|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Oct 26, 2021 13:03:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 13:34:36 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by tockyterrier on Oct 26, 2021 13:34:36 GMT 1
Although irrelevant, yes it was correct to prosecute people who's gay actions broke that law pre 1967, however, it was morally abhorrent to both do so & have such a law. Ita totally relevant .. laws change over time . Something isn't "right " if its legal and "wrong" if it isn't. I'd have thought a man of your intellect would have twigged that . In Saudi people get executed for x y and z . So it's legal in that country .. doesn't make it right . Being legal doesn't make it right for our government and Royal family falling over themselves to suck up to the Saudis. Then deafen us with silence when a few geordie football fans are being bombarded with hate for not queuing up to condemn them If the law is that being guilty of X is death, then yes it is right. My own concern is more to do with how that "guilt" is proven. But we have no rights to change their culture or laws to be same as ours. We do have our own moral was to whether we choose to work, visit or deal in any way with that country. But politics is more complicated. It is better or this country to be on friendly political terms with the Saudis and try and encourage change through that, than to alienate them and they become allies to such as China and Russia.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 13:40:28 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by tockyterrier on Oct 26, 2021 13:40:28 GMT 1
"To give the 'thumbs up' to this deal at a time when the Premier League is promoting the women's game and inclusive initiatives such as rainbow armbands, shows the total hypocrisy at play and demonstrates the League's soulless agenda where profits trump all." Difficult to argue with that statement from the palace fanatics If there was no rule to prevent ownership on those grounds then they had no choice.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 13:42:56 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by tockyterrier on Oct 26, 2021 13:42:56 GMT 1
Wolves skipper Conor Coady is on Newcastle's wanted list for the January transfer window with the 28-year-old England defender likely to cost in the region of £20m. Couple of mil coming towns direction then , but maybe some of ours going to the scousers too Have I missed something here? As we get any sell on clause from Wolves, Surely any sell on to liverpool came from the sale from us to Wolves and that is done and dusted?
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Oct 26, 2021 14:26:10 GMT 1
Couple of mil coming towns direction then , but maybe some of ours going to the scousers too Have I missed something here? As we get any sell on clause from Wolves, Surely any sell on to liverpool came from the sale from us to Wolves and that is done and dusted? Sell ons keep doing down the chain if each transfer has a % sell on clause. Liverpool to us almost certainly did (most transfers of young players do, insurance in case the selling club has underestimated his potential and he moves for big money in the future). Seems us to Wolves had a % sell on too, so Liverpool will get something again. I'm guessing with figures but say it was 10% on both sales and we paid Liverpool £400k and sold to Wolves for £2.5m. Liverpool got 10% of £2.5m if its a straight sell on or 10% of £2.1m if its profit based sell on. So £250k or £210k. Say he now goes from Wolves to Newcastle for £30m. We get £3m or £2.75m depending on the terms. We then give Liverpool a further £300k or £275k.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 14:30:29 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by tockyterrier on Oct 26, 2021 14:30:29 GMT 1
Have I missed something here? As we get any sell on clause from Wolves, Surely any sell on to liverpool came from the sale from us to Wolves and that is done and dusted? Sell ons keep doing down the chain if each transfer has a % sell on clause. Liverpool to us almost certainly did (most transfers of young players do, insurance in case the selling club has underestimated his potential and he moves for big money in the future). Seems us to Wolves had a % sell on too, so Liverpool will get something again. I'm guessing with figures but say it was 10% on both sales and we paid Liverpool £400k and sold to Wolves for £2.5m. Liverpool got 10% of £2.5m if its a straight sell on or 10% of £2.1m if its profit based sell on. So £250k or £210k. Say he now goes from Wolves to Newcastle for £30m. We get £3m or £2.75m depending on the terms. We then give Liverpool a further £300k or £275k. We live and learn. I honestly thought that the sell on could only apply to the clubs directly involved in the transaction. And didn't carry on.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 14:56:38 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Galpharmer on Oct 26, 2021 14:56:38 GMT 1
Two point to cover :- 1) Galpharmer, is that a statement of fact. has it been announced? 2) turbo2, The Premier League is all about promoting it's self and money, money, money. With this deal the Premier League (if it did not before) stands head and shoulders above any other league. The difficulties with the two Spanish Giants have given them a clear run for the Premier League to become the new European League! I can see them stopping promotion from the Championship or reducing it to one team and allowing European clubs to join the bun fest. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59042671
|
|
|
Post by Bassingham Terrier on Oct 26, 2021 15:02:14 GMT 1
Sell ons keep doing down the chain if each transfer has a % sell on clause. Liverpool to us almost certainly did (most transfers of young players do, insurance in case the selling club has underestimated his potential and he moves for big money in the future). Seems us to Wolves had a % sell on too, so Liverpool will get something again. I'm guessing with figures but say it was 10% on both sales and we paid Liverpool £400k and sold to Wolves for £2.5m. Liverpool got 10% of £2.5m if its a straight sell on or 10% of £2.1m if its profit based sell on. So £250k or £210k. Say he now goes from Wolves to Newcastle for £30m. We get £3m or £2.75m depending on the terms. We then give Liverpool a further £300k or £275k. We live and learn. I honestly thought that the sell on could only apply to the clubs directly involved in the transaction. And didn't carry on. Gets me every time too, this one. Crazy!
