InigoPatinkin

I'm not an expert but I reckon if someone asks you to count bees you just say **** it, chuck them all in a bag and weigh the bag? Maybe I'd not be the best beekeeper though...

Sadly not, not enough literary experience apparently. I think I'd have writen a great book about bees though. I count trees (and analyse the data) for a living now

None, but I'm even more sad about it than I was because I'll be WFH until the new year before I get to do any fieldwork.

Scholes is a bit of a weirdo but he's not actually detestable. If you've ever heard him talk about his son it's impressive how well he was able to juggle the end of his career and looking after him.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-migrant-workers-dying-qatar The figure is really difficult to determine because nobody involved actually wants to measure it. It's probably lower than 6500 but a lot higher than 37, the rate of young men having sudden heart attacks is significantly higher than you would expect though. How much of that is insurance scams so they don't have to pay out for accidents or how much of that is them being worked to death is academic I suppose.

Beckham works for the Qatari's even more directly than Gary and Phil had those sexist tweets that read like a comic from an 80's working mans club in Bolton.

I did an edit file which assigns u24 players a negative PA instead of fixed PA mod. Here's how I've assigned the band changes. This means someone with a PA of 160 previously now could end up with a PA between 140 and 170 (so better or worse). Players can't have a lower PA than their CA but for players with a CA close to PA this might mean you get a player with 150 CA and 160 PA who loads with 150 PA instead, meaning he's essentially not going to improve. He could also have 170 PA though, so it's something of a kiss/curse. I've done it with the 181-200 potential players too, but this means Haaland (185 CA 195 PA), Mbappe (188 CA, 197 PA) and Vini jr (174 CA, 184 PA) could be generated with a PA of their current CA meaning they wont improve. This is technically true of any player in the mod so if you have "favourites" it's worth probably adjusting their PA to either a higher PA band or a set PA. I'm not sure there's a good solution to this outside of addressing particularly problematic players (I don't think Haaland or Mbappe not being better than 185 or 187 CA ever is too bad, but it seems unlikely that Vini will never be better than 174 CA in the future). Anyway, this was mostly for my own long-term enjoyment so I don't keep buying the same players every save, but if you have questions or stop any problems I'll try my best to help. Negative PA for U24s.fmf

