I watched the whole press conference live on TV. It was one of the most harrowing I have ever witnessed as agency after agency after agency was pilloried for what amounted to deliberate inaction. It was made very very clear that some of this inaction was motived be a desire to avoid being accused of racism, exactly as in the sentence beginning "in the broader organisational context" and exactly as has been posted by others no longer on here.
Clearly, the perpetrators are the real guilty ones and "social services" can never win. But again in the press conference, it was made clear that there was a fear of being accused of racism and that directly affected things.
In his contribution, the Councils Chief Executive certainly "apologised" deeply and sincerely but a more lasting and genuine apology might have been achieved if he had said that the council was determined to root out those at the heart of the scandal, this cover up, and bring them to justice. But no, he just bleated that there was nothing he could do cos they didn't work there any more. Oh and yes, he's sent a copy of the report the Chief Constable. Well, we know where that will end up, don't we. Yes, its South Yorks Police ( of Hillsborough fame..and latterly of Cliff Richards fame)
. My Dad was an ordained C of E clergyman before he retired, so what? Americans are not shy of proclaiming their faith.
I still don't watch Al Jazeera on principle.
Why don't you think they are harmless?
I assume you were attempting humour there yes?
The bit about the advisory I mean. I don't think they're offensive at all myself.
If you want respect for yours then you need to show respect for theirs.
1. You wrote "consider that you may be speaking from ignorance".
I have considered it and find that I am speaking from a position of direct,experience, both specific and wide, gathered over 68 years.
2. I still don't watch Al Jazeera on principle.
You are free to make that choice. I don't watch Songs of Praise nor listen to Thought for the Day on the same principle because they actually promote a damaging and irrational belief in a non-existent supreme being.
3. Why don't you think they are harmless?
I think it is harmful to dupe people into believing in Christianity and Islam and indeed any other religion.
4. I assume you were attempting humour there yes?
No. I'd like to see a warning similar to those found on cigarette packets.
5. If you want respect for yours then you need to show respect for theirs.
I find that "believers" rarely show respect for the beliefs and views of others. Instead, they strive to impose their "faith" (and the concomitant rules, laws, restrictions etc ) on rational people.
And you were watching Al Jezeera? You do know of that channel's roots don't you?
Some of those channels are a bit whacky but they're generally harmless. American Christians are very expansive, just as Americans are generally, when compared with the bottled up, stiff upper lip types in Britain. If you've experienced American Christianity first hand, as I have, you will also know that they can be among the kindest, most genuine people on earth, so before mocking them just consider that you may be speaking from ignorance.
Speaking from ignorance - no
- my sister is an ordained minister
- ten years plus, working for two US corporations, still working with people from the US, plus a number of visits there)
- a former colleague and close friend now in a monastery near Seattle
- It's true that Americans can be amongst the kindest, most genuine people on earth, but that is nothing to do with Christianity.
- yes, of course
- also watch France24, RT and the BBC etc and we all know about their agendas
- no, as they are self-mocking
Beaming this nonsense into our homes, even if you come across it accidentally, is still offensive to rational people. There should at least be an advisory notice on the screen.
These channels are even more evidence that the West's response to the Islamic onslaught is more of the same , not less. Christianity is not the answer, it is not the opposite of Islam.
I guess the question is, how many fans feel any local area affinity anyway. In addition, it's about more than just current fans. It's about potential fans, too, ones that don't go because the attraction is currently not strong enough. Crowds at Wakefield plus crowds at Cas plus crowds at Fev currently total around 12, 000. Say they lose 30 % if they merged(just a guess...might be more, unlikely to be less) gives the "new" club a gate of 8400 to build from...lost fans might or might not return on the back of success; new, younger fans without the territorial allegiance of those brought up in the "village" days might drift back; new fans might also be attracted by a stronger merged and more sustainably successful club. Speculation, sure, but worth thinking about.
