Jump to content

Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.

League Express


John Drake

Member Since 10 Nov 2008
Offline Last Active Today, 09:58 AM

#3000386 Spoiler threads - all users please take note.

Posted by John Drake on Yesterday, 10:30 AM

On the subject of spoilers...


We cannot under any circumstances guarantee that any part of TotalRL.com will not contain the results of games once they have been played.


If you do not want to see the results of games after they have been played until you have personally watched them, the only solution is to give TotalRL.com a wide berth.


Hope that clears things up.

#2998790 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 19 September 2014 - 11:40 AM

The Tory backbencher proposals are just a power grab for Westminster.


Labour needs to position itself in a way that genuinely offers devolution to England. If they do that then the Lib Dems, UKIP, Greens will join them. Tie it in with changes to Scotland, Wales and NI and they'll have the numbers to get it all through.


Spot on.


I'm absolutely delighted that Scotland has voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. But no politician of any party should take that as an endorsement of the way the British political system currently works. If they do, are missing the point by several miles and will simply stoke up further resentment on both sides of the border.


We need a cross-party consensus for change, not a self-interested power grab by any party.


The idea that England is made more democratic simply by stripping voting rights from Scottish MPs at Westminster is crude, stupid and counter-productive. The notion that England should be allowed to become some kind of permanent Tory fiefdom in this way is a recipe for division and disaster. Mr Cameron and his party need to recognise that in many parts of England they are just as hated as this referendum has shown them to be in Scotland. England does not and should not belong to the Tories any more than Scotland should belong to Labour or the SNP.


If we can learn anything from Scotland and the way they do politics, it is that Holyrood is more representative and effective as a Parliament because it is not elected in the same way as Westminster. Consensus is not anathema; parties with minority support that struggle to win any seats at Westminster (ie, the Tories) can still win seats at Holyrood and gain fair representation to ensure a more pluralistic approach to politics prevails.


At the very least, the whole of the UK deserves the same kind of approach at Westminster, and no party can argue that it won't work, because we already know it does, within the UK itself in Scotland.


Westminster cannot serve as an English Parliament in its present form simply by removing the votes of Scottish MPs, because it is not fairly representative of England in the first place.


It is time for our leaders to show some statesmanship, and step away from seeking to exploit or manipulate this referendum result for their own party political gain, or the contempt they and the political class are held in will only grow and we will all suffer for that in the long run.

#2998036 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 18 September 2014 - 02:01 PM


The basis is so that Scotland can govern Scotland themselves.


Why are you so against them being independant?


Hmmm, all I've heard is Alex Salmond and the SNP blaming all the bad stuff on Westminster. Even stuff which is already under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, such as the NHS. Oh, and Westminster never delivers for Scotland, apparently. With the glaring exception of Westminster delivering devolution and the Scottish Parliament in the first place.


And they are also inviting Scots to vote for independence without being able to offer any guarantee on what will happen to the currency or EU membership, to name but two huge and complex issues. On that basis, in my view, the nationalists haven't made a sufficiently convincing case that they can deliver much of what they are promising, and thus they resort to a bit of flag waving, Braveheart infused twaddle and complaining about bias when anyone asks them a question they can't answer.


Whatever the outcome of this referendum, the SNP have split Scotland pretty much down the middle. Some achievement, that.


I might ask in turn, why are you so against Scotland remaining a self-governing part of the United Kingdom?

#2998008 Koukash: Bulls would still be in Super League if my wife owned them

Posted by John Drake on 18 September 2014 - 01:29 PM


Salford owner Marwan Koukash has said that if his wife, Mandy, had been allowed to purchase the club earlier this season, then he has no doubts that the club would have remained in Super League.

Mrs Koukash was in the running to buy the club when it was up for sale earlier this year, before current chairman Marc Green assumed control of the club. Since then the Bulls have been relegated from Super League, and have changed coaches after Francis Cummins was replaced by James Lowes.

And Koukash told BBC North West Tonight that if his wife would have taken control at Odsal, there would have been a seven-figure sum available for the coaching staff to go out and spend on players, as well as saying he’s adamant the club would have beaten the drop.

“Unfortunately for some reason or another, my wife wasn’t given the go-ahead to buy Bradford, despite the fact that – in my opinion – she had the best possible bid for Bradford,” he said.

