The Moaning/Rant Thread

[DferPolarBear]

Just came to this thread to find the two latest posts are in a similar vein to my thinking.

I realise that Obi Wan says he finds it hard to get motivated. OK I understand that, he does say he doesn't get motivated only it is hard. The fact though motivation does come into play for these guys. All they do is play games so to them they do stratify the competitions. It comes down to that each individual wants to start every game, that being the case they will naturally prioritise them to the horror of the paying fans. This is why we have a team manager. They have to motivate every individual they intend to use in any given match.

You like to think every player would naturally play every game the same, after all they will get most of their wages whether it is Accrington Stanley or AC Milan. Now I act and have done long stage runs. You know a Tuesday afternoon is so much harder to give every emotion than say when the TV are in recording or your mates are in watching. We have someone called a director, who after the rehearsals tends to disappear, but who shows up time to time during a run in secret and then gives everyone a rocket who they feel is under performing, sackings may even follow, so that's our motivation. With players though they hold a lot of power over the manager with their intrinsic value to the club and often personal links to the owner. BTW nice Pic of DferChelseaChitChatter Michael Bockman on his FB page with Roman in NY, Roman is even smiling! but I digress.....

The motivation problem does exist, and it's good really that at least one player recognises it, cos it will be there whether it is admitted to or not. Now it's up to Rafa to cope with it.

 

[RonnieCFC]

if you'd performed better you'd still be in the Champions League. At least you're still competing for a European Cup

Sorry but I had to get that off my chest

Yeah, ironic that. His mistake against Juve at 2-1 cost us an extra 2 points which would have put us through. Hindsight eh...

 

[bluemoon2]

DPB--you tell a lovely tale which I appreciate and I hope other Blues did too! I'm going to stick my neck out and say that most Blues are hoping (and praying ) for the best! The great issue is about how committed Rafa is to achieving the best result for us! The answer is locked in his head and we may never know!

 

[angelordevil]

OK bit of a rant, bit of a question. (Well ok I'm seething really )

As most of you are fella's on here can I ask what constitutes being a 'Mother in Law from Hell' . can I qualify now as I am officially an ex Mother In Law, (of 5 years ) as this week I have been given the title of 'A ****ing Bitch' by my ex Son IL. Or do I have to be a current MIL to accept this prestigious award ?

My crime, well apparently he says I spoke badly of him to my Grand-daughter, and must not ever be allowed to see her on my own ever again. I have never slagged him off to either of my Grandchildren and wouldn't, even though my tongue is very sore from biting it.
My grand-daughter has had serious issues of not wanting to see her dad for the last few months, and is getting worse so he is looking for excuses of who to blame as it can't possibly be his fault can it (can't find a sarcastic smiley)

I must add this comes at a time when he has just this week learnt my daughter has a new boyfriend (six months but she hadn't introduced this fella to her children just in case it didn't work out as that's not fair on them) so he didn't know either until they told him, guess who does the baby sitting so my daughter can go out , yep me !! Coincidence or not !!

Shame though as I always thought I was such a lovely Mother in law, I never interfered etc. and I even left my Daughter's hospital bed when she was so poorly just before giving birth by cesarian as soon as he arrived in the room as I considered it was 'their' time so I left him to look after her and their future child.

OK so rant/moan over, and can I accept this award or am I now exempt. And yes ok MIL jokes accepted, if we can't laugh we cry so go for it

 

[bluemoon2]

Angel--I pity your cicumstances, but cant provide a solution! For the sake of the little uns I think all the adults should make their best efforts to avoid confrontation and "getting one over!" Fortunately my son and daughter and their respective wife/husband all get along famously , and I thank God for it! I hope common sense prevails in the end with your lot!

 

[angelordevil]

Thanks BM. I did the above post mostly 'tongue in cheek' but not much response, well only you lol so thankyou (I was surprised no MIL jokes from anyone though or is that a thing of the past)

Yep confrontation and 'getting one over ' on someone is a complete waste of time and not needed, and the G/children would get hurt, Luckily for him my daughter is a good 'un and wouldn't do that. When my grand-daughter said to her "Mum do you like *****, she's really lovely isn't she (her dad's new partner) my daughter just smiled and said well I don't really know her, but what matters is you like her. Her reply could have been, well noooooo she is the lying , cheating cow that had an affair with your dad, knowing about us and leading to him walking out when you and your brother were only 5 and 3 year old. Thus really letting the cat out of the bag.

Like you my son and other daughter also have good strong (long term ) relationships so two out of three ain't bad these days.

 

[District Line]

Not as serious as a lick of an ice cream though, eh?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...scoops-of-ice-cream-jailed-for-16-months.html

Fed up of the weak and vulnerable being handed out stupid sentences and the rich/wealthy being able to rape us (physically & mentally) and walking away with a slap on the wrist.

I'll not say much else but Charles Bronson, take a bow son

 

[crocarno]

My challenge is this. The reason publically stated for the short sentences, apparently relates to the punishments available at the time of the crime - i.e. they were less severe than today.

