RicoS321

Aye, yer probably right about the BBC reporters in the main, although I'm virtually certain guys like Andrew Neil and Evan Davies don't have the economic nouse to ask the right questions on monetary policy. Saw Varoufakis, he's always on the ball. Just bought his new book, will try and get round to it in the next few weeks. It was disappointing to see the Labour representative being interviewed and saying that Dave's dad's dodgy tax-avoiding was a personal matter. A total cop out, and I'd expect better from a Corbyn party. It's hugely important that the public knows whether or not Dave knew about his dad's tax affairs when he attended meetings to create new legislation in Europe - it absolutely isn't a personal matter. It's deception on a new level and should be called out. With the right pressure it could, and should, be a resignation-level event for Big Dave. Exactly the sort of "pretending it's not happening" whilst "pretending to be appalled" that Varoufakis pointed out regarding tax evasion, bailouts and lack of migrant plans.

It's no the standard at the BBC that's in doubt, it's what they actually cover these days. When they actually investigate something it's generally pretty good but they basically take their subject matter from the Murdoch/Rothermere press or the government as a starting point. Any investigation they undertake these days is largely ignored by their daily news coverage and opinion pieces, instead of being the centre point that all their news feeds from - i.e. their investigative pieces are completely undermined by the shite quality of the rest of their programs to the extent that they're as cynical and useless as a Murdoch press piece. A simple example would be the coverage of the huns going bust. The Mark Daly report was a fantastic piece of journalism that was simply thrown to the bottom of the pile as their sports journalists and others took an entirely different - political - line that mirrorred that of the non-free press. It was the biggest waste of effort in Scottish sports journalism history. Similarly, the BBC did a documentary on currency and economics before the referendum that was entirely ignored in their debates and later coverage. It was entirely impartial, well-researched and should have been the back-bone of their discussions with all correspondents and hosts briefed in order that the conversations with politicians wasn't allowed to stray from the factual narrative. Instead we got - from both sides - re-reported tabloid scare stories and nonsense political chat that should have been stricken from interview. That's without getting into the neo-liberal acceptance, the refusal to discuss where money comes from, global warming, resource pilfering, large scale tax avoidance, automation and unemployment, lobbying etc etc etc. All things where the BBC takes the red-top line, and it's correspondents remain wholly ignorant of the facts rendering them useless to asking questions that don't already accept the current neo-liberal paradigm. Things that I guarantee they've covered in documentaries and investigative pieces before. I'd go further and say that the BBC is worse, and more harmful, than the Murdoch press as no-one is under the illusion that the Sun is representative of reality.

Played well today. Should have had two.

Just back. Tanked them. Would have been nice to see Storie and Ross a bit earlier, but can't complain really. Not sure why Taylor came off, perhaps an injury? 5-0 would have been a more realistic scoreline I'd say.

Looking forward to this one like. Be good to see us put on a decent performance. Slick conditions, plenty of shots on goal. Could see McLean grabbing one from distance. Heading along shortly, due to crippledness I can't go for a beer first as I need the wife to take me there and collect me. No pressure for the remaining games, just get out there and win them and hope the tims fuck up along the way.

Good article by David McWilliams http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/03/24/the-west-finally-needs-to-admit-all-radical-roads-lead-back-to-saudi-arabia

Fuck Cruyff, Miller or Jess for me.

Aye, that was a surprise! You'd think that at the rate he shits names into conversation, he'd have mentioned it before. It leads me to think he made it up for the interview.

Beautiful tribute.... http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/14383239.Jimmy_Calderwood__I_loved_trying_to_man_mark_Johan_Cruyff_but_I_had_no_chance/

Here's the highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EXM14mooWY

Really? One of only two players not to get an 8 in Darren Jackson's player ratings (a less intelligent pundit would be difficult to find). http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35894371

Church scores (pen) for Wales tonight.

Paul Caddis came on. Paul fuckin Caddis? Fucking hell Strachan. Just playing guys he's worked with before at the Tims (T Watt being the other). Along with some (ex)Brighton cunts that McGhee used to work with. It's fucking embarrassing.

Cheers. Might try streaming it. Not paying for it.

Is it on the TV? Might watch it if McLean is playing.

Aye, it's a pity I knew how he died before listening, as you can't help but listen to it with that in mind. I don't think it takes away from the speech though, cause he's really into it (unlike if you listen to some of other yt videos linked in that one, where he seems really detached). Some fantastic thoughts in there though, provoking and real.

Wonder how long it'll be beforewe hear another JC's take on the situation? Reporter: So Jimmy, when did you last speak to Cruyff? JC: Oh well, Johan was a wonnerful player. He really was Reporter: and the last time you spoke to him? JC: Big Johan, in training, just wonnerful. A lovely guy. Reporter: so you spoke to him recently? JC: he never spoke to me in the entire time I played in Holland, or since. I've never spoken to him. But I've heard him speaking. On the TV.