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Oct 26, 2021 15:19:00 GMT 1
Couple of mil coming towns direction then , but maybe some of ours going to the scousers too Have I missed something here? As we get any sell on clause from Wolves, Surely any sell on to liverpool came from the sale from us to Wolves and that is done and dusted? No, in theory its never done and dusted. Our deal with Liverpool will have been ( for example ) 20% of any profit we make on Coady. When we sold him, we'd have had to give Liverpool 20% of the profit at that time. If wolves sell him now and send us another £2.5m, then thats more profit we've made on Coady even after all this time and Liverpool will be due 20% of it. edit, sorry just seen master crackers reply above
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Oct 26, 2021 15:41:08 GMT 1
Ita totally relevant .. laws change over time . Something isn't "right " if its legal and "wrong" if it isn't. I'd have thought a man of your intellect would have twigged that . In Saudi people get executed for x y and z . So it's legal in that country .. doesn't make it right . Being legal doesn't make it right for our government and Royal family falling over themselves to suck up to the Saudis. Then deafen us with silence when a few geordie football fans are being bombarded with hate for not queuing up to condemn them If the law is that being guilty of X is death, then yes it is right. My own concern is more to do with how that "guilt" is proven. But we have no rights to change their culture or laws to be same as ours. We do have our own moral was to whether we choose to work, visit or deal in any way with that country. But politics is more complicated. It is better or this country to be on friendly political terms with the Saudis and try and encourage change through that, than to alienate them and they become allies to such as China and Russia. Think thats true. The more they are part of 'the world', then in theory the more they'll be influenced by it. Its quite a paradox that people who are generally so against the Uks past imperial history seem to want us to force our values and attitudes on other cultures now. We obviously look at their culture and methods in a very critical way, but id imagine they must do the same back at us in many ways too. Saudi Arabia seems to be singled out as the bunch we shouldn't have anything to do with.. Is that down to their wealth perhaps, because other countries where atrocious things happen with the full compliance of the state dont attract the same attention. Pakistan for example. If the new owners of Newcastle were from there, would there be the same outcry? Doubt it, but yet its a country where, for example, female adulterers get stoned to death in the street whilst government officials watch on. Imagine we sell arms to Pakistan too though it doesnt get much of a mention in a 'shouldn't be doing that' way. So to me the outrage is a bit imperialistic in a morally superior way and pretty selective.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 17:57:44 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by turbo2 on Oct 26, 2021 17:57:44 GMT 1
"To give the 'thumbs up' to this deal at a time when the Premier League is promoting the women's game and inclusive initiatives such as rainbow armbands, shows the total hypocrisy at play and demonstrates the League's soulless agenda where profits trump all." Difficult to argue with that statement from the palace fanatics If there was no rule to prevent ownership on those grounds then they had no choice. I’m not really bothered. I would never visit that part of the world because of the way it behaves. But it’s very hypocritical of the PL with all its campaigns for the minority groups. There must be many rules in their ‘fit and proper’ to put a stop to it if they wanted to. They didn’t because it’s will bring billions more filthy lucre into our game. Imho obvs
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Oct 26, 2021 18:10:02 GMT 1
If there was no rule to prevent ownership on those grounds then they had no choice. I’m not really bothered. I would never visit that part of the world because of the way it behaves. But it’s very hypocritical of the PL with all its campaigns for the minority groups. There must be many rules in their ‘fit and proper’ to put a stop to it if they wanted to. They didn’t because it’s will bring billions more filthy lucre into our game. Imho obvs I thought that too but I'm having to go to a gig at the City Hall next Friday as I'm busy when the group in question play Leeds and Manchester 😉
|
|
|
Post by malcolmbrown on Oct 26, 2021 18:31:02 GMT 1
