indeed. Absolutely barmy. we had a kick about in the garden this morning but we didn’t keep score so I hope we’ll avoid any kind of backlash!
I think the Tommy Robinson types would be rigid in adhering to it. You only get an opportunity to show how totally ******* British you are and rip into anyone who isn't a flag shagger like that once in a lifetime.
It was utterly ridiculous. My daughter's team still trained, despite the club sending out a vile, sanctimonious email saying that this "respect" should extend to all football activities, not just matches, and that they didn't want "excuses about kids getting exercise or it helping their mental health".
Utter nonsense calling off the kids games. We've organised an "unofficial" friendly with one of the other teams in my son's league on a power league pitch tomorrow afternoon which makes a mockery of it all.
Careful - they have official govt drones out checking. Any hint of goal celebration and you're in the slammer for a fortnight.
I went to the Test Match yesterday - had tickets with a couple of former work colleagues. Was pleasantly surprised when it was given the go-ahead on Friday, I must admit. Thought for all the world that it would be cancelled. Glad I got to do this before I head back at the end of Sept. Few words around The Oval yesterday that it had been decided to cancel in line with the football - but the ECB’s insurance didn’t cover the death of the monarch so they stood to lose millions. So they instead turned it into the occasion it was - and it was dealt with superbly. Crowd were behaved at all times, everyone was jovial but very respectful. The start of the game was an ‘I was there’ moment with the National Anthem done for the first time at a sporting event and you could hear a pin drop for a solid 10 mins from when the armed forces appeared, to the end of the anthems. Beers went on sale at 11:00am and were on sale all day but there was no raucous behaviour, ‘beer snakes’ being made - or any of that kind of thing. Barmy Army all sat together and there was a bit of brass band playing a couple of times (Jerusalem and one other inaudible song) but again, respectful. And it was an action packed, entertaining days play with 17 wickets, only slightly tainted by a needlessly long rain delay for a minor spittle of rain, losing 30 mins at the end when light wasn’t bad at all - and Stokes giving his wicket away when quick runs were being gifted by the SA bowlers. It did leave me thinking that football should have gone ahead this weekend and maybe halted next weekend. I think football fans would have equally have shown the respectful The Oval did at the start of the day - I do wonder if that respect would have lasted for the duration of the game though as per the cricket. (Not suggesting it should have done - but just saying I perhaps wonder if that was part of the consideration when cancelling)
I think a lot of football will be off next weekend too. The funeral on the Monday and the lying in state will stretch police forces. Already officers from rest of UK are being impacted by the requirements in London.
An interesting point about insurance. Mrs Keighley is on the organising committee of a major national academic association which had its annual conference last week. They were offered death of monarch insurance which they decided not to take. That might have been a problem if she had died earlier in the week but in the end only one event was cancelled.
My point was, I have seen very little evidence that a President as Head of State is any better in the majority of cases, no matter what % of countries have that system. Just look at the 5h1tfest that is the USA's Corrupt Personality Contest to choose the next President. You are aware of the costs accruing to many states during presidential election campaigns? I'd be interested to hear people's practical outline of the system to replace our current one. I would be interested to see a costed analysis of whether the cost of the Monarchy costs more than any revenue it generates; I don't know either way. I've already stated that it is important to slim down the 'hangers-on' element so as to make it more cost-effective & I fully agree that more royal buildings should be made accessible to the public in general at an affordable fee. As to your last point, I refer you back to the USA system for an example of this at work.
Why the **** are we paying a single penny for the royal family when they're bloody rich enough to pay for themselves? Besides, if/when we abolish the monarchy, we'll more than likely keep the parliamentary system and just have a largely ceremonial president, like a lot of countries around the world, including many of our former colonies
Can you outline the type of constitution that would include this 'largely ceremonial president', who, of course, will not cost a penny to fund, will not have to participate in any unseemly, media-led, cash-consuming scramble to be elected, and will not be prone to feel massively behoven to the rich backers who funded them? As I've said before, I'm not a huge royalist with regards to all the boring pomp and ceremony, but I would need to see the details of any putative republican system designed to replace our existing one before I'd be convinced it would be in any way 'better'. I'd prefer more time and effort being spent on a fundamental reform of the Upper House which would lead to more meaningful benefits to our democracy than any change to a titular Head of State.
I remember playing an entire FA Cup from round 1 when I was small - by myself, as I was an only child. The draw was completely above board, but my club became the first ever Third Division team to win it.
Because on becoming the monarch the individual signs over all their hereditary lands and possessions in return for the sovereign grant. So the state is quids up on the deal. As you say though there is the families (as opposed to the hereditary) wealth. I think the Windsor family own Balmoral and Sandringham. Charles owns Highgrove. They no doubt have millions in cash, investments and trinkets. Whereas the monarch hands to the state each time they are proclaimed Windsor castle, St James Palace, The Crown Jewels, the British coastline between high and low tide marks, etc to the government.
Most presidencies are cheaper than the Royal Family (which costs at least £100m a year, and even if you consider the profit of their lands to be a 'benefit', they could easily be in public hands to begin with), plus they can be an additional check on the power of the head of the government, the monarch can in theory do this, and they do block stuff that affects them personally, but stuff that might actually help us? Ha, no ******* chance! That's not even mentioning the fact that the monarch is literally above the law... https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
Is there any reason this land can't be public land? I'm sure they'll still find some money down the back of their numerous sofas...
Scott Duxbury on death: 'Death is just like being asleep. It's part of life. A lot of people have died over the years, it's completely normal. Death isn't something Watford fans should be at all concerned about'.
I know national league football can play their fixtures midweek - not sure if anyone knows if the midweek champo games are still going ahead? BBC still has them listed as playing.
I presume EFL and Prem won't be any different from National League? They all seem to fall in line with each other, it would look rather silly if they didn't!
Sky are promoting the live midweek games during the breaks in the cricket so I guess they think they are going ahead.
Good news! Not all domestic football was prevented from taking place this weekend after all… https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...Elizabeth-Eton-College-Rossall-School-Twitter
There need to be a report done regarding this whole embarrassing episode for the FA. It is difficult to know what is true, but we are now reading reports from several outlets of emails sent to clubs banning any kind of training. emails stating that clubs must not let their players wear the same kit if they train as this will constitute an attempt to play a game. Did the FA email children's football leagues to insist that no child should play? Who took the decision to ban football? Did the FA consult with any other sporting bodies before making their decision? Did the FA take into consideration the impact on the fans both financially and logistically? Should the FA agree to some form of reimbursement to those fans affected? Will the FA issue an apology to all fans and players, both adult and children? The FA were not in a no win situation as stated, l do not accept this as an excuse. So far, the FA have not made any comment regarding the cancellation of all football. My concern is that we will not receive any explanation. This would be typical of the FA. The FA is out of touch with football fans and this is unacceptable.
It depends how you define public. It all went wrong when the Norman’s replace the Saxons , compounded by Magna Carta two hundred years later. The sovereign grant is approx 86 million about 15% of the income from the crown estates. It’s agreement since 1760, when George III agreed to help fund the activities of Parliament. To the private individual it’s enormous amounts, but for UK government it’s small change.
I note my season ticket has been updated to 15 October Norwich game. Presumably Sunderland game postponed?
I presume it's still up in the air? With the funeral on the Monday, the police will probably be on high alert, and even if we're not under the Metropolitan Police, perhaps they'll just cancel all of it rather than just the London games?
Are we too close to London potentially? Even if that is off we play Swansea before that Norwich game too on October 5th so there must be an error somewhere.
I presume there has been an official announcement that game has moved from the Tuesday to the Wednesday in case people didn't realise?
