John Doe

There are many big stories out there that no big publication dare to publish. There is no independent journalist/publication that isn’t dismissed as conspiracy theorists immediately upon publishing anything against the mainstream ideals. 

Before Covid appeared, a world renowned research department at Keele University in staffs was shut down after the Uni received major funding from Vaccine manufacturers, either directly or through "charitable" organisations funded by them.
The research was into a link between aluminium ingestion and Alzheimers/dementia type diseases due to the phenomenal increase of early onset Alzheimers in the US over the last 20 years or so.
When my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimers in 2014 we did what many people do, read up on the disease, talk to the people you come across at hospital visits, consultants, doctors etc, ask about possible causes of the horrific disease, all that stuff you suddenly need to know when a loved one is suffering.
Through a close family member connected to Staffordshire University I ended up reading some of the stuff that the Keele team were working on, although I didn't understand much of it the conclusions were that aluminium was present in all Alzheimers patients that were studied. It appears that it breaks down an enzyme between brain cells (its far more complicated than that, like I say, I don't understand the science but the research was all peer reviewed and published).
As more and more evidence came to the fore it seemed that the presence of aluminium was mainly due to it being used as an adjuvant in vaccines, especially early onset dementia, although links to pesticides and other stuff was not totally ruled out and it was suggested that a combination of several toxic ingestions of aluminium was likely to accumulate and make the problem worse. These studies were over a 20 year period and nothing to do with covid.
As Keele university went through a change in management and new funding arrived from the various groups I mentioned earlier, the research team was told it could not receive any more funding, internally or externally, so any outside group that wished to donate to the research was banned from giving to that particular team. Their website was shut down and the team disbanded.
Dad passed away in October 2019 so all I read about this was way before any mention of covid. It made me think about the ethics of vaccine manufacturers and the control they had over research into possible side effects way before covid vaccines were even thought of.
Some vaccines have been around for years and are obviously safe and needed, but is it too much to ask for full disclosure of all ingredients and possible side effects of new stuff?
My point is that I don't trust people who shut research down in case it affects their bottom line. Look at who finances the WHO, who some of the SAGE experts work for (or receive funding from). My philosophy is "follow the money". The covid vaccine has not gone through the normal testing for short term side effects let alone the long term issues so why should it become mandatory, (legally or through the backdoor by creating a second class citizen denied access to events, work etc).
 
I won't post any links, most people don't care but even if you do its better that you discover it for yourself but In case anyone is interested or think ive just made it all up, google Christopher Exley. He is the main researcher who has studied this stuff for 40 years.
 

Pretty funny tbh, but it's another smug dismissal of dissenting voices. There are plenty of respectable scientists who have found important information that is being suppressed.  Like the evidence of the effectiveness of re-purposed drugs to treat covid,like Ivermectin that have a long safety record. Many credible scientists have raised concern, but of course they must be anti-vacc wierdos right? 

Im sorry but BBC have given up on journalism a long time ago. They are biased towards lockdown measures and are running emotive stories with unnecessarily provocative language designed to whip up social pressure against people who are cautious about the vaccine. All for the greater good of course. Where is the critical analysis in mainstream media and politics? This is a major problem. There are credible doubts about both policies but this is actively shut down by big tech and socially you risked being dismissed and shamed. Just for exercising caution, looking at the bigger picture and having the temerity to question authority.  It's a concern, no matter what you think about lockdown or vaccines, this is a wider trend .

The auditors, professionals in the field of accounting, concluded that we complied with the law.
The EFL with no accountancy expertise concluded we didn't. 
 

So you can go into a nightclub carrying the virus, passing it onto 50 other people all of whom will get pinged and be forced to self isolate despite being double jabbed - yet you now won't be allowed into the nightclub if you've taken a test to prove you haven't got covid?
Not only are vaccine passports draconian, they still won't prevent the spread of the virus.

