Longview1982

Do Chelsea fans ever use the term 'Manc' anyway?

Big Virg - every now and then we get a player whose very presence on the pitch makes you believe everything is possible and nothing is beyond our capability. If he makes me feel that way in the stands, fuck knows how it feels to play alongside him. Bobby - everyone around him is a 10% better footballer when he is on song. Everyone. He even drags Moreno up to being 10.5% of a proper player. There are players who provide individual moments of brilliance that prove decisive in matches, but our Bob wins us footy matches by lifting everyone's level around him. I especially love how all his goal celebrations are absolutely half-baked random nonsense that he forgets half way through. Mane - a very professional and diligent footballer who carries out his tactical work and defensive duties but also manages to play like he's a 14 year old with his mates back home. The goals away to Burnley and home to City last season where he's just like, 'Well, I should probably do the professional thing and lay it off to someone and recycle the ball, but I reckon I could deffo just lash it in the top corner with my left foot. Yeah, let's do that instead'. Also, THAT goal at the Emirates is one of the best I've seen anyone in a Red shirt score.

You may want to check that again as there was a later game he played in that was significantly more one you'd want to forget.

They're all fucking liars. I've seen stuff like that loads of times on social media - usually it's Norwegians though. If they were actually true, Speke and Southport would be packed with hundreds of Norwegian Liverpool fans during every home match. Funnily enough, there's never any pictures of these hordes of lost Scandinavians.

Hmmmmm, you could be on to something there. I'd just assumed narcissism as a consequence of him doing a lap of honour with the trophy and leaving all the players behind.

Another they haven't really thought through is the Marketing classic, "We Go The Game". On a factual level, this means Everton Football Club have declared that there can be no more Everton supporters than their highest attendance. When combined with their insistence on pure Scouse heritage and address, that means fewer than 40,000 Evertonians worldwide. Sounds about right, but the volume of the whining seems like it's from many. many more.

When did I say I advocate leaving? I've been pretty clear that the "pie in the sky" is coming from both sides. You should try making fewer assumptions and focus more on the very few factual pieces of info that are out there. There are "rights" that the EU maintains in the UK in the face of governments of any party that I consider extremely valuable (some of the ones you listed are pretty weak to be described as "rights" - the right to own property in another EU country?), but the reality is that isn't the battlefield upon which this referendum is being fought. It's all about the lies from both sides about the effect on the economy.

You're kind of missing the point here. Most of the public campaigning has focused on economic forecasts (or "guesswork" as it's more accurately described). No organisation has any "facts" when it comes to this and Fullfact.org can only say "here's a view that says we'll be better off and here's one that says we'll be worse off". They offer no more assistance in that respect than a simple Google search. There is no such thing as an independent or objective economic prediction. The whole field of economic prediction is based on assumptions that are biased toward whatever economic theory or interest the group concerned represent. There is no right or wrong in economics - simply various theories on how to get to a particular economic goal or target. Your assertion about it being "basic economic theory" that the frequently quoted "uncertainty" will cause a recession or sever damage to the economy completely ignores the many, many similar "uncertainties" that happen around the world on a constant basis that cause markets to rise and fall and boom and crash. Currencies, US or Chinese monetary policy changes, oil price drops/rises, etc, etc - these things happen all the time and presenting this as being of somehow unique and monumental stature is simply lying. Market uncertainty exists, and will always exist. Leave or Remain adds little to it that will likely trigger the apocalypse that people like yourself claim it will.

The best part of the celebrations was the owner walking around the pitch with the trophy followed by an assistant who was carrying aloft a framed portrait of him. I wonder if he insists on that at all times? In the queue at McDonalds or having a piss in the Wetherspoons?

Agreed. A brilliant film. Emotional and intense and intelligent. All of the contributors should be congratulated for agreeing to expose their memories and feelings and the effects the whole disaster and cover-up has had on their lives. It's hard to show such personal vulnerability to friends and family let alone to a worldwide audience. Outstanding work from everyone involved. Phil Scraton is, indeed, a hero in every sense of the word.

So aligning yourself with Cameron and Osborne is company you want to keep? Yeah, I can see how they're massively preferential to the Leave campaigners.......