If the law is that being guilty of X is death, then yes it is right. My own concern is more to do with how that "guilt" is proven. But we have no rights to change their culture or laws to be same as ours. We do have our own moral was to whether we choose to work, visit or deal in any way with that country. But politics is more complicated. It is better or this country to be on friendly political terms with the Saudis and try and encourage change through that, than to alienate them and they become allies to such as China and Russia. Think thats true. The more they are part of 'the world', then in theory the more they'll be influenced by it. Its quite a paradox that people who are generally so against the Uks past imperial history seem to want us to force our values and attitudes on other cultures now. We obviously look at their culture and methods in a very critical way, but id imagine they must do the same back at us in many ways too. Saudi Arabia seems to be singled out as the bunch we shouldn't have anything to do with.. Is that down to their wealth perhaps, because other countries where atrocious things happen with the full compliance of the state dont attract the same attention. Pakistan for example. If the new owners of Newcastle were from there, would there be the same outcry? Doubt it, but yet its a country where, for example, female adulterers get stoned to death in the street whilst government officials watch on. Imagine we sell arms to Pakistan too though it doesnt get much of a mention in a 'shouldn't be doing that' way. So to me the outrage is a bit imperialistic in a morally superior way and pretty selective. I always find it amazing how the fact that the 9/11 attacks were in effect a Saudi Arabian operation is forgiven. Money trumps morality. It's sad to see the Saudis involved in English football. Beheading political opponents, literally chopping up journalists. They're a lovely bunch.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 19:09:09 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by tockyterrier on Oct 26, 2021 19:09:09 GMT 1
Think thats true. The more they are part of 'the world', then in theory the more they'll be influenced by it. Its quite a paradox that people who are generally so against the Uks past imperial history seem to want us to force our values and attitudes on other cultures now. We obviously look at their culture and methods in a very critical way, but id imagine they must do the same back at us in many ways too. Saudi Arabia seems to be singled out as the bunch we shouldn't have anything to do with.. Is that down to their wealth perhaps, because other countries where atrocious things happen with the full compliance of the state dont attract the same attention. Pakistan for example. If the new owners of Newcastle were from there, would there be the same outcry? Doubt it, but yet its a country where, for example, female adulterers get stoned to death in the street whilst government officials watch on. Imagine we sell arms to Pakistan too though it doesnt get much of a mention in a 'shouldn't be doing that' way. So to me the outrage is a bit imperialistic in a morally superior way and pretty selective. I always find it amazing how the fact that the 9/11 attacks were in effect a Saudi Arabian operation is forgiven. Money trumps morality. It's sad to see the Saudis involved in English football. Beheading political opponents, literally chopping up journalists. They're a lovely bunch. Listening to the Peice of Football podcast, it seems the reason the deal took so long was because the Premierleague tried to resist it. Partly because the Saudies were allowing Bein sports from Quatar to be openly pirated in to their country. But once the lawyers got involved and "demonstrated" that legally the Govt. Had no say in the investment company (cough) they had no grounds to object without risking substantial court costs etc.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 19:15:53 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Oct 26, 2021 19:15:53 GMT 1
Think thats true. The more they are part of 'the world', then in theory the more they'll be influenced by it. Its quite a paradox that people who are generally so against the Uks past imperial history seem to want us to force our values and attitudes on other cultures now. We obviously look at their culture and methods in a very critical way, but id imagine they must do the same back at us in many ways too. Saudi Arabia seems to be singled out as the bunch we shouldn't have anything to do with.. Is that down to their wealth perhaps, because other countries where atrocious things happen with the full compliance of the state dont attract the same attention. Pakistan for example. If the new owners of Newcastle were from there, would there be the same outcry? Doubt it, but yet its a country where, for example, female adulterers get stoned to death in the street whilst government officials watch on. Imagine we sell arms to Pakistan too though it doesnt get much of a mention in a 'shouldn't be doing that' way. So to me the outrage is a bit imperialistic in a morally superior way and pretty selective. I always find it amazing how the fact that the 9/11 attacks were in effect a Saudi Arabian operation is forgiven. Money trumps morality. It's sad to see the Saudis involved in English football. Beheading political opponents, literally chopping up journalists. They're a lovely bunch. I heard ole is for the chop Sorry
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Newcastle
Oct 26, 2021 20:55:31 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2021 20:55:31 GMT 1
Thanks, that's helpfull. I'm not into politics, so only see details relating to my own profession, where the UK has complied fully, whereas many other EU countries haven't come remotely close to full Directive implementation.