“I know for sure that at that time, there would have been a million pounds available for (former Bradford coach) Francis Cummins to go out and spend on strengthening the team by purchasing players – if she had been able to purchase the club.

“Had she been given the chance at the time, then I’ve no doubt that Bradford would still be in Super League today.”

The post Koukash: Bulls would still be in Super League if my wife owned them appeared first on Rugby League news and Super League scores | Total Rugby League.

View the full article on TotalRL.com



It's easy for him to say that now because we'll never, ever know, and in many ways, it is quite disrespectful to the current owners of the Bulls. Couldn't they turn round and argue that if they had spent the amount of money he has at Salford, the Red Devils would have finished in the top 8 instead of only managing to win 3 more games than the Bulls did this season and ending up 10th?


People in glasshouses...

#2997929 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 18 September 2014 - 12:10 PM

I think that's too black and white. 


I voted with a big influence being what I felt was good for me and my family and friends, in the belief that if it is better for me then it will be better for others. 


I don't get this deserting those South of the Border lark. You all have a vote, if not enough of you vote for Labour and the Tories get in, don't blame it on others.


Some in Scotland these past few months have seemed very happy to blame any and all its perceived ills on others. Isn't that the very basis of the Yes campaign?

#2997352 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 17 September 2014 - 02:48 PM

Both, or neither.


If you were offered a devolved assembly for Yorkshire tomorrow would you need to know every last detail before committing or would the idea and principle be enough?


I'd want to know the detail. Act in haste, repent at leisure.


If you vote for some nebulous dream, you'll end up disappointed when it doesn't deliver. Just look at Tony Blair and New Labour for an example of that! Or elected Police Commissioners...


A lot of people seem to be taking leave of their senses in this referendum campaign, swallowing blind nationalism as the panacea to every ill. Disillusionment can only follow such a massive, massive deception if it comes to pass.

#2997319 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 17 September 2014 - 02:03 PM

And now the Spanish have their say  http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-29234242



Prime Minister Rajoy said that Scotland would have to undergo all of the processes that apply to any new state in joining the EU. He said it was clear under EU treaties and from statements from European leaders that "if a part of a state becomes separate, it becomes a third party in relation to the European Union". For "separate territories within a member state" to join the EU would take years and depend on the ratification of all 28 member states, he added. Mr Rajoy has previously suggested that he might block Scotland's entry into the EU.


Scaremongerer!! ;)

#2997270 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 17 September 2014 - 01:00 PM

Thinking of it all, the main reason why I'd vote Yes, if I had a vote, is what I've seen from the Scottish Parliament versus the Westminster rabble.  In Scotland, the Tories still get policies implemented despite being the 4th party and with a majority SNP in power, this is because the politicians there haven't descended into the bitter childishness of Westminster attitudes where the attitude to a vote depends on which side you're on.  It's not uncommon in Holyrood for the SNP and Labour to go toe-to-toe fighting over a new piece of legislation then come out with a compromise that gets a consensus vote, even though the SNP could just pretend they're in Westminster and batter through their own agenda with no thought or care for the others.  There's definitely a sense of barter in Scottish politics, the Tories agree to support certain things in return for some of their policies getting implemented and so on.  The SNP understand that they're in a majority now but that'll be seriously unlikely next time round so they're making it very plain to all that they're willing to play nicely with others if they get in a minority government.


I would hope that being the primary legislative power in a new Scotland wouldn't change that but only time will tell.  At least they'd be starting from a good position rather than the adversarial mess of Westminster.


Surely the more sensible approach then would be to campaign for change at Westminster, the reform of the UK Parliament along the lines of the Scottish Parliament, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and voting to permanently break up the UK, with all the cost and uncertainty that will inevitably bring both sides of the new border for decades to come?

#2996564 Scottish Independence Referendum

Posted by John Drake on 16 September 2014 - 11:39 AM

I can imagine the review of the No campaign: "We explained to them that we were not arrogant and that was just a silly idea that they had in ourselves, that they are pitiful on their own and need us to tell them what to do.  Why could they no t understand?  Are they really stupid?"


The head of the No campaign is as Scottish as the head of the Yes campaign. Whatever the outcome of this referendum, Scotland has become a country divided against itself.