Nick Hornby's book Fever Pitch gives a great description of why people love (or loved) football. Paraphrasing, he states that you can go from complete despair to utter joy with one kick of the ball - VAR has taken that away - one kick of the ball, utter joy, the 1-2 (or longer) delay and then back to despair.
Tielemans scores a worldy, but we all have to wait to see if there might have been the vaguest of handballs in the run up to the goal - Chilwell scores against the team he played for (and their pathetic fans that booed him throughout) and his goal is ruled out because in the frame that's chosen to review (with a 5-6 inch margin of error) his knee-cap was offside....football is dying in front of our eyes - may as well stage Playstation tournaments than watch this shallow imitation of the game we loved....

VAR is awful, and pundits are enjoying criticising it, but it is the likes of sky with their dozens of camera angles that are responsible for it.
They enjoyed picking refs up on wrong decisions because they had the benefit of replays from every angle you can imagine, perhaps if they hadnt been so keen to destroy a ref because he made a wrong decision because they could replay it 100 times we wouldnt be in this position today.

TBH if the corona hadn't given them a break they'd have burnt out like all off Bielsa's teams do.
See how they're doing in two months when teams have realised their defence is still rubbish and in four months when they're also knackered.
The overhype is really grating and for all the "he's a genious" stuff until he got Leeds up his actual achivements aren't that many.

What has Carragher been smoking?

Just wanted to celebrate this kid who has introduced himself in the  rams around the world section of this forum. Many will know of his super-quick goal clips provided on Twitter, this South Korean lad appeared recently on Rams Review Podcast (where he politely tolerated being called Lee the whole time, which is his surname/family name)
Somewhat bizzarely, he became a passionate Ram since the play-off final against QPR (must be drawn towards injustice and tragedy) and gets up at 3 or 4am to watch matches.
He also writes pieces promoting our club in South Korea.  I'm not on Twitter but I'm sure many have welcomed him already. Hopefully we can reach out and help him visit Pride Park one day. I think he will feature more on ramsreview pod so a relationship is developing there.  Hope the club are aware too and might assist.
 
 

Think there’s been a global pandemic in the meantime that has drastically affected revenue streams everywhere, which potentially affects our ability to give out new contracts. 
We might have been able to afford Martins contract but we might not have been willing to give him a THREE YEAR DEAL given that in a years time we might have a new manager that doesn’t rate him, although fingers crossed that wouldn’t be the case. 
It might be that if Mel had foreseen this pandemic he mightn’t have committed to Rooney but ultimately no one knows the answer to that and no one saw this coming.
If only it was as simple as ripping contracts up. Unfortunately it quite clearly isn’t that easy. It might well be that the sponsorship income Rooney brings in is absolutely key currently, and Rooney is more important to the team than Martin is, in my opinion. 
I don’t understand why people can’t grasp that he wasn’t let go. He was offered a contract the club felt was fair. For far too long we have been held to ransom by players so I don’t understand why it is such a bad thing that we aren’t willing to bend over backwards anymore.
He has been and is a good player but goodness me, he is not Derby County Football Club. 

Believe it or not, this is not a thread dedicated to Chris Martin.

Your not taking into account all factors , Rooney is a better player by miles , his wages are subsidised, he raises the profile of the club , raises tv appearance, raises crowds , raises sponsorship , shirt sales , effect on youngsters, the list goes on so not a comparable example

I'm a huge Martin fan. HUGE. 
I can't say I'm sad to see him go, though. We know he was on a big old wage here and a significant amount of that contract was paid during a period where he wasn't in the team or out on loan. It was a bad contract and I'm glad we didn't extend it. I obviously have no idea what he's on now, but I'd imagine that Bristol have extended the contract to lower the wage. I wouldn't be surprised if he's still on good money. 
The problem with Martin is that he's the most one dimensional footballer I have ever seen at Derby. He's technically an outstanding footballer, he's got a high footballing IQ but you literally have to build the attack around him otherwise you get diddly squat out of him. 
When you look at his loan spells: 10 in 30 for Fulham, 1 in 10 for Reading and 2 in 30 for Hull. None of them were sad to see the back of him. When the attack wasn't built around him here, he didn't have the best of time. Cocu, like McClaren, managed to get something out of him by making him the focal point. If Bristol don't do that, or decide that he's more influential off the bench, he's going to struggle to get to five goals next season. 
We need a more progressive approach. Martin is a player that I'll always hold in high esteem but I'm not sad to see him go. 