Aye David Foster Wallace was a decent writer, I bought Pale King a few years back but never read it, will have to look it out. Committed suicide, which maybe wouldn't surprise some. Never heard that video though, an excellent listen.

Glad you liked the article min! John Pilger is ace. He won the journalist of the year award in the UK when he was young and pretty much an award every few years since, was in the room when Bobby Kennedy was shot (not really an achievement!), his documentaries on Cambodia (Year Zero, stunning film) and East Timor raised millions in charitable funding for those areas whilst highlighting the actions of nefarious governments (the US), had a huge part in the settlement for victims of Thalidomide, produced dozens of brilliant films (the war you don't see and utopia were on in the UK recently - just fantastic), written several books (I've read Freedom Next Time, Tell Me No Lies, The New Rulers of the World and Hidden Agendas - all brilliant). He is very much the real deal, and worth reading. He doesn't explicitly say that Sanders is a puppet to be fair, just unlikely to be the person to drag us out of the neo-liberal consensus. A bit like Corbyn in that respect. They'd both still be reasonably genuine people that would make things easier for their respective populace. But that's obvious by the way they talk; neither has properly challenged the status quo (Corbyn suggesting he'd still like to "balance the books" for example, like he's dealing with a household budget). Whilst people like Sanders and Corbyn may provide some respite to those really affected by government cuts I, selfishly, would rather we got people like Trump or Boris Johnston elected so that we can see things coming to a head sooner. We're heading for some really bad shit if we don't change from capitalism, and hopefully these types of leader will bring out the opposition and raise the media veil that covers up the systemic nastiness of our political economy and force people to really educate themselves.

More importantly, Mulgrew isn't even a left back these days, hence the reason they wanked on about thon useless Tierney fuck. Fair enough pick Mulgrew due to our dearth of good centre halves, but to suggest he's a better left back than Shinnie is ridiculous - he just isn't.

He'll get shot within a couple of months if he gets in. It'll be Hillary though. Hopefully Sanders will walk away and refuse to support her; that'd do her a lot of damage. Whilst I don't think many voters will move from Hillary to Trump, quite a few Sander's voters might just not vote rather than vote for her.

Yep, 'keeper for me too. We've got a good outfield squad, we can afford to prioritise a goalie for next season. A few new faces to stop us going stale also. A striker to replace Church and Goodwillie, and a strong centre midfielder. If the striker isn't a target man, then I'd strongly suggest we get one. The pitches in winter aren't conducive to a passing game, so we need the option to quickly bypass and have our quicker players getting beyond. I think we'd have had at least 6 points extra if we'd had that type of player over the winter this season, which is the difference.

Aye, the coverage is a strange one, what I meant really was: is it explicit? Is there a BBC (or whoever) editorial position that prioritises Western allies' tragic events? Or is it just an unwritten rule? As I say, I'm just curious, I'd be very interested to know how it works and why. Hadn't seen that picture, I sort of get it I suppose. The big thing for me though is that it tacitly allows our governments to continue as is - that image was/is a huge endorsement for Hollande to ramp up atrocities in Syria, and indeed our own government to join in, resulting in more atrocities in our neck of the woods. It gave them permission, and support, for that arm-in-arm leader march thing that happened too, which was fucking weird. The thing is, people should be scared, and angry. Angry at their own leaders for Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, leading to Syria. All of which have led to these events, where previously non-religious thick people can be puppeted to a simplistic death because we were too stupid to integrate and educate them when they first came here. Would you treat an American soldier who blew up a hospital or shot some journalists with the same contempt as a brainwashed Muslim mentalist? I'd like to think they're the same thing. A poor, uneducated person brainwashed into thinking that they're doing the right thing. Anyway, a great piece from one of my favourite journalists, John Pilger. Not on topic as such: http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence-

There was a minute's silence on the BBC at 11am today. Fit the fuck? Was there a minute silence for the Ankara bombings 10 days ago that killed 37? I'm mainly curious. What, or who, is deemed worthy of the hours of coverage, who makes the decision that the Belgian atrocity is worse than the Turkish, what links us to these incidents? These are questions worth asking I think, before the response of Belgian facebook pages, je suis Brusselles and solidarity (was this word ever used before Paris?). As for the sinister grief-tourism that happens after these events, with folk congregating in square/plaza x, y or z with their random candles and public grieving - has this always been a thing (I'm thinking Elvis, Lennon, Diana perhaps)?. It certainly loses its meaning, sincerity and even compassion more rapidly than a minutes applause at a football game. I probably just don't understand the person who finds that it helps them. Typically, I can't walk at the minute, so I'm pretty much stuck in front of the TV/internet with the Belgian monopoly difficult to avoid. I was in a hospital ward when Diana died and had no control over the TV remote, which probably traumatised me.

Good stuff. We've now got one 'keeper on the books. I'd like to see more of McKenna too, hopefully he'll get some game time next season (or this).