Highgate

4 hours ago, Kernow said:

Is that a typo and you put Kane by accident and really meant someone else?

Kane is arguably the best, most complete CF in the world right now, if he’s not getting the ball he drops into midfield and dictates play himself. Just spend 5 minutes watching him.

Without doubt, a capable playmaker as well as an excellent finisher.  A great all round CF, the only thing you could say he lacks is pace.. 

England seem to be marginal favourites over France with most bookies.  Those two certainly seem to have the best squads in the tournament.  A look at who France have left out of the squad is scary, but I really think they should have found a place for Olise. 

Personally I think Germany are a good bet with home advantage, Wirtz and Musiala could shine.  That's where my money is going.  Spain and Portugal can't be ruled out either.

Would love to see Scotland get past the group stage and have a good tournament. 

10 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

As anyone already voted. Apparently the new voting system allows people to vote before the song is even performed.

Which will probably not make an iota of difference to the result. We'll get the usual Sweden and Norway voting for each other, the same with Greece and Cyprus and the UK voting for Ireland. These are just a few of the countries that will always vote for their neighbours irrelevant of how good or bad the song.

It's not really countries voting for the neighbours though as such....it's migrant populations voting for their home country. Except the Greece-Cyprus thing....   And people in N.Ireland can vote for Ireland. 

That's why Russia was such a good bet for the win before they were kicked out...they have populations is so many other Eastern European countries.  

52 minutes ago, Mr. P said:

I'd like to see a another angle of that offside against bayern towards the end. Looked close. 

Looked onside to me ...shocking decision by the linesman to flag for such a close call.  

Incredible end to the game really. This year's champions league has been a very good watch.  

46 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Even worse than keoghs?

Technically Williams' was a more glaring error in my opinion.  We've all seen mistakes like Keogh's in football matches (not forgetting Forsyth and Buxton for allowing the cross in the first place). It was nothing that unusual really.  But to this day I've never anyone fresh air a header like Williams did in that game, I just don't know how he managed it.  The counter argument is that the timing of Keogh's mistake was more cruel, giving us no hope of a comeback.    

Best dodgy decision in our favour the penalty against Rotherham in 1986, the most crucial anyway.  

Worst decision, not to give a foul when Roberts elbowed Taylor in the face in 1994...or course that injustice was compounded by Paul Williams' worst attempted clearance in Derby history one second later. Still hurts.

4 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

I can survive without the play offs idea, was just a spur of the moment thought to keep most teams interested and something to play for until the very end. 

FWIW i'd have the bottom two automatically relegated and then 15th - 18th battling it out for the final drop. But ultimately i don't think the PL would ever trial something like this.

I'd be intrigued to see how we would reinvigorate the cup competitions. It may be a generational thing but i hold very little feelings towards the cup comps.

I think that's an excellent idea.... with European qualification and the relegation play-offs then every club would have something to play for towards the end of the season.  As you say, PL clubs would probably be against it though. 

1 hour ago, Grimbeard said:

If it's not an obvious howler, the original decision stands, and we live with it.

Referee errors are just part of the game. Over the last 150 odd years there will have been thousands of wrong calls, but that's still better than the current system that's sucking all the joy from the game.

 

Except I don't think we'd live with it, anymore than we lived with referee's mistakes before VAR or we are happy to live with the VAR shambles as it's operating now.  Chuck VAR in the bin.  We tried it, fair enough it was worth an attempt, but it's sucking the life out of the game (I'm in complete agreement with you there) as well as creating nearly as many controversies as it solves. 

1 hour ago, Grimbeard said:

The only opinion that would matter would be the ref's, just as it always used to be. But now he would have the opportunity to review his desicion to help eliminate glaring errors.

And when the ref reviews a decision, and it looks like the on-field decision was wrong but not glaringly wrong, what then?  He upholds the original almost certainly incorrect decision?  I think that would be a route to even more controversy.  

2 hours ago, bcnram said:

The decision should only be overturned if it is ' a clear and obvious mistake'. The ref in front of the screen only has to take a look and decide that is too close to call so the goal stands. 