I presume Shinner's move into coaching will mean that he can't do the match day commentary any more. Good luck if you're reading this Shane and thanks for your contribution over the last few of years (pass it on please @OwenB87 if Shane doesn't read the forum).

His agent saying "Should we wrap these players up in cotton wool?" is severely overstating the protection cotton wool offers in a car crash!

Mate, my first job was in a pub and I can assure you that I never once left work sober. That being said, they did fire me after only 5 shifts.

If he was sober...then letting his teammates drink drive and being a passenger, potentially without a seatbelt... Even worse.

I'm not reading through 51 pages of this so I know what I'm going to say has hopefully already been said.
People who see Richard Keogh as the victim here are wrong, Derby County are the victim.
I'll preface this by saying I think all three should have been sacked. I would rather that have happened but I think Keogh is fully deserving of the sack.
Keogh's 33 years old, I've worked with/been responsible for young people in a professional capacity who have the same age gap between me and them as Keogh did to Bennett/Lawrence. He should have known better.
He got into Lawrence's car inebriated, knowing full well Lawrence was well over the limit and then didn't even put his ducking seatbelt on. The club captain. "Mr Derby County".
By doing that he's pretty much ended his career,  he can't perform his job and he should consider himself lucky to be alive.
Derby are right to sack him. I just don't have any sympathy for him. I think they were generous to offer him a chance to stay on a reduced contract.
Just because he wasn't driving doesn't mean he's the victim in any way. He's dug his own grave by getting in that car let alone not putting on a seatbelt. It's not a situation where you can say 'well if Lawrence wasn't driving drunk Keogh would never have got injured!'. Keogh could have still got himself a taxi, the bloke can't drive, I'm sure he knows the number for a taxi company.
He's damaged the club in a way the other two simply haven't. He's completely eradicated himself as an asset to his employers through his own irresponsible actions.
I'd rather we'd have let Lawrence and Bennett go as well but if you see it from the clubs perspective, while their actions were equally as irresponsible they didn't go as far as to injure themselves. I don't know if they were wearing seatbelts or not but they can still do their job. The fact they were driving doesn't make them more responsible than Keogh.
It's upsetting because Keogh was easily my favourite Derby player of all time. Shame he's been such an absolute clown.
 

I’m not a solicitor, but I have had some experience with contracts of employment – although, I’m far from being an expert in employment law.
In the vast majority of contracts, for jobs that rely on some level of physical “activity”, there will be stipulations around what would constitute dismissal based on injuring oneself.  It may/may not specifically be listed as “gross misconduct” and could, for example, fall under “gross negligence leading to an inability to perform the role assigned”.  This could, essentially, read as the same thing, but it is less ambiguous, as gross misconduct could cover a wide range of things outside of the ability to perform a role. 
Roles this would apply to would range from builders, to highway maintenance, to where driving is an essential part of the role, etc.
Now, there would be degrees of circumstance to what would constitute gross misconduct/negligence.  If you are a builder and were, for example, to break a leg playing football, whilst you would be unable to perform your role for a period of time, unless specifically listed in your contract, it would be unlikely to be judged as gross misconduct/negligence – although your contract terms may/may not see you receive a lower level of sick-pay.  However, if you were to break a leg (or worse) as a result of a drink driving incident (seems relevant!), then the likelihood is that this would fall under gross misconduct/negligence and there would be grounds for dismissal under the terms of your contract.
Without having access to the full detail of the relevant investigations, I can only base my thoughts on the topic at hand, from the information that is in the public domain.
Lawrence and Bennett, we are told, were fined the maximum allowable under the terms of their contract.  To me (and I may be wide of the mark!), that would suggest that they were not deemed to be guilty of gross misconduct, but simply a high level of misconduct under the rules of the club, and thus were fined and allowed to continue with their employment.  The fact that they were not injured in the incident probably (but not certainly) played a role in this, given they are still able to fulfill the primary role of their contract – i.e. available to play football as and when required.
Keogh, on the other hand, is clearly unable to fulfill the primary role of his contract.  The fact that this has occurred due to rank stupidity, is certainly acceptable as a means for gross misconduct.  Without having any knowledge of Keogh’s contract, or club rules/statutes on what constitutes gross misconduct, it is impossible to say if his inability to play is the primary reason?  I would be surprised, however, if it was not deemed to be a significant factor in any decision the club has made, alongside the fact that due to the nature of how the injuries occurred, it is highly unlikely that any insurance the club would have would cover any wages/cost. 
It would, in my opinion, go some way to explaining the difference in the outcomes of the 3 players disciplinary processes.