|
|
|
Post by allan 1958 (OAF-WROY)(SSLFF) on Oct 27, 2021 12:44:19 GMT 1
Thanks, that's helpfull. I'm not into politics, so only see details relating to my own profession, where the UK has complied fully, whereas many other EU countries haven't come remotely close to full Directive implementation. I have been an accountant for 40+ years and the finance world has complied pretty well and many Europeans have not, I worked there in the 90s and beyond and there attitude was hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by CaptainHart on Oct 29, 2021 10:14:14 GMT 1
If the law is that being guilty of X is death, then yes it is right. My own concern is more to do with how that "guilt" is proven. But we have no rights to change their culture or laws to be same as ours. We do have our own moral was to whether we choose to work, visit or deal in any way with that country. But politics is more complicated. It is better or this country to be on friendly political terms with the Saudis and try and encourage change through that, than to alienate them and they become allies to such as China and Russia. Think thats true. The more they are part of 'the world', then in theory the more they'll be influenced by it. Its quite a paradox that people who are generally so against the Uks past imperial history seem to want us to force our values and attitudes on other cultures now. We obviously look at their culture and methods in a very critical way, but id imagine they must do the same back at us in many ways too. Saudi Arabia seems to be singled out as the bunch we shouldn't have anything to do with.. Is that down to their wealth perhaps, because other countries where atrocious things happen with the full compliance of the state dont attract the same attention. Pakistan for example. If the new owners of Newcastle were from there, would there be the same outcry? Doubt it, but yet its a country where, for example, female adulterers get stoned to death in the street whilst government officials watch on. Imagine we sell arms to Pakistan too though it doesnt get much of a mention in a 'shouldn't be doing that' way. So to me the outrage is a bit imperialistic in a morally superior way and pretty selective. Completely misses the point. They aren't simply people from Saudi, it's the ruling family, they're directly responsible for allowing the funding of terrorism, the bombing of Yemen and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. If the government of Pakistan bought a club then they'd get the same treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Oct 29, 2021 12:11:50 GMT 1
Get that ( though other countries probably would aim similar accusations at the US ( and indeed the UK ) . As far as I knew, they had to prove to the PL that it wasn't the Saudi government ( royal family ) buying the club didn't they?