That seems reasonable, but then you might find that people would disagree about what is 'clear and obvious'.  If fact people definitely would. What's clear and obvious to one person is marginal and debatable to another person.  

10 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Not convinced they stopped the action at the right millisecond or that they were correct drawing them from the defender's foot when other ball-playing parts of his body looked closer to goal. Very cruel. The system cannot be accurate so should there be some sort of margin of error? 

Yeah you can never be sure if the action has been stopped at precisely the right moment or not.  But if you introduce a margin of error, won't the debate just switch to whether the toenail was within the margin of error line or not, rather than whether it was ahead or behind the last defender?  Whatever criterion is used, whether it's offside by any amount, margin or error or 'clear daylight' between the players, the decision will often come down to judgement calls based on millimetres. 

I'd be happy to bin VAR altogether and go back to best guess by the officials.  At least then people could go back to celebrating goals naturally when they occur.  

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

Cynical people might surmise that the US doesn't want too much disruption to Iranian oil supplies right now because Russia would fill the gap and benefit financially or prices would soar.

Thats why Israel and Iran are only tickling each other atm.

I've no idea how much of an issue Iranian oil is for the US these days, but I'm sure the current US president wishes the whole Israel/Gaza/Iran problem wouldn't have exploded like it did in an election year. 

3 hours ago, Crewton said:

Iran have played it down so far, presumably for PR purposes to emphasise to their population and the outside world that Israel can't damage them, so it'll be interesting to see if that's an end to the direct tit-for-tat or not.

I expect exchanges of attacks between Israel and Iranian proxies will continue unabated.

Hopefully the damage done isn't too significant, Israel will feel it's proved its point that it can strike Iran whenever and wherever it wishes while Iran won't feel it necessary to launch another retaliatory attack.  That may de-escalate things between the two countries for now.

7 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Well there is a gap in opinion between the more conservative rural areas of Iran and the more liberal urban cities. However, I think Iran's reaction yesterday- with morality vans dragging women into them for not wearing their hijab and threatening with court action activists who are criticising the regime's response speaks to a certain nervousness about the potential for an internal backlash. 

 

This isn't even the Iran of 2005-2008 under Ahmadinejad where despite the green revolution's claims of vote rigging Ahmedinejad's more conservative values probably did win enough votes in the rural areas to carry the election. The guardian council have been much more aggressive in recent years in striking candidates from the lists and election turnout has fallen to below half. 

Yeah, nothing to disagree with here.  Seems perfectly plausible to me that the Iranian regime is trying not to look weak in response to Israeli aggression while at the same time it wants to suppress any dissenting voices regarding it's policies among it's own population.  Those two points don't seem like a contradiction to me. 

I don't think anyone needs any convincing on how awful the regime in Iran is and how unfortunate Iranians are to have to suffer through it. 

3 hours ago, David Graham Brown said:

He isn’t, but like he said, it’s a much used word to close down an argument, like racist, fascist, etc.

I think to discuss him in any depth would bring us into areas prohibited by the forum.  He was only mentioned here because of his direct comments related to Palestine. 

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm just not sure the Iranian public overall would want that kind of strike against Israel given how they are opposed to the actions in Yemen and Syria which has cost them a lot in blood and treasure. It strikes me as a little incongruent as a reasoning. It wouldn't surprise me if it was done more with regional dynamics in mind than domestic consumption tbh.

On the question of does the regime care about public opinion- yes and no I would say. The Grand Ayatollah has recently bemoaned the lack of public religiosity which is partly down to the regime itself becoming increasingly reliant upon the armed forces as a separate wing to enforce control, as well as the 'basij' as a separate civilian militia. The danger for the regime is when the Ayatollah dies (I believe he's 83 if my memory is correct) what happens then as the legitimation for the regime has gotten too narrow to be considered stable. However, Iran is a sophisticated state, unlike Syria, which has significant capacity militarily to quell uprisings. Their response to challenges has not been to listen but to project 'strength' and crackdown on increasing numbers of opposition activists. 