Ask Mr K, for that is his model. A completely fresh start: Small town clubs in small time stadiums with small time crowds and semi-pro teams and inevitably no TV revenues. These clubs to slowly but surely "jus' growed and growed" like Topsy until they achieve world domination, debt free, fully sustainable on crowds of 4,000 of the best genuine "working class" fans.
If I understand correctly, the BBC were advertising their coverage, to attract listeners and viewers, rather than getting people to go to the game. Maybe the same comments nstill apply but you'd think the BBC would know whet they are at.
What club houses? We watch Rugby League at the top level in steel and concrete stadiums that look great from the outside, where we drink beer out of plastic pots at inflated prices and get served by people with paper hats on who are serving burgers at the same time. Oh, and there is nowhere to sit and no memorabilia on the wall. Thank God for Keighley yesterday - restored my faith in proper rugby league. I remember when York (Wigginton road) and Bramley (McLaren field) had club houses like that. I really miss Station road as well and the Willows for that matter. DINOSAUR I might be but I watched this great game in better times than a lot of people reading this will.
I miss Station Road, too, with its cinder banks, leaking roof, insanitary toilets, farmers field pitch, endless financial problems, rotting stands. Aparently. Hitler bombed it during the war and did thousands of pounds of improvements.
How on earth can going backwards get us going forwards. Your logic is nuts. You want to take the biggest clubs we have, make them worse, and your logic is somehow this will leave us better off.
Cutting back at the top clubs isnt stabilising at a lower level, its just damaging the top. Damaging the top doesnt make us stronger at the bottom, it just makes us worse at the top.
Maybe you should reconsider you conclusion, maybe the answer isnt to strip back the top of the game and water it down to include lesser clubs, maybe the answer is that some clubs simply cannot compete at the top level any more. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe that is evidence of growth. All clubs arent going to grow at the same rate to the same level, some are going to be left behind. Its inevitable.
Put another way, Leeds have recently announced their lates financials. a roughly £500k profit on a turnover of £10.5m. Fev cannot compete with that. In fact you could take the £1.8m Leeds get from Sky and give it to Fev. Fev still cannot compete with that. I would be surprised if they got to half of Leeds Turnover with double the Sky money. The problem here isnt Leeds having too much, is Fev not having enough. The answer isnt to demand Leeds come down to Fev's level, its to demand Fev get up to Leeds level, or accept the level they are at is the right level for them.
You keep saying its impossible or we dont have enough but Leeds, Wire, Wigan, Saints, Bradford, Hull, Les Catalans are in or around the right level. Salford and Hudds have the private financial backing to grow to the right level. Plus Toulouse is a 10 team league right there. Then you have relatively strong clubs in Widnes and Hull KR knocking on the door. Thats a pretty strong position for us.
You've hit the nail on the head right there. The only possible interpretation that can be put on his years and years of posts on this topic is that he is actually against SuperLeague. His model involves large numbers of amateur or semi-pro low-cost low-finance clubs in small stadiums, run and watched by in Mike Harding's words,
"The smiling lads,
The open-handed, shoulder-to-the-wheel lads,
Lame dogs helped over stiles lads,
Take a pint, stand a corner lads,
Good laughing lads,
Lads with a quart of life in their hands
And eyes that look straight . . .
Bring on the tall, the short, the long,
The runners, the walkers,
Those that can hammer, those that can turn out a song
Bring on the fat, the thin, the bald and the hairy,
Young or old,
So long as they sup life by the gallon . . .
So long as theyre merry.
We;ll, Mr K, these people of northern working class folklore no longer exist, if they ever did.
Your model model, rugby league will disappear from the media, so no Sky money, no BBC coverage. No one will want to pay Sky to watch even the most bruising encounter between The Cobblers Arms and The Wheatsheaf, even with Samantha Womak training them. There will be no incentive for kids to take up the game, to aspire to be the best and to beat the best. Why would anyone take up a game where the pinnacle of achievement is to play in front of 3,000 people at Lawkhome Lane. No World Cup, no Internationals. In fact a downward spiral to oblivion.