I went once and the beer tasted of metal

There's obviously going to be a lot of stuff about this being discussed over the next month or two and some of it will deserve it's own thread (like the Gary Neville stuff) but I thought I'd make a post mostly just as my own personal World Cup related ******** dump and for others to do the same. It's the World Cup and I know loads of you will be watching it and enjoying it and probably aren't too interested in seeing it pop up in random match threads etc. all the time. Anyway, Musa Okwonga wrote this which I think is pretty good I should be looking forward to this winter’s World Cup in Qatar, which is now only weeks away. For one thing, it is likely to be Leo Messi’s final chance to win this trophy, where he will find himself surrounded by an Argentina team which gives him an excellent chance to do so. Senegal, the African champions, are at the peak of their powers and carrying a continent’s hopes of a historic victory. France, so often beset by trouble beyond the pitch, still have the experience and the emerging talent to retain their crown. Meanwhile, Wales – led by their talismanic superstar, Gareth Bale – are making their first appearance at the tournament in 64 years. And yet, and yet: my excitement still hasn’t arrived, and maybe it shouldn’t. Every football fan will have their own different emotional connection with the World Cup, but the one thing that I believe that it offers all of us is escapism: where, for one whole month, we are able to distract ourselves from many of the planet’s problems by immersing ourselves in its supreme drama. This time around, though, the World Cup offers no escape: the global woe is to be found in Qatar itself. There is the manner in which this year’s hosts – like Russia before them – acquired the tournament, in a process dogged by detailed and sustained allegations of bribery. Thousands of migrant workers have died in Qatar since the tournament was first announced, and there are reports that at least 37 deaths were directly linked to the construction of World Cup stadiums. In August, several of their peers were deported for the insolence of making a public protest for months of unpaid wages. Accusations of corruption, greed and general excess are not new to FIFA’s showpiece event, or even to sports in general. Yet the current controversies are of an unprecedented scale. Witness, say, the world of golf, where leading athletes have brushed aside concerns over human rights abuses in return for many millions of dollars. It is almost as if the current political moment is goading us, asking us just how much more we are prepared to overlook in our lust for a few weeks of entertainment. We are being forced to consider how far the attention that we pay to these spectacles makes us complicit. The truth is that many of us keep tuning in because, frankly, we can’t get thrills like this anywhere else: where new and established figures perform their heroics to an audience of adoring billions. Yet I think we should keep asking ourselves if our willingness to turn away from our game’s grimmest elements is worth it. After all, a World Cup is something to be celebrated: at its best it is a global event where, for all its excess, society somehow seems to move forward. Witness, for example, the beautifully-curated 2010 tournament in South Africa, which allowed the hosts to take centre stage in hearts and minds across the planet. Or the 2002 World Cup, superbly organised by Japan and South Korea, which saw Brazil win in a style that was true to football’s loftiest aesthetic ideals. Sadly, though, the last three World Cups – Brazil, Russia and now Qatar – have in succession managed to perform a sort of asset-stripping of the soul of this competition, tearing away much of its sheen and leaving us with its basic elements: that is to say, a well-run series of games that is available to whoever may be the highest bidder. Some might argue that it is naive to expect or even desire otherwise, that this is merely capitalism taking its natural course. But I think that football, from the people who play it and support it to the construction workers whose labour makes it possible, deserves far better. And there is always a better parallel world out there. For example, had Japan won the right to host the 2022 World Cup, then we would have seen them beam 3-D footage of the games into 400 stadiums in 208 countries across the world. In doing so, they would have brought viewers of the tournament closer to the action than ever before. Japan – which finished fourth in the voting, behind Qatar, the USA and South Korea – would also have powered the tournament partly by harnessing energy from the footsteps of fans in each stadium, an approach that could have been revolutionary in terms of sustainability at sporting events. Yet that is not the future that we have ended up with. Though Qatar has made some welcome concessions with ticket prices in the group stages of this tournament, the later rounds of the World Cup have become yet more inaccessible to the majority of football fans. Most importantly, had the tournament taken place in Japan, then – thanks to its pre-existing infrastructure – the kind of expedited stadium construction projects that endanger vulnerable workers would never have been necessary in the first place. Every football fan will make their choice as to how they will approach this World Cup. There is the selfish part of me – the unashamed supporter – that wants to watch and see how Messi gets on, and whether Senegal will deliver on their promise. There is also another part of me, the detached critic, who thinks that if there is a red line for boycotting a sporting tournament based on the recent wrongdoing of the host countries, then that line should have been crossed long ago. (For example, during the World Cup in Russia, while Putin’s forces were bombing hospitals in Syria.) I think, therefore, that I will take the same approach that I took with Russia: which is to say that my enjoyment of anything that I see on the field must make my scrutiny of anything away from the field all the more fierce. I must continue to ask, for example, why David Beckham – such a proud advocate for LGBT rights earlier in his career – has nothing to say publicly about this subject in the context of Qatar now that he is an ambassador for this tournament. I think that I must continue to have difficult conversations, both in my personal and professional life, about why a country that is putting on the most expensive World Cup of all time refuses to provide adequate pay and conditions for the workers who made it possible. I think that this responsibility falls on all of us who still retain our inner idealist when it comes to football, who see the World Cup as a unique time and place for the planet to come together as a community, and perhaps even to make progress. We should raise our objections wherever and however we can, be that in our canteens or boardrooms or living rooms. After all, if we truly care for our game, then we can’t abandon its future to those who would harm it most.

If he was just doing it as part of his obligations to a UK broadcaster then fair enough... it's still the World Cup and part of the reason states target events like this is because it's impossible to pull yourself out of the vortex sometimes. He's working for a Qatari state owned broadcaster though, there's no defence nor reason for that and unless he plans to go absolutely nuclear during his commentary of the final or something like that he must know nobody is going to take his claims of "highlighting the issue" seriously. It's depressing sometimes to live long enough to find out the least weird/shady of the Co92 is the one who bites off his daughters toe nails.

I know there's nothing on but surely we're not counting funerals as a sport now

File this one in the "reasons not to base how you judge a protest on what the crowd thinks".

