What grinds my gears...

[The Doctor]

The fact that domestic violence is even brought up in relation to Suarez just shows how ridiculous this has got. Suarez fvcked up, again, got punished, very severely, but it is the ridiculous hyperbole surrounding it that does my head in. Such as he should be 'locked up', 'banned from football' etc

If you bit someone on the street, you'd likely be detained under the mental health act - I fail to see why doing it on a bit of grass then makes it not that bad: don't bother coming out with comments about elbows or leg-breaker challenges - those are unfortunate accidents that happen when players play the game properly - biting has never been part of football, nor is it any sort of mistimed challenge or accident.

As for domestic violence being brought it - blame the ones defending him saying "it's not as bad as collymore/tyson/[other sportsman]"

[Haydos]

If you bit someone on the street, you'd likely be detained under the mental health act - I fail to see why doing it on a bit of grass then makes it not that bad: don't bother coming out with comments about elbows or leg-breaker challenges - those are unfortunate accidents that happen when players play the game properly - biting has never been part of football, nor is it any sort of mistimed challenge or accident.

As for domestic violence being brought it - blame the ones defending him saying "it's not as bad as collymore/tyson/[other sportsman]"

I hate this argument. Do you think anyone who has ever headbutted, stamped or kicked another player should be charged with assault? Because none of them are part of playing the game properly. Surprised at you for using such a baseless argument.

[The Doctor]

I hate this argument. Do you think anyone who has ever headbutted, stamped or kicked another player should be charged with assault? Because none of them are part of playing the game properly. Surprised at you for using such a baseless argument.

Very much depends on the headbutt, stamp or kick - in the cases of clashes of heads when challenging for headers, stepping on a player while going for the ball in a crowd of players or catching players on the follow-through/shaping the kick the ball but it being knicked off your foot just before you'd make contact - no, because those are clearly accidents. Headbutting someone like Zidane, lashing out and stamping on or kicking a player, or trying to strangle them (a la Duncan Ferguson on Steffan Freund) then yes - those are criminal offences, and playing sport doesn't give you a free reign to break the law.

[Rincewind]

Had to smile at the 'pundits' on TV saying he needed psychological treatment. I do not know if he does as I am not an expert in this feild but neither are the pundits. As the offence was not deemed a criminal one they had to deal out punishment within football rules and guidelines taking into account previous misdemeanors. Plus the whole world was looking on and it had to look as if they were doing something. If the punishment was less there would still people moaning.

Edited 5 July 2014 by Rincewind

[Haydos]

Very much depends on the headbutt, stamp or kick - in the cases of clashes of heads when challenging for headers, stepping on a player while going for the ball in a crowd of players or catching players on the follow-through/shaping the kick the ball but it being knicked off your foot just before you'd make contact - no, because those are clearly accidents. Headbutting someone like Zidane, lashing out and stamping on or kicking a player, or trying to strangle them (a la Duncan Ferguson on Steffan Freund) then yes - those are criminal offences, and playing sport doesn't give you a free reign to break the law.

But the atmosphere on a football pitch is not the same as just 'being in public'. Yes these players have a responsibility to be behave accordingly but they are in a highly charged setting, they should not be charged in line with public law with silly offences like this.

Grabbing someone round the throat is not stranggling in my books and headbutting in the chest is not headbutting in the face. Maybe that's just me. A little bite like Suarez did though? Pathetic. Both incidents you mentioned are worse in my book.

[MooseBreath]

Wild assumptions again from our resident troll It gets funnier and funnier.

Moose, in that situation I look at the facts and evidence and read up on it before making accusations. If the person has worked all their life and paid the required amount of NI and IT then they are entitled by law to receive a small amount of their pension. Women retire at 60 and it is being brought in line with men's under equality laws. Equality applies to men as well as women The amount received is deemed fair as a minimum living income and is less than the minimum wage.

This also app;ies to those in work who by law do not have the income deemed fair. The number of people now doing zero contract hours and receiving the minimum wage has increased but the cost of living has risen despite the economy at the top end improving slightly. Food clothing and fuel cost is not included in benefit payments and all these have seen increases in cost over the last few years.