If Mr Hall committed any of his crimes pre 1964, then I don't quite understand why he can't be hanged? If you want the sentence of the time Mr Hall, then to the gallows it is.

 

[angelordevil]

It looks like Hall may be in for a longer stretch than first thought http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/17/stuart-hall-sentence-attacks-review

What angers me more is why didn't these parents say anything, if that had been my girls I would have been out all guns blazing !!

 

[District Line]

My challenge is this. The reason publically stated for the short sentences, apparently relates to the punishments available at the time of the crime - i.e. they were less severe than today.

If Mr Hall committed any of his crimes pre 1964, then I don't quite understand why he can't be hanged? If you want the sentence of the time Mr Hall, then to the gallows it is.

Very good point.

 

[angelordevil]

Latest rant from me, does Ian Brady really have the right to die, he is still a manipulating control freak, and knows if he is transferred back to jail someone will get at him, which IMO is now what he wants. Let him rot where he is for as long as possible I say

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/17/ian-brady-appearas-public-hearing?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

[angelordevil]

My challenge is this. The reason publically stated for the short sentences, apparently relates to the punishments available at the time of the crime - i.e. they were less severe than today.

If Mr Hall committed any of his crimes pre 1964, then I don't quite understand why he can't be hanged? If you want the sentence of the time Mr Hall, then to the gallows it is.

All committed after 1968 apparently

 

[crocarno]

All committed after 1968 apparently

Look like it was never an option anyway, and I got muddled up on my dates. 1964 was the last hanging. In terms of the death penalty:

A) The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the death penalty in England, Wales and Scotland

B) Following the abolition of the death penalty for murder, the House of Commons held a vote during each subsequent parliament until 1997 to restore the death penalty. This motion was always defeated, but the death penalty still remained for other crimes:
1.causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine or warehouse (until 1971);
2.espionage[12] (until 1981);
3.piracy with violence (until 1998);
4.treason (until 1998); and
5.certain purely military offences under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, such as mutiny[13] (until 1998). Prior to its complete abolition in 1998, it was available for six offences:
a)serious misconduct in action;
b)assisting the enemy;
c)obstructing operations;
d)giving false air signals;
e)mutiny or incitement to mutiny; and
f)failure to suppress a mutiny with intent to assist the enemy.


However no executions were carried out in the United Kingdom for any of these offences, after the abolition of the death penalty for murder.


Have to think of something else now

 

[SpursDisciple]

All committed after 1968 apparently

I think he's just making a point. Nothing Hall has done would have been a capital offence in 1964. Perhaps should have been, but that's a different debate.

Edit: Or maybe not then.

 

[angelordevil]

I think he's just making a point. Nothing Hall has done would have been a capital offence in 1964. Perhaps should have been, but that's a different debate.

Edit: Or maybe not then.

Nobody wanted a debate with you then. Of course he was just making a point, as I was, I didn't think they were going to bring back hanging I'm not that stupid

 

[angelordevil]

Look like it was never an option anyway, and I got muddled up on my dates. 1964 was the last hanging. In terms of the death penalty:

A) The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the death penalty in England, Wales and Scotland

B) Following the abolition of the death penalty for murder, the House of Commons held a vote during each subsequent parliament until 1997 to restore the death penalty. This motion was always defeated, but the death penalty still remained for other crimes:
1.causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine or warehouse (until 1971);
2.espionage[12] (until 1981);
3.piracy with violence (until 1998);
4.treason (until 1998); and
5.certain purely military offences under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, such as mutiny[13] (until 1998). Prior to its complete abolition in 1998, it was available for six offences:
a)serious misconduct in action;
b)assisting the enemy;
c)obstructing operations;
d)giving false air signals;
e)mutiny or incitement to mutiny; and
f)failure to suppress a mutiny with intent to assist the enemy.


However no executions were carried out in the United Kingdom for any of these offences, after the abolition of the death penalty for murder.


Have to think of something else now

An interesting post and the law is definitely an Ass. I could think of quite a few things as an alternative but doubt they would go through parliament

 

[Robby202]

An interesting post and the law is definitely an Ass. I could think of quite a few things as an alternative but doubt they would go through parliament

Especially when the last but one incumbent of No 10 was a war mongering American poodle & a duplicitous murdering son-of-a-bitch.

 

[SpursDisciple]

Nobody wanted a debate with you then.

.

 

[SpursDisciple]

Nobody wanted a debate with you then. Of course he was just making a point, as I was, I didn't think they were going to bring back hanging I'm not that stupid

I thought the question was whether he would have been hanged in 1964, nobody suggested anything about bringing it back.

My post was in response to

If Mr Hall committed any of his crimes pre 1964, then I don't quite understand why he can't be hanged?

 

[remembercolinlee]

A average man swims in the thames interfering with boat race...he gets a jail sentence and deported removing him from his pregnant wife... for completely peaceful protest that inconvenienced rich folk rowing while posh folk watched

and a rich celebrity called Hall gets 14 months for sexually abusing over 14 children and young women over a 20 year period??????

And they wonder why people think the laws are run by rich ****s for rich ****s