Unless she does a Jon Snow

The Michael Fagan banner

I think when it's done during a minutes silence it's relatively clear, especially when you've joked about it first on twitter. Again, I don't think people misinterpreting the meaning of your meaning is grounds for things like banning orders to be handed out. Grounds for calling it a crap joke, poorly thought-out, disrespectful etc. absolutely. It's not an area the law should be involved in though. Again, substitute in a legally cleared version of the accusation and the argument doesn't change. People can still be triggered or upset by things that don't leave you open to liable. I don't think the Nazi thing falls under this category anyway though, the royals links to the Nazi party aren't a subject of contention and I'd assume you can parody that pretty safely, bad or otherwise. If you think there's a legal argument that it's illegal for slander then I'm not really qualified to give an informed opinion on it any more than I have.

If anyone tells you you can't call a joke **** I'll get 'em for you, no worries.

I thought the German laws allowed for parody? There was that film about the u-boats a few years back (the **** take of Das Boot) and wikipedia tells me the law is "Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes." Sure, and it's absolutely fair to be critical of a poor choice of content/time/place. I'd defend the legal right to parody those things, racists are clearly a deserving topic of mockery. I'd also defend your right to call it crass, thoughtless etc. if you felt that way about it. Sure, but I don't think the legal ramifications are really that much of a discussion point are they? Plenty of authors have written entire books about the royal families links to the Nazi party. I don't think the nature of the argument at hand is changed by the fan shouting "Ronaldo you were accused of rape and paid a settlement to the accuser" either, it's just a lot less snappy.

It would be fair to the teams in the sense that Man Utd, Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool are going to have more congested schedules because they were unlucky to have their derby games fall on that weekend. Basically every club in the league has some game where they need more police presence than usual.

What about Burger King? A Chicken Royale would be a fitting tribute lunch imo.

For fairness sakes, probably. But for the supporters and an entertainment (and money) point of view it makes sense to keep as many as you can going. People will have arranged travel etc. to these games and telling Bournemouth fans to get up to Newcastle and back for a 8pm kickoff on a Monday night sometime in February when you don't really have to is pretty ******.

These issues are complicated! Which is why legislation and football banning orders are terrible ways of dealing with stuff like this because those things don't deal with complexity well at all. You absolutely shouldn't just randomly shout rapist in the middle of a crowd of football fans at a rapist in 99.99% of circumstances, but slapping out banning orders on people for doing it is a terrible idea. The line on where holding people to account for things they did and disregard for the people around them isn't something that should be decided by a statute or a rule in a contract. When it comes of legal (or football clubs rules I suppose) intent is the important factor. It's much, much easier to identify when a target is unjust than when the collateral damage of a joke is "too great". What constitutes too great depends entirely on who you are, what your experiences are etc. and it's all very easy to say when you don't have the same experiences as someone else. There will inevitably be friction there, but the law/rulebook isn't the way to deal with those issues. Oh I'm sure it will come out he's a massive racist who just likes doing Nazi salutes at some point and wants an excuse these things usually do. I'll defend his legal right to do it, and your legal right to tell him he's an insensitive, unfunny bell end (which is a sentiment I currently share).

it's United and Leeds, there's absolutely nothing random about it same reason Liverpool/Chelsea was.

I'm saying that you cannot ban people for making jokes at legitimate targets because people might misunderstand the joke and find it triggering. See below; Do you think there is nobody in the world who wouldn't be legitimately triggered by mention of the word "nonce"? Does that mean nobody should be allowed to shout it at public events at someone who paid £12m to buy off someone accusing him? What about shouting "rapist" at... lets same some unnamed Madeiran-born footballer? Is that totally out of bounds because people would be legitimately triggered by it? You cannot ban people for jokes that upset people who are not the target of said joke when the target of the joke is someone who has done something which is the issue triggering the person to begin with. Nobody is upset by people making fun of Nazi's (well, I guess Nazi's might be), they'd at best be triggered by someone parodying Nazi's because of actual fascists... for this reason making fun of Nazi's kind of has to be fair game. We shouldn't be banning people from anything for parodying Nazi's though. People parody the Nazi salute precisely because it is a ridiculous physical thing for any normal person to do. When the joke is obviously directed at a target who is clearly a reasonable target (and a royal family with links to fascism clearly is) banning it because you don't find it funny is essentially just protecting the target.