Jump to content

TPAFKA Jersey 2

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TPAFKA Jersey 2

  1. Also, just thinking out loud here. Clearly the Government can’t prioritise everything otherwise they are are not prioritising anything. A lot of people on here are bemoaning what the government haven’t done to protect care homes, but I’m seeing precious few folk offering up any suggestions about what they should be doing. Like the old shitey corporate cliche goes, don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions. Anyway, to my rather harsh sounding, devil’s advocate type contention........is it possible that IF governments have been deprioritising care homes, could that decision be being taken in the same way that a person over the age of say 70 isn’t going to be given the latest, hugely expensive cancer treatment or MS drugs? In other words prioritising the people who are the future life blood of the country. A sort of “if we can’t save everybody, who should we save first?”. This neither represents my opinion, nor my acceptance that governments have deprioritised care homes. Just a potential reason if the have.
  2. 1) have schools been closed -Yes 2) are people in care homes dying -Yes That’s the only part of Hendo’s post that actually stacks up. The use of the emotive language “being left to die” is over the top at best and more importantly, comparing schools to care homes is utterly nonsensical. It’s easy to close schools. You just erm....close the school and send the kids home to their parents. What does Hendo suggest we do with the people in the closed care homes. Next he’ll be saying we should close the hospitals because people are being “left to die” in there.
  3. Ach to be honest mate I have zero appetite for regurgitating a 6 year old argument other than to say I vehemently disagree with you. 2014 knocked the stuffing out of me and left me bereft of most of my energies for the Indy fight. I probably invested far more emotionally than I should have and was left feeling cheated by several people and institutions that ought to have been impartial. I had my eyes well and truly opened to the lack of a level playing field and relentless misinformation and fake news spouted by the MSM. I find it hilarious that you suggest The Yes campaign didn’t stand up to scrutiny. The fact that 45% of people voted yes in spite of the biggest mainstream media campaign and downright lies spouted by trusted individuals is nothing short of a miracle. 2014 also saw the demise of any real interest I maintained in the National team after having been an avid supporter all my life. One thing is for certain, if another referendum comes around, I’ll be taking far less of an interest in it. It’s not worth the inevitable upset.
  4. Not mine no, but I pretty sure they swayed the minds of less informed people. I genuinely don’t mean that in an arrogant way. The demographic that won the vote for Better Together was the over 65s. It just so happens that (generally speaking and not in all cases) that age group are probably the age group that rely far more heavily on the mainstream media to help them form their views.
  5. Not a political party as such, but I find it difficult to believe that Better Together could have had even the slightest gripe with the BBC in 2014 given that it was virtually its campaign machine! The BBC disgusted me back then and I’ve never forgotten it.
  6. I gave you a like. Even though I think you quoted the wrong post. 🤣 I knew what you meant.
  7. Yeah they’ve pretty much sad they now expect the number of cases to rise as a result of the relaxation. They’ve built a new temporary hospital and I think they had been waiting until that was completed to take take these new steps. Travel to and from the island is still pretty much only on an emergency basis. The current figures are 286 cases, 24 deaths, 197 recoveries and 2500 negative tests. As long as you’re no playing with Jimmy H.
  8. Slight relaxation of lockdown announced in Jersey today. A few new measures, but key ones are that as from tomorrow we are allowed out for up to 4 hours (instead of 1) and the rationale has been stretched from only essential shopping, medical reasons, or exercise to include “any outdoor activity” (which to me means just about anything). Also we can now socialise with up to 2 people from outside our own households in an outdoor area whilst observing physical distancing of 2 metres. Better than nothing I suppose.
  9. .....and she had massive yams! 🙄 That should be enough to get me called a misogynist on here for at least 6 months!
  10. Fair enough that’s true, but in a Premiership sense, it can only lessen the OF grip. Albeit as you say probably not to a point where someone else could win it. Might at least level the playing field a wee bit though and we might not see as many cakewalks.
  11. Aye but if you apply that logic the whole of Scottish football is moot and there would be no point discussing anything. If one team (let’s say Aberdeen) could get to a point In a particular season where they were consistently better than all the other teams bar Celtic and Rangers, if the OF were to drop points here and there as they are prone to doing (not so much this season) it is much more difficult to make up for those lapses if you are only playing your main challenger twice instead of 4 times. Had this been the case a couple of seasons ago when Aberdeen gave Celtic a right good run for their money, it is not totally inconceivable that they could’ve won the league.
  12. Thank you for stating the obvious as things stand. I never disputed that. I asked why increasing the league size LESSENED the chances of another team winning the league. If anything it increases it in my opinion.
  13. Surely the more teams in the league, the less times the OF play the other teams and therefore the greater chance of someone else winning the league. For example, let’s say Aberdeen are challenging Celtic. If they only have to play Celtic twice, rather than 4 times, surely that improves their chances of wining the league?? In short, I can’t see any scenario whereby more teams lessens your chance of winning the league.
  14. Exactly. People constantly claim that politicians don’t answer questions, but Neil is guilty of asking questions and then not allowing the interviewee to finish answering, particularly if its looking like a good answer and not suiting his confrontational agenda. Neil’s interviews generally end up achieving the square root of hee haw.
  15. I just can’t see past his utter cuntishness enough to give him credit for anything he may or may not do well. I’ll tell you what he is though. A terrible presenter. Wooden as f**k. Not a natural at all. His programme This Week is utterly horrendous.
  16. Darren Fletcher is such a class act. I think he’ll become a great coach one day.
  17. That is a PR disaster right there. Unbelievable.
  18. When did she say that? At the weekend she only stated that she wanted a short-term fix (BBC radio and on-line article). Les Gray confirmed her position on Sunday. If her position has changed what is the source? I read W6er’s post as meaning her position will change if the only options on the table are permanent change or relegation, rather than that her position has changed.
  19. I’d have thought that if you are exposed to “hundreds” of people at your work, that would put you at a higher risk of contracting Covid and therefore make you even more inclined to protect your kids by keeping away from them.
  20. Ha ha. Surprised you even responded to that most obvious or lures. Life fishing with an empty hook. 🤣
  21. Burds eh? This could lead to me cancelling my £25 standing order!! On a serious note, it seems like a bit of an unnecessary statement at the moment. I’d be keeping statements like that for a time when we’re even remotely talking about football coming back.
  22. I don’t think you’ll find many on here against change. Only the short term, self interested change that Budge is proposing.
  23. And to be absolutely clear, I am not at all against a 14 team league next season. I’m just against doing it for a season or two for no other reason than to suit Hearts.
  24. In fairness a team like Aberdeen have little to worry about from it. I doubt you’ll see the likes of us, Hamilton, Ross County or Livingston voting for it.
  25. Just to be clear, are you simply suggesting that reconstruction is a fair outcome, or are you saying that short term reconstruction is a fair outcome. it would be absolutely stupid to suggest that Budge shouldn’t be doing all in her power to limit the damage to her club, but all I ask is that she is at least f**king honest about what she is doing I.e. her plan is for the good of Hearts and the good of Hearts only. If her plan was for permanent reconstruction, I’d have a different view.
  • Create New...