Posts by recordari
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I do, however, believe there is a need for players in rugby (and other contact sports) to have an intent to hurt the opposition.
Still no. 'Winning' (with superior skill, and yes maybe strength) and 'hurting' are not compatible in any sport other than boxing, that I'm aware of. If everyone had that attitude we would never get to watch the world's best players as they would be injured all the time.
The fact that this is the case in some codes is not what I like about the game. And is it a necessary part of it? Not in my book. It's why a red card was fully justified, and 5 weeks isn't too harsh either.
Back to football, apparently sprigs up Tim Cahill got his just rewards during the Australia/Germany game, although I didn't see it.
-
There's too many threads and too many links from these threads to keep up with. I'm confusing.
Maybe I'll wait for the book of the film of the book.
The Plastic Files: Dreck, Pies and Videotapes.
-
If you go into the match with the intent to injure your opponent then you have no right to be out there in your national colours.
Don't watch much rugby eh?
I'm with Hadyn on this, and I watch a lot of Rugby. Ask the other people in my house. We don't need this in the game.
Overall it was a very positive start, but I was also impressed with the Irish resolve in the second half. For the important parts of the first they played with 13 players, and probably everyone shaking their heads thinking 'why the hell did Heaslip do that?' It sort of changed the game, just a little bit.
Oh, and go the Warriors.
[The other other game] -
What they do need to take on board is that Labour invented the slide rule when it comes to legality on sexual issues in this country. It was Labour that legislated to make homosexuality legal in 1986 and followed that in 2003 by legitimising prostitution. Clark made former prostitute and transsexual Georgina Beyer a Minister outside Cabinet.
Been off the grid and just catching up, but this is utter tripe. The implication is beneath even dear old Fran, surely?
In fact, what is the implication? Jones' porn equates to legalised homosexuality, legalised prostitution and a transsexual Minister outside cabinet? FFS, that's a new low. If there are "more purse-lipped and moralistic female colleagues" in Labour that will make these comparisons, then maybe it is time for some zoology.
And what Craig said.
-
Is it just me, or does that cartoon sort of sum up several threads over the past week? No? Ok, just me. Carry on.
-
This seemed apposite.
-
Although that will work, I can see why reimbursement would have been the practice.
A lot of hotels will only take bookings with a Credit Card confirmation, as you sort of point out. Surely the person (they have PAs, by and large) organising it could have a ministerial CC number, with pre-approved expenditure for hotels for the duration of the stay?
If they're racking up more than 10,000 per trip on daily expenses, then clearly they have a different idea or 'reasonable expenditure' than I do.
Toblerone
I was once given two of these. I couldn't eat it for several years afterwards. But I like it again now.
I understand that posts such as this are permissible here on Fridays.
Oh, so that's my problem? I didn't get that memo.
-
Oh man, Dan is going to hate you...
You think Dan will Red card this one then? Poms away...
-
Yes, but...
I can see how in some circumstances this would be inconvenient, but why don't they just use their own cards, and then file claims for legitimate expenses? That is likely what most of them will be doing now anyway, having cut up the old cards.
If they can't keep adequate financial records, and make decisions on what counts as 'reasonable' expenditure in any given situation, then what the hell are they doing running the country?
-
aye?
eh?
Bugger. Actually, I meant 'ayee', in the vernacular ;-)
Sorry Damien, I didn't see your comment.