Jump to content

ilkleyram

Member
  • Content Count

    2,481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from TigerTedd in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    You can question their motives but they would have more than anticipated this furore and will judge that in the next few days calmer heads will prevail at FIFA, UEFA, the various FAs and the Premier League, plus the TV broadcasters.
    TV money may be on the wane but if you were a middle ranking PL club - Everton (about to invest £500m in a new stadium with a business case that depends upon that level of TV money), or Southampton or West Ham - you would know that the reason that you get the money that you do get is because of the viewing figures from the UK but more importantly, abroad, for the matches against the 6 clubs.  So, when you consider throwing them out of the EPL, the 6 will judge, what are you going to do when Sky renegotiate the TV deal because the 6 major TV audience generators have all left.  And that deal is substantially lower than the current one and it then means that you can't buy Jesse Lingard, or pay him the deal that he wants/demands. And you multiply the drop in revenue by the three years of the contract.  The sums will be huge.
    And if you're CEO of the FA, which, let's face it is a pretty feckless organisation anyway, what are you going to think about losing the 6 clubs from the FA Cup - the ones that the minnows all want to play.  What will the BBC pay for that contract?  Ditto the Carabao Cup and the EFL.  Both competitions now so diluted anyway that they've lost any sense of the glory and importance they used to carry.
    And then there's UEFA and FIFA.  Both organisations renowned for their probity and upholding of high principles, rattling sabres about the sanctity of the sport and the importance of the fans.  Yeah right. First and foremost they want what's right for UEFA and FIFA.  They won't want a CL competition without the 12 clubs because their TV/advertising revenues will plummet; they will want a WC with all the main players and all the main countries at their strongest because that's how they make millions out of Coca Cola, that well known health drink.
    Lets not forget either the players, who love communicating with their fans so much that they pay agencies £4,000 a month to write a few inane comments on their social media accounts for the fans - We go again!  If you are Messi or Ronaldo you have made your money.  You might be able to afford a few words for the fans, until Juventus and Barca (1bn euros in debt) tell you to shut up.  What if you're Mason Mount though?  Just starting out on a career.  You haven't made your FU money yet, nor have you won much.  You didn't imagine playing for Southampton in your dreams as a kid, you saw yourself at the top of the tree winning trophies, playing for England.  Your employer tells you to say nothing controversial; your agent (who only has your best interests at heart - yeah right) says let's hold on and see what happens here.  There's money to be made. You think about earning a good slice of £4bn, setting yourself up for life and playing 30 games a season with a bit of travel thrown in.  All of a sudden your dreams change.
    There's the TV companies of course.  They're hard bitten business negotiators as we know.  Why would they pay the same for what they might think is going to be a lesser product - less watched, less advertising revenue, less Carra v Gary? No more MNF or Super Sunday.
    And then there's the patsies in the deal - because every rip off has to have a patsy - us.  We don't go, we don't buy season tickets or merchandise.  Empty stadiums?  No bother - we've just had a season of that.  Went OK.  They'll come back eventually and if not then there's China, or Indonesia or Vietnam and South Korea. All those hotbeds of Tosketh and Trafford and the Kings Road.
    We've been here before when Kerry Packer did his thing and shook up a whole sport.  He actually made it work for a few years.  Who's to say this won't be the same?  They've judged that the authorities and clubs won't have any bottle when push comes to shove and that the TV companies have shareholders to please and the players (led by Gordon Taylor and their agents - ye Gods) will do as they're told and the fans long since lost their financial clout.  They might just be right.
  2. Haha
    ilkleyram reacted to Steve Buckley’s Dog in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    Great post. Am I the only one who read that as the pasties in the deal? I was curious as to whether ginsters had got involved with stadium catering. A nice cheese and onion one for me I thought. Fans will do anything and watch anything if a free pasty is involved. I might suggest it to try and sway the tide of public opinion.
    The pasty thing is quite clearly the only thing going for this greed laden deal put together by bankers.
  3. Cheers
    ilkleyram reacted to enachops in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    One of the best posts I’ve ever read on here. I fear you may be correct. Absolutely nailed every word - great post!
  4. Clap
    ilkleyram got a reaction from Monty in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    You can question their motives but they would have more than anticipated this furore and will judge that in the next few days calmer heads will prevail at FIFA, UEFA, the various FAs and the Premier League, plus the TV broadcasters.
