Search the Community

Sorry if opening an old thread but has there been a TLW league set up this year? Was in it last year but it didn't renew for some reason. If so can somebody paste the league code,cheers.

I hope to win liverpool should;)

I'm completely lost on here at the moment I can see quite a few posters with names I don't recognise but they have loads of posts and registered ages ago and then there are a few regulars I have not seen at all. I'm guessing there has been a few username changes.

I've decided to leave the site for a while due to events on here over the past few weeks that have really pissed me off. The FF is an absolute joke and all the threads go the same way plus a few other things which have got my back up. I've found myself getting worked up and I cant be arsed with it anymore. The GF is a great place most of the time but I always find myself having a look at the *F and it's doing my nut in. I'm off abroad for a few months in June and I've decided to stay away until I get back and then see if things have settled down. However, if anyone posts *F on the GF, I want you to neg them hard and bomb the fuck out of them. Farewell GF, I may see you again in the future. Hasta Luego.

So, what is it?

Scottish newspaper identifies injunction footballerPaper publishes 'censored' picture on front page, and attorney general reportedly looking into separate journalist's tweets Share154 Adam Gabbatt and Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 May 2011 12.41 BST Article history Imogen Thomas's alleged former lover has been unmasked by a Scottish newspaper. Photograph: Ian Nicholson/PA The storm over the use of privacy injunctions to suppress publication of celebrity sexual indiscretions has escalated, with a Scottish newspaper revealing the identity of a footballer who allegedly had an affair with the model Imogen Thomas. Separately, the attorney general is reported to be considering a criminal prosecution against a British journalist who allegedly used Twitter to name a different footballer who has also taken out a privacy injunction. The Scottish newspaper, which the Guardian cannot name for legal reasons, devoted its front page to a large picture of the footballer's face, with a black band across his eyes and the word "censored" in capital letters. The player is easily recognisable. Below the picture is the text: "Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren't supposed to tell you that ..." In its editorial column, the newspaper wrote: "Today we identify the footballer whose name has been linked to a court superinjunction by thousands of postings on Twitter. Why? Because we believe it is unsustainable that the law can be used to prevent newspapers from publishing information that readers can access on the internet at the click of a mouse. "Because we believe it unfair that the law can not only be used to prevent the publication of information which may be in the public interest but also to prevent any mention of such a court order. The so-called superinjunction holds no legal force in Scotland where a separate court order is needed. We should point out immediately that we are not accusing the footballer of any misdeed. Whether the allegations against him are true or not has no relevance to this debate." Neither the front page or the editorial have been published on the newspaper's website. On Friday it emerged that the high court had granted a search order against Twitter, in an attempt to compel it to identify those who had named the same footballer. The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown". The "persons unknown" are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts". Lawyers have applied for a court order that could force Twitter to hand over the name, email address and IP address of the person behind each account. Twitter has said it is unable to comment on the case against it. The order requires Twitter to provide the information within seven days, or within the appropriate time required by the law in California, where it is based. In a separate development, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is reportedly considering criminal prosecution against a journalist who allegedly used Twitter to name a different footballer who had taken out a privacy injunction. The Mail on Sunday reported that the privacy judge Mr Justice Tugendhat had passed the case to the attorney general. The journalist is believed to write for a prominent British newspaper, but the breach relates to information posted on his personal Twitter account. The tweets, which have since been deleted, are believed to have been published about 10 days ago, during a football match. The Guardian cannot reveal the content of the posts for legal reasons. The Mail said it had approached the journalist outside his home in London. "Basically at this point I can't say anything at all because it might be in contempt of court. I'd say what I think, but if it's a possibility of me [going to prison] ...," he told the newspaper. "And there was a quote I noticed from the lawyers today, Schillings, saying, 'No one's going to go to prison over this', but we don't know that. Because it could be contempt of court, I think it would be stupid to say anything at all." Schillings are believed to represent the player named in the journalist's tweets. Anyone know which paper it was?

I think it was UEM who called it correct a while back when he pointed out that they're all fucking huge, and yet somehow manage to sell absolutely nothing you want. The one by me is fucking immense, absolutely immense, yet you walk in there during the World Cup and there's an AC Milan shirt and a wall of Liverpool and Manc shirts, nothing else. I was after a pair of trainers and there were about two or three types of each brand. The rest of the store, which is roughly the same size as the Death Star's main hangar bay, is taken up by row after row of bike pumps, high-vis vests, and pink Nike sweatshirts. Absolutely pointless places.

There's quite a few people on the site with plenty of green who don't appear to have done much to deserve it. How much "pity-repping" is going on? The likes of simon are amazing value, but if someone else came out with some of the stuff he does, they'd be redder than baboon's arse. But I can sort of understand that. There's other greens who don't appear to have a coherent thought in their heads, and who aren't even good value from a comedy angle. Who is repping these fuckers? There's also a few lads in the red who don't appear to be total myposts. So much underserving reppage can only lead to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering I think we should perhaps have one or two deserving "resets" of undeserved rep, both green and red.

he's been sent down, brilliant.

How can this be done, how long does it take and how much would it cost? Cheers

I have been reading on here all the talk of the united game today....which in truth was never a penalty....BUT in your game today...that was never a freekick which led to Alonso's goal he fell over his own feet..also the other goal was a clear handball in the build up.... Whats the difference?? What I'm trying to say is Ref's are only human.... Hope this can lead to some sensible debate As you can see from my original post regards Hillsbrough..I'm not here to take the piss.. i just enjoy talking to other supporters Cheers

After receiving a (harsh, in my opinion) negging for a slight f**tball reference on the GF in the context of telling a story, I'd just like to ask the good people of the GF, where do you draw the line? I know that the mere mention of a spherical ball with black hexagons can leave some foaming at the mouth and some seem to be a bit more liberal with regards to it, so where do you stand on the matter?