OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

I am not consoling myself about anything, merely mentioning facts.

Johnson return? I can't believe that would happen; Farage more likely but both options unpalatable

In the language of analogy…anyone who finds comfort in the fact that they have only one ‘flat tyre’ and not four is consoling themselves, imo.
Having said that, I entirely agree with both your prediction and your verdict regarding the ‘gruesome twosome’.

[swaledale]

Bizarre, posted something on this thread this morning, no names no insults and its not here. Exactly what is going on? is the Mod now cancelling anything he disagrees with or is this platform becoming ever more unstable?

Anyway rA, your right, though not sure anybody claimed there would be 4 flat tires in any case, just, and rightly so as it turns out that Brexit would be an example of a country metaphorically shooting itself in the foot which all the evidence shows is true. To extend the analogy further, claiming Brexit hasn't been that bad, is rather like blowing ones foot off, but being happy that there is still one foot left!

All the indicators show that the Uk has taken a significant economic hit by erecting trade barriers with its closet and largest trading bloc, it was obvious really, except to the those blind to reality.

[ramAnag]

Bizarre, posted something on this thread this morning, no names no insults and its not here. Exactly what is going on? is the Mod now cancelling anything he disagrees with or is this platform becoming ever more unstable?

Anyway rA, your right, though not sure anybody claimed there would be 4 flat tires in any case, just, and rightly so as it turns out that Brexit would be an example of a country metaphorically shooting itself in the foot which all the evidence shows is true. To extend the analogy further, claiming Brexit hasn't been that bad, is rather like blowing ones foot off, but being happy that there is still one foot left!

All the indicators show that the Uk has taken a significant economic hit by erecting trade barriers with its closet and largest trading bloc, it was obvious really, except to the those blind to reality.

You too are right. I remember your post and it was inoffensive. It is indeed, ‘bizarre’ and unwarranted.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Swale "To extend the analogy further, claiming Brexit hasn't been that bad, is rather like blowing ones foot off, but being happy that there is still one foot left!"

I can relate to that sentiment just now

[Andy_Faber]

You too are right. I remember your post and it was inoffensive. It is indeed, ‘bizarre’ and unwarranted.

OK I’ll reiterate.

After complaints about general unseemly behaviour on the forum, some expressed to me by pm and some on threads, I decided to be more active in moderation to see if that improved the quality/maturity of discussion. Having no written terms of reference for moderation by footymad I decided on some myself, which I published on a thread still available to read. I stated that I would delete posts that:

Include name calling
Include unfounded accusations or intimations of ‘isms’
Demonstrate inability to let an issue be dropped after incessant toing and froing
Include anything that might get anyone into bother away from the forum
Piss me off (mainly but not limited to TTRs comments on footy threads)
Are responses (even good ones) to threads that have been deleted

I also gave us a week off referring to Islam, now expired

I’ve since deleted four threads for name calling, one for an ism, two for replying to deleted threads, one for an Islam reference. I also edited out one name-call when the forum wouldn’t allow a post delete for reasons I am not aware and asked one forum member not to post links without a written reason for its inclusion in the post

These actions have affected four forum members

My thread on the subject met with no objections, although MA did clarify/extend where he felt the need

I mentioned my own inclusion in unseemly behaviour and noted that im happy for MA to keep me in line, something I’ve stated before

I didn’t ask for opinions on the reasons for deletion for the simple reason that we collectively have proved over decades that we can’t agree on anything

The deleted thread referrred to by Swaledale at 1.47 and rA at 1.53 included name-calling, so I was consistent with the rules and with other deletions.

I’ve noticed that deletions are seemingly showing as such or not showing at all at the whim of the forum so until thats resolved I’ll add my own post stating that a deletion has been carried out and why

[ramAnag]

OK I’ll reiterate.

After complaints about general unseemly behaviour on the forum, some expressed to me by pm and some on threads, I decided to be more active in moderation to see if that improved the quality/maturity of discussion. Having no written terms of reference for moderation by footymad I decided on some myself, which I published on a thread still available to read. I stated that I would delete posts that:

Include name calling
Include unfounded accusations or intimations of ‘isms’
Demonstrate inability to let an issue be dropped after incessant toing and froing
Include anything that might get anyone into bother away from the forum
Piss me off (mainly but not limited to TTRs comments on footy threads)
Are responses (even good ones) to threads that have been deleted

I also gave us a week off referring to Islam, now expired

I’ve since deleted four threads for name calling, one for an ism, two for replying to deleted threads, one for an Islam reference. I also edited out one name-call when the forum wouldn’t allow a post delete for reasons I am not aware and asked one forum member not to post links without a written reason for its inclusion in the post

These actions have affected four forum members

My thread on the subject met with no objections, although MA did clarify/extend where he felt the need

I mentioned my own inclusion in unseemly behaviour and noted that im happy for MA to keep me in line, something I’ve stated before

I didn’t ask for opinions on the reasons for deletion for the simple reason that we collectively have proved over decades that we can’t agree on anything

The deleted thread referrred to by Swaledale at 1.47 and rA at 1.53 included name-calling, so I was consistent with the rules and with other deletions.