To me it seems on a par with the Russian owner at Chelsea. There's a country that carries out all sorts of murders etc and Roman whatsisname is part of their 'ruling class' if you like. Im not trying to defend the takeover at NUFC by these sorts of people.. just think the criticism is a tad selective.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 29, 2021 12:38:47 GMT 1
Get that ( though other countries probably would aim similar accusations at the US ( and indeed the UK ) . As far as I knew, they had to prove to the PL that it wasn't the Saudi government ( royal family ) buying the club didn't they? To me it seems on a par with the Russian owner at Chelsea. There's a country that carries out all sorts of murders etc and Roman whatsisname is part of their 'ruling class' if you like. Im not trying to defend the takeover at NUFC by these sorts of people.. just think the criticism is a tad selective. It's so selective .. who sponsors Arsenal .. "Visit Rwanda " Don't need to do too much digging there.. as you say Abramovich and the dirty Russian oil money . Im sure the Emirates don't have blood on their hands! World Cup in Qatar what a joke .. this and all past world cups and euros fuelled but corruption including euro 96. . Ffs most teams are sponsored by betting companies. How much blood do they have on their hands ? The consternation re newcastle is all fuelled by self interest not morality, because morality wise they don't have a leg to stand on . If the Premier league wants to go down a morality route I'd be right behind that . Although in 5 years time it'd be about the 20th biggest league in the world cos the money wouldn't be there . Never has so much hypocritical bullshit been spouted by so many
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 12:55:36 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2021 12:55:36 GMT 1
Get that ( though other countries probably would aim similar accusations at the US ( and indeed the UK ) . As far as I knew, they had to prove to the PL that it wasn't the Saudi government ( royal family ) buying the club didn't they? To me it seems on a par with the Russian owner at Chelsea. There's a country that carries out all sorts of murders etc and Roman whatsisname is part of their 'ruling class' if you like. Im not trying to defend the takeover at NUFC by these sorts of people.. just think the criticism is a tad selective. It's so selective .. who sponsors Arsenal .. "Visit Rwanda " Don't need to do too much digging there.. as you say Abramovich and the dirty Russian oil money . Im sure the Emirates don't have blood on their hands! World Cup in Qatar what a joke .. this and all past world cups and euros fuelled but corruption including euro 96. . Ffs most teams are sponsored by betting companies. How much blood do they have on their hands ? The consternation re newcastle is all fuelled by self interest not morality, because morality wise they don't have a leg to stand on . If the Premier league wants to go down a morality route I'd be right behind that . Although in 5 years time it'd be about the 20th biggest league in the world cos the money wouldn't be there . Never has so much hypocritical bullshit been spouted by so many Is your issue with the PL or the ‘ordinary Joes’ who are criticising the Saudi takeover? Slapps seems to be saying that people shouldn’t criticise X because they haven’t, to his knowledge, already criticised Y and Z. Which is nonsense.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 13:06:37 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 29, 2021 13:06:37 GMT 1
It's so selective .. who sponsors Arsenal .. "Visit Rwanda " Don't need to do too much digging there.. as you say Abramovich and the dirty Russian oil money . Im sure the Emirates don't have blood on their hands! World Cup in Qatar what a joke .. this and all past world cups and euros fuelled but corruption including euro 96. . Ffs most teams are sponsored by betting companies. How much blood do they have on their hands ? The consternation re newcastle is all fuelled by self interest not morality, because morality wise they don't have a leg to stand on . If the Premier league wants to go down a morality route I'd be right behind that . Although in 5 years time it'd be about the 20th biggest league in the world cos the money wouldn't be there . Never has so much hypocritical bullshit been spouted by so many Is your issue with the PL or the ‘ordinary Joes’ who are criticising the Saudi takeover? Slapps seems to be saying that people shouldn’t criticise X because they haven’t, to his knowledge, already criticised Y and Z. Which is nonsense. People have the right to criticise what they want. But by criticising X but not Y and Z , indeed not A to V also then its just so selective , and I would argue missing the point . It's like singling out Saxon for being a heavy metal band whilst turning the other cheek to the likes of Iron Maiden , Black Sabbath and Anvil . I just don't get the selectivity tbh . And for the government (who let's remember got involved in football re the whole super league debate ) silence is golden. They are more than happy for the ordinary Joe's to criticise, whilst promoting trade with the Saudis . And if we are talking state sponsored murder maybe we as a country might not want to go down that road?
|
|
|
Post by CaptainHart on Oct 29, 2021 17:03:26 GMT 1
Get that ( though other countries probably would aim similar accusations at the US ( and indeed the UK ) . As far as I knew, they had to prove to the PL that it wasn't the Saudi government ( royal family ) buying the club didn't they? To me it seems on a par with the Russian owner at Chelsea. There's a country that carries out all sorts of murders etc and Roman whatsisname is part of their 'ruling class' if you like. Im not trying to defend the takeover at NUFC by these sorts of people.. just think the criticism is a tad selective. Wrong again they are owned by the Royal Family. It seems your argument is that because some owners might have dodgy backgrounds that anybody should be allowed to own a club.
|
|
|
Post by Orinoco on Oct 29, 2021 19:38:25 GMT 1
Turning a bit political!!, on a football front, Newcastle could be in dire position come the january window!