    TV money may be on the wane but if you were a middle ranking PL club - Everton (about to invest £500m in a new stadium with a business case that depends upon that level of TV money), or Southampton or West Ham - you would know that the reason that you get the money that you do get is because of the viewing figures from the UK but more importantly, abroad, for the matches against the 6 clubs.  So, when you consider throwing them out of the EPL, the 6 will judge, what are you going to do when Sky renegotiate the TV deal because the 6 major TV audience generators have all left.  And that deal is substantially lower than the current one and it then means that you can't buy Jesse Lingard, or pay him the deal that he wants/demands. And you multiply the drop in revenue by the three years of the contract.  The sums will be huge.
    And if you're CEO of the FA, which, let's face it is a pretty feckless organisation anyway, what are you going to think about losing the 6 clubs from the FA Cup - the ones that the minnows all want to play.  What will the BBC pay for that contract?  Ditto the Carabao Cup and the EFL.  Both competitions now so diluted anyway that they've lost any sense of the glory and importance they used to carry.
    And then there's UEFA and FIFA.  Both organisations renowned for their probity and upholding of high principles, rattling sabres about the sanctity of the sport and the importance of the fans.  Yeah right. First and foremost they want what's right for UEFA and FIFA.  They won't want a CL competition without the 12 clubs because their TV/advertising revenues will plummet; they will want a WC with all the main players and all the main countries at their strongest because that's how they make millions out of Coca Cola, that well known health drink.
    Lets not forget either the players, who love communicating with their fans so much that they pay agencies £4,000 a month to write a few inane comments on their social media accounts for the fans - We go again!  If you are Messi or Ronaldo you have made your money.  You might be able to afford a few words for the fans, until Juventus and Barca (1bn euros in debt) tell you to shut up.  What if you're Mason Mount though?  Just starting out on a career.  You haven't made your FU money yet, nor have you won much.  You didn't imagine playing for Southampton in your dreams as a kid, you saw yourself at the top of the tree winning trophies, playing for England.  Your employer tells you to say nothing controversial; your agent (who only has your best interests at heart - yeah right) says let's hold on and see what happens here.  There's money to be made. You think about earning a good slice of £4bn, setting yourself up for life and playing 30 games a season with a bit of travel thrown in.  All of a sudden your dreams change.
    There's the TV companies of course.  They're hard bitten business negotiators as we know.  Why would they pay the same for what they might think is going to be a lesser product - less watched, less advertising revenue, less Carra v Gary? No more MNF or Super Sunday.
    And then there's the patsies in the deal - because every rip off has to have a patsy - us.  We don't go, we don't buy season tickets or merchandise.  Empty stadiums?  No bother - we've just had a season of that.  Went OK.  They'll come back eventually and if not then there's China, or Indonesia or Vietnam and South Korea. All those hotbeds of Tosketh and Trafford and the Kings Road.
    We've been here before when Kerry Packer did his thing and shook up a whole sport.  He actually made it work for a few years.  Who's to say this won't be the same?  They've judged that the authorities and clubs won't have any bottle when push comes to shove and that the TV companies have shareholders to please and the players (led by Gordon Taylor and their agents - ye Gods) will do as they're told and the fans long since lost their financial clout.  They might just be right.
  5. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from enachops in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    You can question their motives but they would have more than anticipated this furore and will judge that in the next few days calmer heads will prevail at FIFA, UEFA, the various FAs and the Premier League, plus the TV broadcasters.
    TV money may be on the wane but if you were a middle ranking PL club - Everton (about to invest £500m in a new stadium with a business case that depends upon that level of TV money), or Southampton or West Ham - you would know that the reason that you get the money that you do get is because of the viewing figures from the UK but more importantly, abroad, for the matches against the 6 clubs.  So, when you consider throwing them out of the EPL, the 6 will judge, what are you going to do when Sky renegotiate the TV deal because the 6 major TV audience generators have all left.  And that deal is substantially lower than the current one and it then means that you can't buy Jesse Lingard, or pay him the deal that he wants/demands. And you multiply the drop in revenue by the three years of the contract.  The sums will be huge.