What "facts" are you referring to? Almost all of it, on both sides, is simply speculation with the supposed outcome or consequence derived from a set of assumptions wholly biased to offer the best of their own side and the worst of the other. Which "independent" source are you referring to when you keep saying "look at the facts"? You yourself are falling into the scaremongering trap when speaking of how we should be "afraid......the possible recession that would in my own opinion be very likely triggered by the uncertainty of trading conditions after a leave vote....". As though being part of the EU has insulated us from recession and as though being part of the EU has meant stable, predictable trading and not that the EU suffered an almost total financial collapse very recently. It's perfectly fine to have and express your views and how you hope the vote goes, but spare us the constant references to "facts" and at least open your eyes to just how both campaigns are massively flawed and dishonest.

Agree completely. The sheer mendacity of the most prominent supporters of each side is totally dispiriting. I've always been a firm believer in participating in the democratic process and ensuring I vote every time I'm eligible, but the prospect of voting on the same side as some of the shameless lying bastards in both campaigns almost makes me feel like giving this one a miss. Both sides are indulging in total guesswork and passing it off as fact.

Good ol' boy Peyton Manning. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/01/peyton-s-manning-s-forgotten-sex-scandal.html

Mate of mine is a Swansea fan, so I was in Woodison the other week. £39 for the ticket. It was worth it just to have 90 odd minutes watching their supporters frothing at the mouth over absolutely everything and spending so much time and energy abusing us in the sparsely populated away fans section. Bear in mind that this was just for Swansea, for fuck's sake!

It's simple economics? The same thing happens in Tesco? You have the same emotional investment in a supermarket as you do in watching Liverpool FC, do you? It certainly explains the contents of your post. Oh, and as has been said umpteen times during the past few years, Just because they're not being as shit or crooked as Hicks and Gillet doesn't mean we shouldn't hold FSG to account on their own actions, policies and decisions.

It wouldn't be so bad if there actually were "a couple of excellent games". Someone like Joe Hart makes blunders on a regular basis, but he also has excellent games on a regular basis where he makes vital saves at vital times to enable his team to win. That simply doesn't happen with Mignolet. His ratio of blunders to excellence over such a long period of time is simply not acceptable. Giving him that new contract is inexcusable.

As I recall, the prosecution case, supported by their own "Expert" witness, was that those blood smears in the back of the RAV4 were caused by a sweep of the victims bloodied hair as her body was placed in the back of the vehicle, but don't recall any suggestion of how the dashboard blood would have got there.

As I've mentioned earlier, I thought it was an outstanding series and it absolutely achieved it's objective in exposing the way that access to fair process and justice in that system is entirely dependant on wealth and power and did so brilliantly. But, it has left some collateral damage in the process which I'm not entirely comfortable with. One is the Kratz "sexting" scandal expose. Another is the portrayal of the Halbach family and the brother in particular. Another is the blatant finger pointing at the ex-boyfriend and her flatmate at the time. I've read an interview with the producers where they explain their rationale for the Kratz expose: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/making-a-murderer-burning-questions-answered#.uiA4N2Oov "......The case gained national attention and led to the governor of Wisconsin seeking Kratz’s removal from office in 2010 — a development the filmmakers had to figure out how to include without turning it into a “gotcha” moment. “It certainly didn’t shape how we portrayed what had already happened,” Demos said. “We made the decision that the only thing that mattered with that is the way it affected these cases. You could have had a whole 20-minute thing about it that would have just been a tangent, so we tried to include what was relevant to the story.” Ricciardi added, “We did not want it to be perceived as a low blow for Ken Kratz. It really needed to be relevant to the story and we hope this story works on multiple levels: There’s Steven’s whole throughline, but then there’s also the opportunity to look at the system itself and the question was, How is this particular community going to respond when news like this breaks? What we thought was so interesting is after the AP reporter, Ryan Foley, broke the story, it became public soon thereafter that the Department of Justice knew for a year and covered it up.” “That felt like, ‘Oh, here we go again,’” Demos said....." That explanation is a bit thin to me. Okay, you can say the attempts to cover up Kratz's sexting scandal continue the theme of misconduct and abuse of power within those offices, but by episode 10 nobody needed convincing of that, so this was only adding about 0.1% more weight to the State corruption argument and definitely smelled of them taking an opportunity to land some blows on Kratz. I have no sympathy for Kratz - he's a cunt - and the irony of him now complaining about them using the media to frame a negative view of him when he can't defend himself is rib-bustingly hilarious given his own press conferences before the trial, but it definitely does detract from the overall objective of the film. The Halbach's, and the brother in particular, seemed to simply do what any other family would do in those circumstances and go along with the police and the prosecutors and hope that there is a conviction and a sentence that is suitable. There's no doubt that the producers intended to portray the brother as a wholly unsympathetic character - almost to the point of inviting a level of culpability in the "framing" of Avery. These are professional film-makers and that simply doesn't happen by accident. They wanted viewers to view him in that manner. Finally, I understand the need to establish one strand of the "framing" and misconduct theory as being the lack of investigation of other potential leads. However, it was surely possible to do that without blatantly shepherding viewers in the direction of the ex-boyfriend and her flatmate. Showing them so fleetingly and only within that specific context basically screamed out "Look how dodgy these ****ers are!" and urged us to immediately cast them as murder suspects with no attempt to offer any breadth of detail or any alternative viewpoint. I mean, fuck Kratz, Lenk and Colburn - they can have all the fucking mud getting slung their way - but those are serious aspersions being cast at the brother, the ex and the flatmate with almost casual disregard for the lack of fair treatment they are attempting to highlight from Avery's point of view. That's pretty shoddy film making. Overall, it's a superb series but it's not without some significant flaws.