I’m not a solicitor, but I have had some experience with contracts of employment – although, I’m far from being an expert in employment law.
In the vast majority of contracts, for jobs that rely on some level of physical “activity”, there will be stipulations around what would constitute dismissal based on injuring oneself.  It may/may not specifically be listed as “gross misconduct” and could, for example, fall under “gross negligence leading to an inability to perform the role assigned”.  This could, essentially, read as the same thing, but it is less ambiguous, as gross misconduct could cover a wide range of things outside of the ability to perform a role. 
Roles this would apply to would range from builders, to highway maintenance, to where driving is an essential part of the role, etc.
Now, there would be degrees of circumstance to what would constitute gross misconduct/negligence.  If you are a builder and were, for example, to break a leg playing football, whilst you would be unable to perform your role for a period of time, unless specifically listed in your contract, it would be unlikely to be judged as gross misconduct/negligence – although your contract terms may/may not see you receive a lower level of sick-pay.  However, if you were to break a leg (or worse) as a result of a drink driving incident (seems relevant!), then the likelihood is that this would fall under gross misconduct/negligence and there would be grounds for dismissal under the terms of your contract.
Without having access to the full detail of the relevant investigations, I can only base my thoughts on the topic at hand, from the information that is in the public domain.
Lawrence and Bennett, we are told, were fined the maximum allowable under the terms of their contract.  To me (and I may be wide of the mark!), that would suggest that they were not deemed to be guilty of gross misconduct, but simply a high level of misconduct under the rules of the club, and thus were fined and allowed to continue with their employment.  The fact that they were not injured in the incident probably (but not certainly) played a role in this, given they are still able to fulfill the primary role of their contract – i.e. available to play football as and when required.
Keogh, on the other hand, is clearly unable to fulfill the primary role of his contract.  The fact that this has occurred due to rank stupidity, is certainly acceptable as a means for gross misconduct.  Without having any knowledge of Keogh’s contract, or club rules/statutes on what constitutes gross misconduct, it is impossible to say if his inability to play is the primary reason?  I would be surprised, however, if it was not deemed to be a significant factor in any decision the club has made, alongside the fact that due to the nature of how the injuries occurred, it is highly unlikely that any insurance the club would have would cover any wages/cost. 
It would, in my opinion, go some way to explaining the difference in the outcomes of the 3 players disciplinary processes.

