Jump to content

Whats Happening In Guardian Land Today


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Magilla said:

...as to not fall for your ill-informed BS? :thumbsup:

 

Not at all, I think you'll find that's most people with a functioning brain don't automatically assume the words "not overtly sexual" equates with "fine for kids".

 

Which in no way implies any connection, whatsoever, with children! :loopy:

 

That is entirely a fascination of yours, made up in your head.

 

Mad respect Magilla, mad respect for these girls.

 

Don't forget that.

3 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

Just about the whole England team are privileged. 
 

The Crawley family are pretty unique though.

Privileged in what way, they had money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Privileged in what way, they had money?

They are disproportionately public schoolboys. So, yes, money. But also excellent sporting facilities at their schools. 
 

That makes a lot of difference to a young player. Take a trip up Ringinglow Road and have a look at Birkdale’s practice facilities. You won’t find anything similar in Sheffield state schools.
 

 

Edited by Prettytom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prettytom said:

They are mostly public schoolboys. So, yes, money. But also excellent sporting facilities at their schools. 
 

That makes a lot of difference to a young player. Take a trip up Ringinglow Road and have a look at Birkdale’s practice facilities. You won’t find anything similar in Sheffield state schools.
 

 

It's an interesting point.

 

I've often wondered if having more money would make you better at sports.

 

Snooker, football, athletics I don't think so, so why Cricket and Tennis as it's so suggested?

Just now, Magilla said:

What's to forget, it still doesn't make any connection with children... again, entirely your fascination.

Ok, if you say so.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

It's an interesting point.

 

I've often wondered if having more money would make you better at sports.

 

Snooker, football, athletics I don't think so, so why Cricket and Tennis as it's so suggested?

 

I’ve just checked out the current England team. Most of the batters went to private school, most of the bowlers didn’t. I suspect that having good quality surfaces to learn on is key. Good coaching matters too and quite a few ex-pros end up teaching in the independent sector.

 

I was lucky, the school that I went to had decent grass wickets and the head of PE was also a coach at Yorkshire. 
 

I was still rubbish at batting😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly surprising that Diane Abbott is in support of a drug dealer and the Guardian giving it airtime.

 

Apparently he is missing his son, would it be harsh to say " well maybe you should have thought about the consequences when becoming a drug dealer?"

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/23/suella-braverman-refuses-plea-of-man-barred-from-uk-to-be-reunited-with-son-siyabonga-twala

Edited by Al Bundy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Hardly surprising that Diane Abbott is in support of a drug dealer and the Guardian giving it airtime.

 

Apparently he is missing his son, would it be harsh to say " well maybe you should have thought about the consequences when becoming a drug dealer?"

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/23/suella-braverman-refuses-plea-of-man-barred-from-uk-to-be-reunited-with-son-siyabonga-twala

Having read the Guardian piece, I am inclined to ask:What are we not being told  here? Someone with low risk wouldn't flag up as a 'danger' on checks, otherwise there would be more.

 

For the case to have got as far as the Home Secretary's personal inbox, there must have been concerns at lower levels - IMHO

Edited by RollingJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Having read the Guardian piece, I am inclined to ask:What are we not being told  here? Someone with low risk wouldn't flag up as a 'danger' on checks, otherwise there would be more.

 

For the case to have got as far as the Home Secretary's personal inbox, there must have been concerns at lower levels - IMHO

Exactly.

 

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RollingJ said:

Having read the Guardian piece, I am inclined to ask:What are we not being told  here? Someone with low risk wouldn't flag up as a 'danger' on checks, otherwise there would be more.

 

For the case to have got as far as the Home Secretary's personal inbox, there must have been concerns at lower levels - IMHO

Previous criminality ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.