Speaking of incongruence, we may be both falling into the trap of speaking of a monolithic Iranian public opinion.  It's a broad and complicated spectrum, brought about by a fascinating but tragic history of malevolent foreign interference as well as homegrown oppression.

There are those that support the theocracy and their actions and there are those that oppose it. Likewise there are those that support the regimes proxy war against Israel and those that completely oppose it. And yet there are very few people in Iran, I would imagine, that support Israel's destruction of Gaza or the direct attack on the Iranian consulate.  And given that we can all agree that Iran's regime's very obvious position is one of violent opposition to Israel, it can't possibly let itself get attacked by Israel and not respond, to do so would damage it's perceived credibility enormously. Not only would it anger and disappoint those who still support the regime but it would also give it's opponents yet another reason to criticize it. 

16 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm not so sure about that. The Iranian regime has been suffering on multiple fronts from a direct lack of legitimacy. The 'hybrid' system initially developed at the beginning of the Republic has now all but broken down into simple authoritarianism. The regime's foreign adventures in Syria and Yemen are not popular with Iranians who have demanded resources be spent at home rather than abroad. I'm not sure how launching this kind of attack helps with that tbh. Nor do I think the Iranian regime is that bothered about the 'pr consequences' of their foreign policies as if they were they wouldn't still be propping up the Assad regime or arming the Houthi rebels. 

Admittedly I've not kept a close eye on the reaction domestically to this though so I may be wrong. 

I don't dispute at all that the Iranian regime have real ideological motivations for their foreign policies, such as their support and arming of Hamas and Hezbollah. But I definitely think that even the most authoritarian regime has to be concerned with how their rule is perceived in their own countries, (After all when an authoritarian regime falls....it doesn't usually end well for those who were in charge). They definitely don't want to look weak, but that's exactly how they looked when Israel was able to destroy their consulate and kill their generals as they pleased. The fact that they are basically lying about how effective the strike against Israel was seems to suggest that they really do care about how this plays out in Iran.  As you rightly say, it's not a popular regime with much of the Iranian population so a strike against Israel was calculated as necessary so as not to add weakness in the face of Israeli aggression to the list of the regime's shortcomings.  That's my guess at least. 

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

There can be little doubt, across the world, that Iran is controlling many of the areas, like Syria and Yemen, where missiles were launched at Israel. This combined with Irans  inability to inflict major damage with the missiles, has to be a political own goal by Iran. 

I'm not sure it was a political own goal.  I think the main reason for this attack was to so the Iranian government could maintain credibility with the Iranian population.  After Israel's attack on the embassy in Syria, or the consulate building next to the embassy I should say, the Iranian regime would have lost all credibility at home had it done nothing.  So it launched this very publicized attack on Israel, and despite most missiles being shot down it did manage to hit the very military base from which Israel launched the attack on the embassy/consulate.  

News reports in Iran are, as you'd expect, exaggerating the damage caused in Israel enormously, suggesting the base has been completely destroyed and so on.  So far, as a domestic PR operation, it seems to have been a success and the Iranian regime are saying they are satisfied with what occurred and their retaliation is complete. 

Unfortunately despite most of the world urging Israel to do nothing in response..... it's likely that there is a very serious response coming Iran's way.  

1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Yup. I can't escape them when I go on. Can't figure out whether it's because the algorithm is deliberately pushing it, or because I stupidly engage by looking at all the morons in the comments, which makes it think I'm interested in that content.

Difficult not to look at the crazy comments sometimes though, I'm sure a lot of people are falling into the same trap. 

Like the orange fella over at Truth Social, love him or hate him the nonsense he spouts is very hard to ignore.  

I suppose that's the model that X and other social media platforms are running with, promote the crazy, the controversial and the confrontational and people will pay attention. 

That Matt Walsh seems like a perfectly reasonable bloke too... 🙄.  Is X full of those loons now? 