I’m not a solicitor, but I have had some experience with contracts of employment – although, I’m far from being an expert in employment law.
In the vast majority of contracts, for jobs that rely on some level of physical “activity”, there will be stipulations around what would constitute dismissal based on injuring oneself.  It may/may not specifically be listed as “gross misconduct” and could, for example, fall under “gross negligence leading to an inability to perform the role assigned”.  This could, essentially, read as the same thing, but it is less ambiguous, as gross misconduct could cover a wide range of things outside of the ability to perform a role. 
Roles this would apply to would range from builders, to highway maintenance, to where driving is an essential part of the role, etc.
Now, there would be degrees of circumstance to what would constitute gross misconduct/negligence.  If you are a builder and were, for example, to break a leg playing football, whilst you would be unable to perform your role for a period of time, unless specifically listed in your contract, it would be unlikely to be judged as gross misconduct/negligence – although your contract terms may/may not see you receive a lower level of sick-pay.  However, if you were to break a leg (or worse) as a result of a drink driving incident (seems relevant!), then the likelihood is that this would fall under gross misconduct/negligence and there would be grounds for dismissal under the terms of your contract.
Without having access to the full detail of the relevant investigations, I can only base my thoughts on the topic at hand, from the information that is in the public domain.
Lawrence and Bennett, we are told, were fined the maximum allowable under the terms of their contract.  To me (and I may be wide of the mark!), that would suggest that they were not deemed to be guilty of gross misconduct, but simply a high level of misconduct under the rules of the club, and thus were fined and allowed to continue with their employment.  The fact that they were not injured in the incident probably (but not certainly) played a role in this, given they are still able to fulfill the primary role of their contract – i.e. available to play football as and when required.
Keogh, on the other hand, is clearly unable to fulfill the primary role of his contract.  The fact that this has occurred due to rank stupidity, is certainly acceptable as a means for gross misconduct.  Without having any knowledge of Keogh’s contract, or club rules/statutes on what constitutes gross misconduct, it is impossible to say if his inability to play is the primary reason?  I would be surprised, however, if it was not deemed to be a significant factor in any decision the club has made, alongside the fact that due to the nature of how the injuries occurred, it is highly unlikely that any insurance the club would have would cover any wages/cost. 
It would, in my opinion, go some way to explaining the difference in the outcomes of the 3 players disciplinary processes.

There will be no grounds for appeal. The insurance against injury will be a key component of a players contract.  It's the clubs protection against being saddled with the salary of a highly paid player with a long term injury. Within the players contract will be a series of stipulations about what they can and can't do in line with the insurance policy. A set of conditions if you will. Players will sign up to them in their own contract in order to protect the club. Exclusions to cover will be in there...things like bungee jumping, skiing, riding a motorbike. All activities that are considered to have a higher than normal risk of injury if participated in. There will also undoubtedly be a clause for knowingly and wilfully putting themselves at risk such as getting in car with people know to be intoxicated. 
Now put aside the drink driving incident and assume Keogh went off on a family holiday skiing and bust all his knee. Should the club be saddled with the cost for his indiscretions. No because it was very clear what they can and can't do. It will have been very very very clear in the contract he signed that agreed to pay him £25k per week. He broke the terms of his contract resulting in additional none insured costs to Derby of salary, medical and rehabilitation costs.
Whilst the other clowns were very lucky not have injured themselves and incurred the same wrath I expect that it is almost impossible to link drink driving out of the work place to 'gross misconduct' as they weren't at work.
It's an unfortunate consequence of an abhorrent incident on all parts.
Had they sacked the other two I suspect they would be in court for unfair dismissal. However Keogh appears to be a clear incident of gross misconduct that would be stipulated in his contract. 
In my opinion they have been generous in offering him reduced terms to stay on. The good will would appear to be there yet no reciprocated. He has been paid the best part of £7million by this club over the last few years. To be permitted to stay on half a million pounds per year when you have clearly breached your contract can only be considered generous.
The whole incident is shameful. The handling has been poor - in particularly the statement on the outcome - although I don't think I have seen anything official from DCFC as yet.
The full story never gets revealed as it is bound by confidentiality clauses and so newspapers, ITK's and other players will attempt to fill in the blanks. Some with truth. Some fallacy.
His actions represent gross misconduct based on his contract and his inability to perform his job due to his own poor decisions. That couldn't be clearer.

Agree, what gets me is , its all about the players nowadays...players can sign a contract yet demand a move the next day or run down there contract and go for no fee so they can get more wages as no transfer fee paid....all of this is all about the players and the club has to lose out every time....so why now should DCFC pay someone 25k a week to sit on there A*** and do nothing...i think the club should be commended for offering a lower wage deal but instead the club is to blame in some peoples eyes....
Keogh can't be short of a few bob and its a very sad way to end his career here but surely he could've taken a lesser wage therefore protecting the club from yet more negative publicity....this whole saga is really sad and such a shame for Keogh but he surely could've handled this better