    And if you're CEO of the FA, which, let's face it is a pretty feckless organisation anyway, what are you going to think about losing the 6 clubs from the FA Cup - the ones that the minnows all want to play.  What will the BBC pay for that contract?  Ditto the Carabao Cup and the EFL.  Both competitions now so diluted anyway that they've lost any sense of the glory and importance they used to carry.
    And then there's UEFA and FIFA.  Both organisations renowned for their probity and upholding of high principles, rattling sabres about the sanctity of the sport and the importance of the fans.  Yeah right. First and foremost they want what's right for UEFA and FIFA.  They won't want a CL competition without the 12 clubs because their TV/advertising revenues will plummet; they will want a WC with all the main players and all the main countries at their strongest because that's how they make millions out of Coca Cola, that well known health drink.
    Lets not forget either the players, who love communicating with their fans so much that they pay agencies £4,000 a month to write a few inane comments on their social media accounts for the fans - We go again!  If you are Messi or Ronaldo you have made your money.  You might be able to afford a few words for the fans, until Juventus and Barca (1bn euros in debt) tell you to shut up.  What if you're Mason Mount though?  Just starting out on a career.  You haven't made your FU money yet, nor have you won much.  You didn't imagine playing for Southampton in your dreams as a kid, you saw yourself at the top of the tree winning trophies, playing for England.  Your employer tells you to say nothing controversial; your agent (who only has your best interests at heart - yeah right) says let's hold on and see what happens here.  There's money to be made. You think about earning a good slice of £4bn, setting yourself up for life and playing 30 games a season with a bit of travel thrown in.  All of a sudden your dreams change.
    There's the TV companies of course.  They're hard bitten business negotiators as we know.  Why would they pay the same for what they might think is going to be a lesser product - less watched, less advertising revenue, less Carra v Gary? No more MNF or Super Sunday.
    And then there's the patsies in the deal - because every rip off has to have a patsy - us.  We don't go, we don't buy season tickets or merchandise.  Empty stadiums?  No bother - we've just had a season of that.  Went OK.  They'll come back eventually and if not then there's China, or Indonesia or Vietnam and South Korea. All those hotbeds of Tosketh and Trafford and the Kings Road.
    We've been here before when Kerry Packer did his thing and shook up a whole sport.  He actually made it work for a few years.  Who's to say this won't be the same?  They've judged that the authorities and clubs won't have any bottle when push comes to shove and that the TV companies have shareholders to please and the players (led by Gordon Taylor and their agents - ye Gods) will do as they're told and the fans long since lost their financial clout.  They might just be right.
  6. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from TigerTedd in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    The major downside of this is that the 12 clubs are looking for a league in which there is no promotion and relegation - to take away any risk for their businesses.  There is also the added complication that it would be horrendously complicated to organise across all (or even a few) of the leagues.  Say two Italian clubs are relegated one year.  Do you 'promote' 2 more Italian clubs to maintain the balance or take the next two clubs from the leagues and (potentially) end up with most of the league being from one country?
    The 12 clubs aren't interested in a sporting spectacle and challenge.  They're solely interested in removing any possibility of losing income through relegation, of creating a sport for TV that billions will watch across Asia and maximising their opportunity for profit and growth at the expense of everyone else.
  7. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from RadioactiveWaste in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    The major downside of this is that the 12 clubs are looking for a league in which there is no promotion and relegation - to take away any risk for their businesses.  There is also the added complication that it would be horrendously complicated to organise across all (or even a few) of the leagues.  Say two Italian clubs are relegated one year.  Do you 'promote' 2 more Italian clubs to maintain the balance or take the next two clubs from the leagues and (potentially) end up with most of the league being from one country?
    The 12 clubs aren't interested in a sporting spectacle and challenge.  They're solely interested in removing any possibility of losing income through relegation, of creating a sport for TV that billions will watch across Asia and maximising their opportunity for profit and growth at the expense of everyone else.
  8. Clap
    ilkleyram reacted to Olton Ram in Champions League Reforms and The Super League   
    I've got to say, as someone who already has no interest in the Champion's League and little interest in what the 'big' clubs in the Premier League get up to, I haven't been this entertained by the likes of Man Utd for years. Turns out that football finally eating itself is in itself a spectator sport. 