#2991367 Forget Gaza, Forget ISIS, forget Scottish Independence

Posted by John Drake on 09 September 2014 - 09:48 AM

But, one day, you might crack.  And whilst we could all howl from our blank monitors it is in your power to end this all without needing to go to a popular vote.


Do you see where I'm going with this?


Up a blind alley?

#2986941 Albert Goldthorpe Medal / Rookie Award 2015 (merged threads)

Posted by John Drake on 02 September 2014 - 09:38 AM

The positivity on here at times is overwhelming!

#2984893 Rotherham

Posted by John Drake on 29 August 2014 - 02:05 PM

John, you're a Bradford man.

Care to comment on why the West Yorkshire police doesn't crack down on hundreds of uninsured cars and unqualified drivers in Barkerend and Bradford Moor? Why it lets muslim drivers drive around the city centre every night, switching direction without signalling and talking to each other by having mobile phones pressed to their ears.


I am a Bradford man, born and bred. I have a very different perspective on life to you, for which I am truly grateful.


You have added yet more irrelevance to this debate. Well done.

#2984839 Rotherham

Posted by John Drake on 29 August 2014 - 01:12 PM

My view is that your well-worn personal obsession with The Guardian is a complete red herring in this case.


It merely serves to deliver a modicum of balance, given the  excessive opprobrium  poured on the the Mail by so many posters on here.


Although the circulation and readership of the Guardian is small in comparison with  most other newspapers, the skewed reader demographic makes it disproportionately  influential in certain sectors. The Guardian carries advertising that  is meant to influence the actions of its readers, but somehow that doesn't apply to the editorial, comment, opinion and articles it carries??


Of course, I am sure  L'Ange is right when he writies," From top to bottom they are highly trained, presumably of high calibre. extremely experienced and experts in their field with knowledge and expertise in dealing with the very sharpest end of protecting children at risk, the vilest forms of criminal activity from all sections of the community. These people have failed".


Equally, I am sure he is wrong when he writes "And the reason is supposed to be because they were afraid of being called racist."    No, no. no. no. Not THE reason, ONE reason.


He is also correct when he says, "These people will have had training in equality issues. It was either rubbish training, or they didn't understand it."  but omits to say that "These people will have had training in all aspects of their employment , as directors, managers supervisors or staff. It was either rubbish training, or they didn't understand it."



The Guardian, The Mail, whatever. They have no relevance to this case. None. It is a sideshow, a distraction, a point being well and truly missed, over and over again. It is a disservice to the victims of child abuse to trivialise what has happened in Rotherham in this way. That's my view.

#2984797 Rotherham

Posted by John Drake on 29 August 2014 - 12:25 PM

 Your logic is false and your interpretation wholly wrong. " inference here that anyone who regards themselves as 'left wing' or 'socialist' is somehow an enabler of child abuse."  is a fiction.


My post, as you well know, was in response to these words of Moore in The Guardian: The rightwing likes the cheap thrill of an underclass woman, drunk and showing her knickers, and now blames rape on political correctness gone mad, as though a bit of robust racism is the answer to misogyny. If that is not a socialist exploiting the fate of the unfortunate victims, then I do not know what is. If you want a grown up debate, maybe you should address your words to the Guardian.


My view is that your well-worn personal obsession with The Guardian is a complete red herring in this case.


For every Suzanne Moore, there is an Ann Leslie, for example, scribbling out their alternative viewpoints to the masses, the latter and others like her being read by far more people in papers that sell in the millions, not in the hundreds of thousands.


To suggest that anything written in any newspaper has any relevance to the systematic abuse of children in Rotherham or anywhere else for that matter is both laughable and irresponsible, in my view, as it detracts attention from bringing the real culprits to justice and weeding out those in the police service and the local authority whose dereliction of duty allowed them to get away with it for so long.

#2984060 Rotherham

Posted by John Drake on 28 August 2014 - 03:46 PM

I don't think John is saying that at all. I consider myself to be left wing essentially.

But pretending it was about X Y or Z instead of what it was really about-remember this is hardly the first time this type of thing has happened- is an embarrassing cop out and shows people like Suzanne More up for the hypocritical tossers they really are.


This whole 'Guardianista' pc gone mad schtick is a sideshow.