ilkleyram

Hey @David - word to the wise fella.  I think your missus has hacked into you DCFCfans account again

Olivier Street is in one of Loweman's photos above - the one with the maroon house

To be pedantic, twice.

To be pedantic, twice.

To be pedantic, twice.

None

It's about time the young players were cut some slack - Buchanan, Bird and Knight are still only 20 and Sibley 19. You mention Hendrick and Hughes - we knew Will was a special talent, at least at Championship level - but they were 24 and 22 before getting their 'big' moves - who knows what level our youngsters will be at in 4 years time.
They have just had to endure a fight against relegation which would have tested the most seasoned professionals let alone those with very little experience - what a horrendous season in which to try and be fully integrated into the Clubs'senior squad.
One of the saving graces about having no fans in the ground is at least, with things going wrong, the boo boys are kept at bay.

He needs to use some of the extra money he might get from being skipper on a longer pair of shorts ?

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

Is a good point, but is it THE point?
Comedy has always been subjective - some hate McIntyre, millions love him; what I find funny others will not; I wouldn't cross the street to watch Frankie Boyle, others think he's a comedy hero.
The point, I think, is that in days past if you didn't like what a comedian said or found them funny, you didn't watch, didn't laugh or didn't buy a ticket. At most you wrote a stiff letter to the BBC.  Nowadays, you write something on social media about being offended and then find 20 other people that you've never met before that think the same, or who daren't disagree with you.  Before you know it there's a thousand more from around the world - some of whom will never have seen or heard what has been said but are just reacting to the reports and say they are disgusted.  That then gives the appearance that millions of people agree, that the whole world is disgusted and to which comedians and commissioners and politicians and other media personalities (except Piers Morgan) have to react in the only way they know.  By banning/not repeating said jokes or comments, which are then effectively censored.  You therefore no longer have the right to tell what jokes you like, unless you want public opprobrium or a career on the fringes or become a very 'safe' comedian like Tim Vine.

The constant rewriting of history worries me - whether it's statues of slave traders or TV programmes.  We need to remember that Love Thy Neighbour was watched and laughed at by millions (and included - though this is often forgotten or omitted - racist comments against white as well as black people) and that the Black and White Minstrel Show was similarly popular, that Dad's Army and Porridge and 'Allo 'Allo and Fawlty Towers also had elements which wouldn't be scripted nowadays.  And don't get me started on 'Are You Being Served'. All got audiences and followings that TV producers today would die for.  It matters not a jot that you personally wouldn't laugh at them now or then, what matters is that they were of their time and millions did.
One of the points of history, and the past generally, is to learn from it and move on. But to do that you have to know about it and see it to be able to challenge it and grow.  If you bury all these things away and pretend that they never existed then you effectively censor the past and by doing so censor the future. 

There’s always the ‘what’s eating you tonight' thread as well 

There’s always the ‘what’s eating you tonight' thread as well 

Shaun Barker may have an interesting taste in socks (and clothing in general) but he ain't half good at the matchday pundit role. My only complaint is that he’s sometimes a bit too confident about us seeing out games when we’re 1 goal up. He’s obviously not heard of the commentator's curse. He and Owen are a good pair.

Off topic @Carl Sagan but you might be interested in an AppleTV film called Fireball, all about meteorites and made by Werner Herzog and Clive Oppenheimer.  It’s excellent, and you get a mention ?

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?

Dear Andy
Have you made your mind up yet? Time’s moving on
best wishes 
Jose

Dear Andy
Have you made your mind up yet? Time’s moving on
best wishes 
Jose

If I had been advising him, yes I would have told him to accept it and for one main reason - money.  He's been on a reduced wage (post sacking and at MK Dons), probably even lower than Derby's offer, for at least a year. No bonuses, no nothing. He's probably increased those wages at Huddersfield but I would be surprised if it were anything near to what he was on with us. He is heavily out of pocket. He would have been less out of pocket if he had stayed.
I might also have tried to persuade him that his reputation might have meant something to him, that he owed his employer something (especially after helping to trash his employer's reputation) but maybe that doesn't count for much for those on your side of the argument. I'm old fashioned. More helpfully I might have mentioned free access to medical facilities near his home and people with lots of experience with those injuries and continuity of employment, but perhaps he was happy to accept the risk and uncertainty, the travel inconvenience to St Georges park and the fact that those of us who liked him as a player and appreciated his input to the club feel highly let down by our club captain.
The disciplinary panel had lots of options available to them.  They could have found him guilty of absolutely nothing (as I rather suspect that the 'scapegoat' comment suggests Keogh thinks that they should have done); they could have found him guilty of gross misconduct and sacked him outright; or they could have done something in-between, which is what they did. Or tried to do until Keogh refused to accept it and forced their hand because once Keogh made that decision there was no other option available other than to back down.  As I understand it the other two players (at least) were similarly found guilty of GM just as Keogh was. That their punishment was different (if it was and I'm not party to the details, perhaps you are) could just be to do with different circumstances in their cases.
What, for example, if Lawrence and Bennett went into the disciplinary full of remorse and with good mitigating circumstances and Keogh hobbled in saying nothing to do with me guv.  I was just on the lash with the lads.  Not my responsibility; I'm a scapegoat that may not be able to play ever again.       If you were chairing the disciplinary panel you might think very differently about their respective punishments - you might conclude (reasonably) that they had done different things, offered different levels of mea culpa, had different levels of responsibility to the club, its reputation and to the other players present.   You might then reasonably conclude that the punishments should be different. You might conclude that some level of punishment short of sacking was appropriate given Keogh's service with the club and his commitment on the pitch.  So you come up with a punishment that Keogh throws back in your face because he doesn't feel he should be punished at all. 
We don't know (I think) whether any other players were disciplined for whatever happened that night but just because everyone was involved in broadly the same incident doesn't mean that all the punishments have to be the same. The disciplinary panel should be considering each case on its merits. Perhaps Tom Huddlestone's punishment was to be demoted from two days as club captain. Why should he not have had the same as Lawrence and Bennett? Or Keogh?