Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sandperson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think AG has finally lost it. Did anyone hear a

> bang in south London, if so, I think it was his

> head exploding. :))


Well, well if it it isn't the plastic manc and his so called sense of humour. Keep up the day job cos a comedian you ain't, although you're worthy of being laughed at.

For those that care... it's the FA Cup tomorrow, Dulwich Hamlets v Sevenoaks Town at 3 p.m.


If anyone thinks they've ever followed their Club on the road to Wembley.. which I have countless times with Liverpool.. I have to say there is nothing quite like following your local team from August through all the prelimenary rounds as I once did back in yonder until we reached the first round proper and faced the might of Cardiff City. Ahhh Hot Bovril in shitty paper cups, standing on the touchline and finally losing 4-2.. not quite Istanbul but still..


Tempted to attend but I'll probably give it a miss in favour of sticking my loyal ear to radio commentary from Bolton..

Despite Atila's typically umm....robust tone I agree with him about this Eduardo business. Diving for penalties has a long and ignoble history, and we can all name the usual suspects. Picking on Eduardo is just absurd. In addition I think Wenger's take on the whole business - that it was a penalty but not a dive, that Eduardo in particular is bound to be somewhat sensitive to the chances of incurring a serious injury and consequently there's going to be a fine line between diving and simply avoiding serious physical collisions.


But where scarves etc are concerned he's on his own, and cheap shots at Liverpool - both the city and the club - just remind us why it is so easy not to love Arsenal. :))

Atila Reincarnate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's more embarassing is the fact the Pool

> haven't won the Prem!!



And what's even more embarrassing is the fact that Arsenal haven't won anything full stop for a few years now!!! ;-)

On the subject of diving though, I am with Atila. It goes on at every level, and Gerrard has been guilty more than once. Either clamp down or don't, but don't just make a big thing of one case. That said, it was a blatant cheat the other night, which took the sheen off what could have been a fair and square result.

It really needs to he part of a debate about replay evidence. As long as FIFA prevaricate stupid bolas will be dis/allowed and 'gamesmanship' will be rife.

We need these decisions to be made quickly and for punishment to be severe, eduardo should have been sent off for instance (as in the past should have many many others).

Until there is this fundamental shift we'll be on this board until tibuctoolapolooza complaining about this.

It's harsh on Eduardo but the clean up has to start some where and I believe this will send out a very strong message across Europe and can only be for the good of the game. Platini and UEFA are often maligned but on this occasion they have my full support... and if they want to take retrospective action on Gerrard and Ronaldo then do it.

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the subject of diving though, I am with Atila.

> It goes on at every level, and Gerrard has been

> guilty more than once. Either clamp down or don't,

> but don't just make a big thing of one case. That

> said, it was a blatant cheat the other night,

> which took the sheen off what could have been a

> fair and square result.



Well said Keef. All this Arsenal "we would have won anyway" talk is probably true - but we will never know - a fair contest was all that Celtic deserved, and they did not even get that. That takes the shine off the Arsenal win.


I think where there is a blatent case of diving you DO have to highlight it - it makes other players think twice.

Wenger fumed: "It is a complete disgrace. It singles out a player to be a cheat and that is not acceptable. We will not accept the way Uefa have treated this.


"There is a complete lack of logic in this case. Why? Because people have reacted emotionally. That I can understand in this case, first.


"Secondly because this case has been ruled by the media and three emotionally by the Scottish FA. Scottish people are working at Uefa. This case is more sensitive because they have more influence there."


If Eduardo is suspended he would miss Standard Liege away on 16 September and the home match with Olympiacos on 29 September.


Wenger added: "I believe you can debate whether it is a penalty or not. But this charge implies that with intent and with a desire to cheat the referee, Eduardo did act.



Yes - that's right Arsene - that is what UEFA is saying. They are saying he is a cheat.

They can allege he was a "cheat" but it is surely impossible to be certain? It's not like the guy who clutched his head when the ball had clearly hit his body, or Eduardo performed lots of melodramatic rolling and writhing after going down. I am all for systematically trying to eradicate the diving culture, but I don't this is a good example with which to launch such a campaign.

Injury is not in question here Simon. He fell over without being touched to gain a penalty. That makes him a cheat. Its nothing to do with feigning injury.


It's been highlighted by the press and a UEFA ban will highlight it further. Players will think twice in future. Good result. I have no sympaty for him - He should not have done it.

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For those that care... it's the FA Cup tomorrow,

> Dulwich Hamlets v Sevenoaks Town at 3 p.m.

>

> If anyone thinks they've ever followed their Club

> on the road to Wembley.. which I have countless

> times with Liverpool.. I have to say there is

> nothing quite like following your local team from

> August through all the prelimenary rounds as I

> once did back in yonder until we reached the first

> round proper and faced the might of Cardiff City.

> Ahhh Hot Bovril in shitty paper cups, standing on

> the touchline and finally losing 4-2.. not quite

> Istanbul but still..

>


Got all a bit jumpers for goalposts there. "Marvellous, wasnit"

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...