Yes the retirement ages are being increased to 66 and upwards for both men and women after having been 65 for men for many years. You are a man, aren't you ken? At no point in recent decades has the state pension for men been under 65. Yet you remain under 65 and are already taking a pension. How? By exploiting a loophole created by the labour government to buy votes and reduce their unemployment stats. A loophole that has now been closed for all but a very small number of lucky people who happened to fall into the right age range and who didn't bother to save for their own retirement. Yes, it's legal. Is it moral, that's the question. And given that you're all about your strict moral code, it's just a bit hypocritical of you to not even acknowledge the full facts about your own situation. Trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by saying you have a private pension won't cut it when you've previously admitted that it is worth mere pennies each month. Enjoy your retirement, by all means, and you can be pretty sure that in the same situation most of us would so the same. But maybe constantly judging and insulting people on here who are simply tired of having to fork out hard earned tax money to fund people like you being down the boozer all day every day is a bit much.

[Guest MattP]

but you know of course. You know everything. So very knowledge.

I do agree to an extent. I find a lot of my own posts feel quite stale and I don't really know why I keep posting them. The proof is in the ongoing, rapidly increasing success of the country under this government and it's total and complete near catastrophic failure under the last. If you're still a lefty after this you truly have no brain. Regardless, I do think the likes of Alf Bentley have brought a fresher and much more respectable side to the lefty camp, he at least talks some sense while I don't think I was alone in finding your agendas and wacky ideas frankly a bit unsettling in their weirdness.

Agree with this, the left on here did go weird, it became more about seeing just how shocking they could become and how outrageous their defence of certain behaviour could get for a while rather than discussing politics, fortunately Alf has virtually single handedly changed that and puts across his viewpoint in a terrific way. A proper socialist from the 70's who whilst offering his views also seems to realise the need for social cohesion, moral standards, common decency and the fact you don't have an everlasting money tree to pay for it.

[Guest MattP]

Yes the retirement ages are being increased to 66 and upwards for both men and women after having been 65 for men for many years. You are a man, aren't you ken? At no point in recent decades has the state pension for men been under 65. Yet you remain under 65 and are already taking a pension. How? By exploiting a loophole created by the labour government to buy votes and reduce their unemployment stats. A loophole that has now been closed for all but a very small number of lucky people who happened to fall into the right age range and who didn't bother to save for their own retirement. Yes, it's legal. Is it moral, that's the question. And given that you're all about your strict moral code, it's just a bit hypocritical of you to not even acknowledge the full facts about your own situation. Trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by saying you have a private pension won't cut it when you've previously admitted that it is worth mere pennies each month. Enjoy your retirement, by all means, and you can be pretty sure that in the same situation most of us would so the same. But maybe constantly judging and insulting people on here who are simply tired of having to fork out hard earned tax money to fund people like you being down the boozer all day every day is a bit much.

Wonderfully put, unfortunately rather than see an awkward answer to this perfectly reasonable retort you'll probably just be shrugged off and labelled a troll by those who still want to defend the indefensible.

[Captain...]

Agree with this, the left on here did go weird, it became more about seeing just how shocking they could become and how outrageous their defence of certain behaviour could get for a while rather than discussing politics, fortunately Alf has virtually single handedly changed that and puts across his viewpoint in a terrific way. A proper socialist from the 70's who whilst offering his views also seems to realise the need for social cohesion, moral standards, common decency and the fact you don't have an everlasting money tree to pay for it.

This my exact point about people not understanding the difference between political leanings, by lefty you are probably referring to me. At some point I got dubbed a champagne socialist, limp wristed lefty sympathiser. I'm not, I've never really classed myself as left, and some of my views are quite right wing at times. Really I'm am an argumentative and highly critical person and as such see the massive flaws in this government and how they do things more so than what they are trying to do. I also consider myself to be anti-reactionary and find the usual rhetoric about Muslims and scrounges and paedos so offensive. Most of my posts don't have a political aim, more a reaction to the tabloid headline hyperbole that gets spouted out on a regular basis.

[Guest MattP]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular at all.

The fact you thought it was you though might say something...

[Rincewind]

Wonderfully put, unfortunately rather than see an awkward answer to this perfectly reasonable retort you'll probably just be shrugged off and labelled a troll by those who still want to defend the indefensible.

