a businessman and imports stuff from Germany voted leave ffs.
And your brother is going to be happy to pay at least an extra £100+ on every consignment he imports? And that's just on Customs clearance without any Duty and VAT payments.
-
The problem with vox pops is that you only get to see the ones the editor wants you to see.
Well that's s whole other argument but hopefully the BBC are even handed
I'm not convinced. To me, vox pops have absolutely no place in a news broadcast. We need to be told what's happened and what will happen by people who know what they're talking about and can give properly informed viewpoints, not a selected bunch of random nobodies guessing about it. I'd include polls though - they are usually properly seeded, much bigger samples and they don't ignore something that don't make for 'good telly'.
-
Much as I'd have liked a second referendum, I think it's far too late now.
The brexiteers would probably win again.
It seems the mantra now is 'Let's just get on with it and leave.'
Everyone's sick of it which is why Boris will be PM next week as he's promised we'll be out by October 31, despite having to get whatever deal or no deal he comes up with through a reluctant parliament.
If and when he fails to do this then there'll almost certainly be a GE when the shit will really hit the fan for all parties except Farage's lot. What a nightmare.
Very accurate assessment of the situation Tommy, and one which was very much the consensus on "This Week" last night.
-
The BBC's problem is that they are obsessed with "balance". So they will give equal prominence to both sides even if one has a majority of views in its favour.
When they talk about climate change, they'll have 1 representative from the 99% of scientists who are of the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and 1 from the 1% who say it isn't.
It was the same with the Brexit vote. They'd have 1 economist saying Brexit was going to be a big problem and 1 saying it wasn't. They wouldn't explain that 85-90% thought it was going to be a big problem and only 10-15% thought it wouldn't be.
I wouldn't try to get a feel of the country through those programmes. Look at the consistent opinion polls.
-
Hahahahahahaha! And on question time they would have One Brexiter, Four Remainers and a Remainer Chairperson!
-
The BBC's problem is that they are obsessed with "balance". So they will give equal prominence to both sides even if one has a majority of views in its favour.
When they talk about climate change, they'll have 1 representative from the 99% of scientists who are of the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and 1 from the 1% who say it isn't.
It was the same with the Brexit vote. They'd have 1 economist saying Brexit was going to be a big problem and 1 saying it wasn't. They wouldn't explain that 85-90% thought it was going to be a big problem and only 10-15% thought it wouldn't be.
I wouldn't try to get a feel of the country through those programmes. Look at the consistent opinion polls.
Oh yeah, the opinion polls were brilliant before the 2015 General Election, the 2016 US Election, and the Referendum weren't they?
Now we know why you're such a sh*t tipster Billy.
-
SS
1) They got the US General Election pretty much spot on. Clinton won comfortably on the national vote. Just like the polls said she would. The reason Trump won overall was a razor thin victory in several swing states. The polls had all those down as too close to call.
2) They got the EU ref pretty much spot on within margin of error. They basically said it was too close to call.
3) Why do you get so aggressive when folk point out facts? Why not engage with the facts instead of throwing out abuse?
-
SS, you shouldn't take the piss out of BST at this moment in time. His mind may not be fully functional through starvation, unless, of course, someones told him there is still food available in the shops even though May was two months ago.
-
Oh be still my heaving sides. It's like Hale and Pace with all the funny bits taken out.
-
SS
1) They got the US General Election pretty much spot on. Clinton won comfortably on the national vote. Just like the polls said she would. The reason Trump won overall was a razor thin victory in several swing states. The polls had all those down as too close to call.
2) They got the EU ref pretty much spot on within margin of error. They basically said it was too close to call.
3) Why do you get so aggressive when folk point out facts? Why not engage with the facts instead of throwing out abuse?
Because you never accept anyone else's facts. Those polls you've quoted are different to the ones I saw on the nights of those events.
F*ck me, Clinton supporters and Remain supporters were in a state of shock the mornings after the events; are you telling me none of them were influenced by the polls?
-
Are you sure you found Hale and Pace funny? Get summet to ate owd lad.
-
Yes SS. Agreed. They were in shock. Because they had not properly interpreted the polls. The polls constantly said that the results were on a knife edge.
The figures are here for the EU ref. Check them out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
There were 24 polls in the last 2weeks before the vote. If you average them all out, they had Remain and Leave exactly level.
Typical polls have a margin of error of +/-3%. The polls actually got the result right to within 1.9%.
As for the US Election, here are the polls.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
They typically had Clinton 2-4% ahead in the national vote. She won the national vote by 2.1%.
I really don't understand why you get so cross about this. The facts are facts and very easy to check.
-
No BB. I thought they were formulaic shite.
Imagine how bad they are with the funny bits removed.
-
BST. Sorry to hit below the belt but I'm gonna be a bit Wiggerly'ish here. How the f**k can you remove something that wasn't there in the first place?
-
It's a rhetorical device BB.
-
Ah, you were just talking b*llocks then, basically. I'll continue to live with that.
-
No. It's a rhetorical device. I wasn't going to explain it because I thought it might come across as patronising but since you insist!
It's sharing an in joke with the reader. It then takes it to a ridiculous conclusion to emphasise the point in a knowing way.
A bit like someone exasperatedly saying they wished Leave supporters would check facts a bit more often before shooting off. The obvious in joke which plays with logic there and which everyone gets is the "bit more often" line because everyone knows they never check facts at all.
-
Brexiteer situation reminds me of a Mexican stand-off, they win the vote set a deadline but then pull guns on each other, cue closing credits.
-
Do you mean like in a Juan on Juan situation?
-
Do you mean like in a Juan on Juan situation?
Bueno, bueno amigo.