  9. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from TigerTedd in Could polls help us?   
    If Joz comes back in a bit of form, that’ll help us. Bielik making a miraculous recovery would help us even more.
  10. Clap
    ilkleyram got a reaction from Hinzy9 in The slow death of comedy and humour.   
    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.
  11. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from richinspain in Rooney’s Style of Play/Identity   
    We're arguing over semantics here @rynny.  15 games is a third of the way in, 13 is a 'good way' in (in my view) and 3 more games than the 'lets see where we are after 10 games' brigade.
    What Wayne had not had, by starting after 13 games, is a pre-season (in a division where we routinely play 3 games a week, not allowing any time to develop properly a distinct style of play) or a transfer window (the general view at the time was that the one window he has had was, overall, a positive one).  Nor has he had the time (or perhaps the inclination and money and opportunity) to bring in his people. It would be surprising if he hadn't sought advice from the likes of Ferguson.  Perhaps they advised him to do exactly what he is doing - get through this season, do anything and everything to stay up and then go from there when you have the time and, hopefully, a bit of money.
    I might also argue that a mixture of injuries and form has also had a huge impact, as you might expect from any team towards the bottom of any division.  We played very well when Bielik was fit and in form; Curtis was a big player for us at the back; we're going into a match against the runaway league leaders without several senior pros and a bench that will look like a footballing kindergarten.  In and amongst that no one has shown any consistent form throughout the season, even the player who will probably become our player of the season.  A player who looks good one match, doesn't the next.
    I'm sure you, or others, might argue that latter point would be helped with a single style.  Perhaps.  But also perhaps not.  If that style led to being beaten badly and regularly perhaps the confidence would sink even lower to a point where it's impossible to recover. There would certainly be demands on this forum for another plan if plan A was unsuccessful.
    He set out to make us harder to score against, get the ball forward more quickly.  A style of sorts.  Rudimentary or simpler maybe but with some success.  He's then tried to make us more of an attacking force, recognising that we might have become better at stopping goals but we needed to score more.  All with the sole aim of trying to get enough points to stay in the division.  As a strategy for the season, given the players he has at his disposal, the fact he came in part way through the season, that players' form has had the consistency of a yo-yo and that injuries to key players at key times has had a significant effect, my view is that he is right to take a pragmatic game by game approach until he has time to sort it out, if he's allowed the chance to do so.
  12. Cheers
    ilkleyram reacted to David in Snail & Garlic Crisps   
    They send a bottle of gin, 4/5 mixers, and 3 snacks. It’s not too bad value really, £20 and the bottle itself was worth £35
  13. Clap
    ilkleyram got a reaction from richinspain in Football agents versus FIFA   
    I really don’t mind football agents. Too many players over too many years were ripped off by clubs and managers who held all the cards.
    What I really object to is clubs having to pay the player’s agent. Why? If the player wants to employ someone to represent their interests then that should be a private arrangement between player and agent, including costs. 
  14. Cheers
    ilkleyram reacted to admira in Lego Town   
    We live in a converted chapel. The top attic is full of ‘treasure’ (or she calls it junk). Hundreds of Rams programmes, vinyl records etc. 
  15. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from admira in Lego Town   
    In all the well deserved praise for your efforts @admira I am surprised that no one has mentioned that you have a lower attic. I suspect that most of us only have one attic at best. What do you keep in the upper attic? 
  16. Clap
    ilkleyram got a reaction from uttoxram75 in Lego Town   
    In all the well deserved praise for your efforts @admira I am surprised that no one has mentioned that you have a lower attic. I suspect that most of us only have one attic at best. What do you keep in the upper attic? 
  17. Haha
    ilkleyram got a reaction from admira in Lego Town   
    Some people would say anything to get a visit to Tonytown
  18. Haha
    ilkleyram got a reaction from David in Lego Town   
    Some people would say anything to get a visit to Tonytown
  19. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from ariotofmyown in ANPR Cameras   
    Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything.  
    It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago.  The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state.  And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate.
    Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago.  CCTV all over the place.  Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse.  My car was stolen from outside the house.  The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford.  Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it?  No. Let the insurance company sort it out.
    The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection.  I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection.  And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy.  
     