I’ve noticed that deletions are seemingly showing as such or not showing at all at the whim of the forum so until thats resolved I’ll add my own post stating that a deletion has been carried out and why

Andy, with all due respect, you’re moderating a tinpot football forum not editing the Spectator and I couldn’t really care less, but I honestly don’t recall any ‘name calling’ in Swale’s post this morning.
As I remember he may have taken the wotsit out of Tricky’s sources - who doesn’t - but your interpretation of ‘name calling’ appears increasingly bizarre and random.
I’d have a word with MA when he gets back and check out your policy if I were you, because what with this and you casually banning the words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ you’re beginning to look as daft as those who’ve banned the words v*tal, te*n and s*x.

[swaledale]

OK I’ll reiterate.

After complaints about general unseemly behaviour on the forum, some expressed to me by pm and some on threads, I decided to be more active in moderation to see if that improved the quality/maturity of discussion. Having no written terms of reference for moderation by footymad I decided on some myself, which I published on a thread still available to read. I stated that I would delete posts that:

Include name calling
Include unfounded accusations or intimations of ‘isms’
Demonstrate inability to let an issue be dropped after incessant toing and froing
Include anything that might get anyone into bother away from the forum
Piss me off (mainly but not limited to TTRs comments on footy threads)
Are responses (even good ones) to threads that have been deleted

I also gave us a week off referring to Islam, now expired

I’ve since deleted four threads for name calling, one for an ism, two for replying to deleted threads, one for an Islam reference. I also edited out one name-call when the forum wouldn’t allow a post delete for reasons I am not aware and asked one forum member not to post links without a written reason for its inclusion in the post

These actions have affected four forum members

My thread on the subject met with no objections, although MA did clarify/extend where he felt the need

I mentioned my own inclusion in unseemly behaviour and noted that im happy for MA to keep me in line, something I’ve stated before

I didn’t ask for opinions on the reasons for deletion for the simple reason that we collectively have proved over decades that we can’t agree on anything

The deleted thread referrred to by Swaledale at 1.47 and rA at 1.53 included name-calling, so I was consistent with the rules and with other deletions.

I’ve noticed that deletions are seemingly showing as such or not showing at all at the whim of the forum so until thats resolved I’ll add my own post stating that a deletion has been carried out and why

So Chairman Mao has struck? Mm name calling, broad definition, didn't call anybody on this forum a name, even referred to TTR as our "Red Friend" so please do enlighten me Mr Cancel King of the name calling that I supposedly did, that infringed your new self imposed rules?

Your in danger of ****ing the Forum up, yet allow our "Red Friend" to post nonsense and other *******s all the time.


AS for your post on the reasons you will delete a thread - too broad, and too much down to your own interpretation. I get it if an individual complains about a particular post, but you (who is decidedly not unbiased) making a unilateral decision to remove all posts that offend your sensibility and no doubt reveal your inaccurate assessment of certain subjects is over stepping your role as a Mod.

[swaledale]

Andy, with all due respect, you’re moderating a tinpot football forum not editing the Spectator and I couldn’t really care less, but I honestly don’t recall any ‘name calling’ in Swale’s post this morning.
As I remember he may have taken the wotsit out of Tricky’s sources - who doesn’t - but your interpretation of ‘name calling’ appears increasingly bizarre and random.
I’d have a word with MA when he gets back and check out your policy if I were you, because what with this and you casually banning the words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ you’re beginning to look as daft as those who’ve banned the words v*tal, te*n and s*x.

Exactly, I referred to him as "Our Red Friend" deliberately so as to avoid AF's unilateral and random censorship. But then rA that is typical of the right wing, rail against so called "cancel culture" but given the opportunity will engage in it whole heartedly.

[swaledale]

Brexit has cost the UK £140bn so far, according to new analysis, and could see the nation £311bn worse off by the middle of the next decade, according to a new report by Economists and analysts at Cambridge Econometrics.

Its going well!

[MadAmster]

Ah, but the border is secure.... isn't it?

We've got beneficial new trade deals with a plethora of countries... haven't we?

Actually, NO! It isn't and we haven't.

[swaledale]

Ah, but the border is secure.... isn't it?

We've got beneficial new trade deals with a plethora of countries... haven't we?

Actually, NO! It isn't and we haven't.

Funnily enough, approved immigration has shot up, except now its from developing countries not the EU! We do have new trade deals, but they are generally worse than than the existing ones we had with the EU, still onwards and downwards!

[swaledale]

More Brexit benefits!!

LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Britain's departure from the European Union cost London's financial centre about 40,000 jobs, the Lord Mayor of the City of London told Reuters, a far deeper impact from Brexit than previous estimates.
Michael Mainelli said Dublin had gained most, attracting 10,000 positions, while cities such as Milan, Paris and Amsterdam had also benefited from jobs migrating from London after Britain voted to quit the EU trading bloc in 2016.

[SithHappens]

5 years today since brexit.

Initially we were promised an immediate improvement to our lives, when it was clear that wasn't happening we were told give it 5 years...

So 5 years on, are our lives better? Do we have that elusive list of benefits yet that brexit has brought us?

[Trickytreesreds]

5 years today since brexit.

Initially we were promised an immediate improvement to our lives, when it was clear that wasn't happening we were told give it 5 years...

So 5 years on, are our lives better? Do we have that elusive list of benefits yet that brexit has brought us?

Without the committed politicians to push it through, no we don't.

Everyone of them that has been in office has been a turncoat and sabateur

[SithHappens]

Even Max Verstappen would come last in a Sinclair C5.