Around 1992, a mate started referring to me as David Platt - the erstwhile midfield goalscoring phenomenon of Italia 90. I looked fuck all like him and simply assumed this lad was just trying to get a rise out of me and completely ignored it and it soon passed on. About 3 years later, whilst participating in a Sunday League footy match, I had occasion to disagree with a decision made by the guy on their side running the line: "That was out! Put your fucking flag up, you cheating cunt!" "Fuck off, David Platt!" I guess my mate was right after all. Never fucking told him, though. Fuck that.

Read an article earlier which had a great passage in it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/david-bowie-how-a-master-of-invention-changed-british-culture-for-decades-a6806686.html ".....In fact his entire professional career was one of myth, legend and invention. Brilliantly so. When I was writing my Bowie book, as I was writing the final chapters, I went to‎ visit my father in Cheltenham (this turned out to be the last time I saw him before he died). He asked me what I was working on, and I told him that was writing a book about Bowie’s extraordinary performance on TOTP, and how he influenced an entire generation of music and fashion obsessives. When he asked me why I reeled off the various elements of his performance that had been so challenging, so inspiring, and so transgressive. I described the way in which Bowie had toyed sexually with his guitarist Mick Ronson, the way in which he had dressed like a pansexual spaceman, the way in which he looked, the way in which he sashayed across the screen like a 1920s film star, and, saliently, the way in which his flame-red hair, his dayglo jumpsuit and the general glam colour fest had almost colonised the programme. I explained that this was the moment when the 1970s finally outgrew the 1960s, when the monochrome world of boring, boring south-east England had exploded in a fiesta of colour. My father looked at the floor, took a moment, and then said, very quietly: “You know we had a black and white television, don’t you?”......." I never owned a single Bowie record at any stage of my life, but the amount of his songs - singles and album tracks - that I know really well is probably a situation replicated by many others elsewhere who are accidental fans simply through the huge reach and influence his music had.

Cross examination in courtroom trials is nothing to do with establishing the facts or the truth. It's about lawyers getting the poor cunt in the box to give them what they want to hear by whatever horrible means possible. They could put me on trial next week for the assassination of John F Kennedy and, despite not even being alive at the time, I still wouldn't be 100% confident of getting off with it.

If I'd ever played a game of Pictionary and had been asked to draw "corrupt FBI cunt" - Fassbender would have been the picture I came up with even if I'd never seen this series.

Regarding the comments from Strang at the round table gathering of Avery's various representatives at the very end of the series, even Strang doesn't rule out the possibility that Avery may actually be guilty and his motivation seems to be that the misconduct of the prosecuting agencies should clearly amount to reasonable doubt rather than any grand claim that Avery is definitely innocent. Tellingly, he seems much more genuinely distressed by what happens to Brendan Dassey. I couldn't agree more with that last Strang quote you mention. If it does turn out like the first, and there is another killer that is found at a later date, then it's something to genuinely despair over.