  20. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from uttoxram75 in ANPR Cameras   
    Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything.  
    It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago.  The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state.  And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate.
    Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago.  CCTV all over the place.  Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse.  My car was stolen from outside the house.  The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford.  Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it?  No. Let the insurance company sort it out.
    The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection.  I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection.  And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy.  
     
  21. Clap
    ilkleyram got a reaction from I know nothing in Football agents versus FIFA   
    I really don’t mind football agents. Too many players over too many years were ripped off by clubs and managers who held all the cards.
    What I really object to is clubs having to pay the player’s agent. Why? If the player wants to employ someone to represent their interests then that should be a private arrangement between player and agent, including costs. 
  22. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from Angry Ram in ANPR Cameras   
    Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything.  
    It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago.  The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state.  And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate.
    Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago.  CCTV all over the place.  Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse.  My car was stolen from outside the house.  The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford.  Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it?  No. Let the insurance company sort it out.
    The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection.  I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection.  And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy.  
     
  23. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from JoetheRam in ANPR Cameras   
    Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything.  
    It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago.  The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state.  And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate.
    Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago.  CCTV all over the place.  Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse.  My car was stolen from outside the house.  The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford.  Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it?  No. Let the insurance company sort it out.
    The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection.  I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection.  And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy.  
     
  24. Like
    ilkleyram got a reaction from Malagaram in ANPR Cameras   
    Like @FindernRam I'm largely law abiding - don't do any drugs, speed a little and often, don't jump red lights, would return a found credit card and full wallet etc, but unlike Findern I would do away with the lot of them - CCTV, ANPR cameras, speed cameras, everything.  
    It's all well and good saying I'm law abiding and they don't bother me but that depends on the law, it's interpretation and use - Derbyshire police send up drones to criminalise people walking alone in the peak district. No one would have predicted that two years ago.  The pandemic has shown that it doesn't take much of a change in the law for basic freedoms to be eroded significantly and for technology to be used to support the state.  And the state uses it when it suits the state and not necessarily those in whose name they operate.
    Two personal examples - my daughter was mugged and her necklace stolen in London three years ago.  CCTV all over the place.  Did the police bother to try to catch the criminal and use the available technology? No. The guy is free to mug again. Maybe next time the end result is worse.  My car was stolen from outside the house.  The police took a week to look at the ANPR cameras to discover it and another stolen car being driven into Bradford.  Could they be bothered to trace it further into the city to find it?  No. Let the insurance company sort it out.
    The point is not that my family should be getting service that others aren't but that any monitoring of citizens by the state should always be a trade off - reduced freedoms (by using technology to routinely monitor its citizens before they've done anything wrong) should mean better protection.  I would argue that the pendulum has tipped too far - too much monitoring for too little protection and an increasingly lazy police force that relies largely on technology for results rather than detection.  And it's nothing to do with cut backs but everything to do with strategy and policy.  
     
  25. Clap
    ilkleyram got a reaction from David Graham Brown in Could polls help us?   
    If Joz comes back in a bit of form, that’ll help us. Bielik making a miraculous recovery would help us even more.
×
×
  • 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.