51 minutes ago, Archied said:

Your saying pretty much that Isreal engineered a regime into power in gazza that could kill Israeli people so they could have an excuse to take over gazza ,, purposely sacrificing the lives of its own citizens,,,is that not what you are saying ? Have I read that wrong ?

im pretty sure you are one who has given me stick as some tin foil hat wearer when I’m very cynical on subjects and done the same to others , if your honestly telling me I’m mistaken and you have never done that then you have my apologies 🤷🏻‍♂️

This really shouldn't be news to anyone....Netanyahu didn't want serious negotiations about a 2 state solution with the Palestinian Authority, much better to have Hamas in charge with whom he could refuse to negotiate with and therefore maintain the status quo.  

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

I'm sure the intent of the Israeli government was that there were never be an event like October 7th,  but to state that Hamas wouldn't be as strong without Netanyahu's policies over the years  doesn't seem to me to be controversial, and definitely not conspiratorial. 

I've disagreed with your views numerous times on Climate Change, more often than not really, but I don't ever recall calling you a conspiracy theorist. 

16 minutes ago, Archied said:

Always makes me smile seeing people who ridicule people as conspiracy theorists happily promote conspiracy theories 😂
next you’ll be telling us the White House put terrorists on planes for 9/11 so they could ride the wave of fear and anger to achieve its aims , what’s the lives of a few thousand home grown plebs here and there

What's the alleged conspiracy that you are objecting to?  

Also who have I ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist? 

2 hours ago, 1of4 said:

I'm sure most of the world want to see a peaceful end to this conflict.

While I've seen Israelis in their own country protesting and demanding that their government negotiate a ceasefire, which could lead to the removal of Prime Minister Netanyahu.   I've not seen Palestinians protesting and demanding Hamas negotiate a ceasefire.

Many of the Palestinian marches and flag waving that have taken place in the UK not only seem to be protesting against the actions of Israel, but due to the chanting of "from the river to the sea", the total destruction of Israel.

Apparently Hamas have refused to take part in any ceasefire negotiations until all their demands are met. Aren't these meeting supposedly for the two side to come to a compromise, not to rubber stamp the demands of one of the antagonists?

Are the  leaders of Hamas more concerned about the survival of their own organisation and their call for the total destruction of Israel than the safety and well-being of the Palestinian people?

There are claims that what Israel are doing in Gaza is genocide, but isn't what Hamas and their supporters are advocating for is, the total destruction of the state of Israel and it's people, an actual act of genocide?

 

Hamas are an appalling organization and it's regrettable that they gained power in Gaza. But it's not an accident, it's been a deliberate ploy by Netanyahu and his ilk for decades to sideline more moderate Palestinian voices and centralize Hamas and thereby create an enemy which they can use to justify their imprisonment of Gaza and apartheid like conditions in the West Bank. 

There isn't a single good thing to say about Hamas and their years or murder and terror, and while many Palestinians probably just see Hamas in relation to the struggle with the Israeli state, there is a clear strain of religious fundamentalism in Hamas' worldview and obviously that tends to prohibit reason and compromise.  

The sad thing is, each day of violence that's been inflicted on Gaza will only make Hamas more and more popular, that's just inevitable in these situations.  I'm sure that right now, the large majority in Gaza who has lived through this horror would want to hit back at Israel in any way they can. Unfortunately that's just human nature.  

When the hardcore element within Hamas use the 'river to the sea chant' it may well be that there is genocidal intent involved. But obviously the phrase itself need not have such implications.  It could just mean that the political state of Israel be removed and replaced by a state of Palestine where both Muslims and Jews could continue to live, but the state would no longer be a 'Jewish state'...and therefore Palestinians would be 'free'.  It all depends on who is saying it and the context.  Either way though, I can't see anything like that happening for generations to come.  Interestingly Likud's party manifesto has has the same aspiration but in reverse, 'From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, there will be only Israeli sovereignty'. 

9 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Horrible horrible bloke

 

Two horrible blokes.  

The fact that this Israeli government is managing to alienate it's perennial ally the US, which currently has an avowed Zionist as president in Biden, should give us some impression of just what an extreme regime they are. 

Not that any further convincing of that fact should be needed now, looking at the remains of Gaza.