That is how I feel sometimes. It does not matter how many times it is explained Moose will not shift one inch. Still he is young has no w money worries and is reasonably fit. He may have a few quid saved up but it will not last forever if he has to give up work and continues to live the lifestyle to which he is accustomed. I would rather have his salary than £140 pw. Strangely enough it seems he would rather have my income and begrudges me a little enjoyment in my latter years. I had a choice. Continue signing on and be humiliated once a fortnight after failing to find a suitable job or take pension credits for the same income and search for work in my own time without being forced to do work which could damage my health I am giving up a paid job in order that a younger person with all their life in front of them can have a much needed job to support his family. I have no wife or kids so the income I receive is not so important. Plus a younger man with wife and kids may be on benefits which is more than mine if not working and it will be one less and will save the taxpayer more.

Edited 5 July 2014 by Rincewind

[Rincewind]

This my exact point about people not understanding the difference between political leanings, by lefty you are probably referring to me. At some point I got dubbed a champagne socialist, limp wristed lefty sympathiser. I'm not, I've never really classed myself as left, and some of my views are quite right wing at times. Really I'm am an argumentative and highly critical person and as such see the massive flaws in this government and how they do things more so than what they are trying to do. I also consider myself to be anti-reactionary and find the usual rhetoric about Muslims and scrounges and paedos so offensive. Most of my posts don't have a political aim, more a reaction to the tabloid headline hyperbole that gets spouted out on a regular basis.

Exactly.

[Guest MattP]

You've completely missed the point again Ken. You are moaning about only having £140pw but you are fit and capable of working and choose not to. You can't choose that and then claim to be hard done by. (I;ve met you, you are fine, coherant, able and the amount of time you spent in the DNO office says you can clearly do that in a normal office to me) The excuse that you have decided not to to give a younger man the chance is laughable when you are still a young man in 21st century terms.

I'm sure there are loads of people out there that have also not yet reached retirement age that would love to receive extra money due to a loophole rather than go through the humiliation of having to sign on for their free cash everyweek.

You say that you have been told that working might damage your health, you have said you have been told drinking might damage your health. Why did you give up one and not the other?

[Rincewind]

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Parafox]

People (in general) believing, because they have an opinion on something, that means they know all the facts.

[Guest MattP]

Is that a rhetorical question?

As we have gone past midday, I suppose I can't expect a sober and sensible answer.

[Parafox]

As we have gone past midday, I suppose I can't expect a sober and sensible answer.

That's a bit unfair Matt. By implication you're calling Ken an alcohol dependent lush who is drunk by noon.

[Guest MattP]

That's a bit unfair Matt. By implication you're calling Ken an alcohol dependent lush who is drunk by noon.

His finest and most Conservative trait

[Buce]

As we have gone past midday, I suppose I can't expect a sober and sensible answer.

Who posted this at 12.53 yesterday?

"Just cracked open a 24 pack of Strongbow and I'm not going bed until it's finished."

Answers on a postcard.

[Guest MattP]

Who posted this at 12.53 yesterday?

"Just cracked open a 24 pack of Strongbow and I'm not going bed until it's finished."

Answers on a postcard.

And after a hard week at work what's wrong with that?

[Facecloth]

And after a hard week at work what's wrong with that?

Not too hard of you're done before 12:53 on a Friday

[Guest MattP]

Not too hard of you're done before 12:53 on a Friday

If I'm ever doing it at 11am on a Tuesday at the taxpayers expense whilst goading those paying for it I'll take all the abuse that comes in

[Captain...]

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular at all.

The fact you thought it was you though might say something...

We'll considering you were replying to moose presumably replying to me, and you have already levelled those accusations at me in the past.

Going back to my point, political discussion died on here as both sides got so entrenched in their views and weren't actually responding to what was being said just churning out the usual arguments and sniping and making snide comments and dragging up previous comments to discredit an argument and just steadfast refusing to accept that someone may actually have an alternative point of view. Much like real politics in this country.

[Buce]

And after a hard week at work what's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing; but then it wasn't me who implied that there was.

Presumably, we can disregard everything you posted afterwards as being neither sober or sensible?

[The Doctor]

****ing lunatic drivers who, on my left at a mini-roundabout, not only don't give me way, but come flying across the roundabout when I'm half-way across it. Those guys are pricks.