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 20:17:01 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by CaptainHart on Oct 29, 2021 20:17:01 GMT 1
Is your issue with the PL or the ‘ordinary Joes’ who are criticising the Saudi takeover? Slapps seems to be saying that people shouldn’t criticise X because they haven’t, to his knowledge, already criticised Y and Z. Which is nonsense. People have the right to criticise what they want. But by criticising X but not Y and Z , indeed not A to V also then its just so selective , and I would argue missing the point . It's like singling out Saxon for being a heavy metal band whilst turning the other cheek to the likes of Iron Maiden , Black Sabbath and Anvil . I just don't get the selectivity tbh . And for the government (who let's remember got involved in football re the whole super league debate ) silence is golden. They are more than happy for the ordinary Joe's to criticise, whilst promoting trade with the Saudis . And if we are talking state sponsored murder maybe we as a country might not want to go down that road? The selectivity is based on the idea that not all crimes are equal and an owner who’s got a couple of parking tickets might be judged differently to one who’s in the frame for murder.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 20:21:16 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 29, 2021 20:21:16 GMT 1
People have the right to criticise what they want. But by criticising X but not Y and Z , indeed not A to V also then its just so selective , and I would argue missing the point . It's like singling out Saxon for being a heavy metal band whilst turning the other cheek to the likes of Iron Maiden , Black Sabbath and Anvil . I just don't get the selectivity tbh . And for the government (who let's remember got involved in football re the whole super league debate ) silence is golden. They are more than happy for the ordinary Joe's to criticise, whilst promoting trade with the Saudis . And if we are talking state sponsored murder maybe we as a country might not want to go down that road? The selectivity is based on the idea that not all crimes are equal and an owner who’s got a couple of parking tickets might be judged differently to one who’s in the frame for murder. But I wasn't describing people with parking tickets. So not sure what your point is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 20:42:11 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2021 20:42:11 GMT 1
Is your issue with the PL or the ‘ordinary Joes’ who are criticising the Saudi takeover? Slapps seems to be saying that people shouldn’t criticise X because they haven’t, to his knowledge, already criticised Y and Z. Which is nonsense. People have the right to criticise what they want. But by criticising X but not Y and Z , indeed not A to V also then its just so selective , and I would argue missing the point . It's like singling out Saxon for being a heavy metal band whilst turning the other cheek to the likes of Iron Maiden , Black Sabbath and Anvil . I just don't get the selectivity tbh . And for the government (who let's remember got involved in football re the whole super league debate ) silence is golden. They are more than happy for the ordinary Joe's to criticise, whilst promoting trade with the Saudis . And if we are talking state sponsored murder maybe we as a country might not want to go down that road? I think most people just shoot from the hip. I think the involvement of a murderous regime in a PL club is insane and it makes me despair. However, the involvement of that guy who ran a taxi firm with no taxis in Sheff Wednesday delighted me. I’m pretty shallow like that.
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 20:50:03 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by CaptainHart on Oct 29, 2021 20:50:03 GMT 1
The selectivity is based on the idea that not all crimes are equal and an owner who’s got a couple of parking tickets might be judged differently to one who’s in the frame for murder. But I wasn't describing people with parking tickets. So not sure what your point is Which other owners are in the frame for murder?
|
|
|
Newcastle
Oct 29, 2021 20:59:34 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 29, 2021 20:59:34 GMT 1
But I wasn't describing people with parking tickets. So not sure what your point is Which other owners are in the frame for murder? I think I've explained in my previous posts.. if you want to believe that the House of Saud is a 10 on the badometer and everyone else is a 1 then crack on .. not sure what "in the frame " means in this context but if you feel some of the nations and individuals I listed earlier are not "in the frame for.murder " then you're living in cloud cuckoo land
|
|
|
Post by workshyfop on Oct 29, 2021 21:03:24 GMT 1
I just hate their medieval attitude to women … but enough about the Geordies, etc.
|
|