wacko

Chief Constable of West Yorkshire police is stepping down due to his role in the Hillsborough cover-up and whitewash. Senior officers "dismay[ed]". Fuck off.

Agree, it's a s*** effort on a easy tattoo tbh. The other one is someones best effort and cost a shitload of cash, only to look like data's from the next generation is about to get in a fight with a dragon and the cast of 300. Tonight i dine in Maccy's Odd that your man got Carra pretty much spot-on, but messed up Gerrard and Rafa. Perhaps it's supposed to be Alonso, Rafa and Gerrard.

We'll always be Liverpool's second side when it comes to bad tattoos. http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6503/eeverton113ue.jpg

If it was anyone but Suarez I'd agree. Better? http://momama.net/images/owen_dive.png

Agree or not, that thar's some fine potatoshopping:

It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Agreed, but that's not the issue at hand. Yes, it is. Courts of law have a very high standard of proof; higher than civil courts (which is the same as the FA's) and other bodies. Terry is guilty by the FA's standard. Not punishing him would have been the wrong decision. Arguing for letting him off on account of double jeopardy is like arguing that you shouldn't be admitted to Bradford University because you failed the Oxbridge entrance exam. What he's being accused of is quite clearly a criminal offense, outside the realm of the game, under British law, first and foremost. The court found no reason to find him guilty of such an offense. The FA should have primacy on decisions that don't require a court of law. When an offense is committed that requires a criminal charge, the FA should respect the decision of that court. Had the court found him guilty, I'm all for the FA doling out a fine and suspension. This is basically the FA trying to assert some kind of power in a pissing match with the courts. It's no open secret how powerful the FA fancies itself. Replace the FA with your boss. Had you been accused of some crime and a court of law found you not guilty, you wouldn't think it very fair to still be suspended from work by your boss, right? That does not equate to an argument for double jeopardy. Not true. The court didn't find "no reason" to find him guilty, they found insufficient evidence to find him guilty by their high standard of proof. Going with your boss analogy, what if you'd punched a coworker in the face in front of your drunk boss, but the court found you not guilty of assault, as your boss was not a sufficiently credible witness because he gave inconsistent evidence due to being drunk (and/or was a vainglorious, grandstanding prick on the witness stand). That doesn't mean your boss still can't discipline you. There's no denying Terry said what he was accused of. His defence revolved around placing it in a context that muddied the waters sufficiently to make a guilty verdict "beyond all reasonable doubt" untenable. That is a fair way from the "on the balance of probabilities" standard used by civil courts and the FA. If you don't like the system, fair enough, but the FA's guilty verdict was not only in line with their own rules but also the laws of the land (if Ferdinand had a basis to sue Terry in civil court and did, he would win). You have the whole thing arse about tit. If the FA had charged Terry first and found him not guilty, there would be no basis whatsoever for criminal charges. The reverse is simply not true.

It's not the job of the judiciary to uphold standards of sportsmanship. Agreed, but that's not the issue at hand. Yes, it is. Courts of law have a very high standard of proof; higher than civil courts (which is the same as the FA's) and other bodies. Terry is guilty by the FA's standard. Not punishing him would have been the wrong decision. Arguing for letting him off on account of double jeopardy is like arguing that you shouldn't be admitted to Bradford University because you failed the Oxbridge entrance exam.

That's really interesting. There was another statistical analysis (on More or Less, I think) that said there was *no* Man Utd bias, but I think that was only penalties. At any rate, I'd like to see those rates compared to those for LFC and Arsenal: it appears that referees, like other people, are unconsciously biased towards teams/competitors in red.

It's understandable if you're a player at a club vying for the league, cups and CL every season. What have you got to gain by turning out for England? Inevitable disappointment and a good lambasting in the press, who have ridiculous expectations of the England side. To my mind, Hodgson's England really looked like an honest England this summer: they played in a fashion appropriate to their second-class status.

Cesspit, if you please. Also,

The print rag is, but the online version is editorially separate and is more of a gossip rag. I usually consider them separate publications, both shite in their own unique way.

I think it's just because it's shite, but I'm not sure.

Yeah. Otherwise you end up with a new thread for every nugget of nonsense.

Money ain't there. The owners were willing to put a good wedge of cash into the club, but Kenny mostly pissed that away. That was a one-off, and while we no longer have to pay off our owners' debts, we have to live within our own means.

He just seems to want to be the all-conquering hero, bombing all over the pitch saving the day. Strictly an outsider's view obviously, I don't watch him every week. That pretty much sums him up, tbh. If he had some brains in his head instead of just ego, he would have truly been the complete footballer. He was much more disciplined in the summer. Perhaps he has finally got an ounce or two of discipline, and can lay off the Hollywood balls. Injuries and his drop in energy levels probably 'convinced' him to take a more disciplined approach. I don;t think he can cover every single blade of grass like he used to. It's like you can go clubbing most days when you are young, but now prefer a coffee and a book as you get older. You're absolutely right. You can't be paying a player who isn't first choice those kind of wages. End of. I'd love to have kept him as an option, but you can have three "options" for what we were paying him. Man, while I'm made up we got Sahin, I'm so gutted we're now scrounging for loans from Real and Barca when 5 or 6 years ago, we were trouncing them in the Champions League. We fucking humiliated Real at Anfield. It makes me want to cry

He just seems to want to be the all-conquering hero, bombing all over the pitch saving the day. Strictly an outsider's view obviously, I don't watch him every week. That pretty much sums him up, tbh. If he had some brains in his head instead of just ego, he would have truly been the complete footballer. He was much more disciplined in the summer. Perhaps he has finally got an ounce or two of discipline, and can lay off the Hollywood balls.

He definitely doesn't have the discipline, but he has the skills, which makes him the best option we have.

Gerrard can do the job.

That would be the same whether it was Man United or Chelsea. People dislike big teams/cheer the underdog. Brazil were getting booed at St James v Honduras! I'm not saying I like Liverpool, just this is obviously a thread with a lot of legs and that surprises me. Personally, I would rather Liverpool beat Man U. If one man is entitlement it is Alex Ferguson. Them beating us to the league in 96. Hammering us in the Charity Shield. Getting revenge in the 5-0 then finishing runners up again. Beating us the in FA Cup final in 1999 and semis in 05. I will always get more satisfaction beating them. With the mackems a perrenial joke I tended to think of Man U as our biggest rivals. The couple of glory hunters in my school supported Man U too. I felt, last season, beating Man U was more satisfying because they were champions. The gold standard is beating them. Hammering Liverpool was just hilarious, laugh at Dalglish, Enrique, Carroll. Don't get me wrong, I hate Dalglish for selling Ginola and Ferdinand, two of my all time favorite players. I just dont really rate Liverpool as a scalp in the same way I do Man U. Irrational football hatred is great though. I felt Wolves "deserved" to go down last season for knocking us out the FA Cup in 03. That's something I've wondered. This is the Liverpool thread, so I expect to see a lot of vitriol directed at LFC, but I'm surprised that NUFC fans seem to hate us more than Man Utd, who have unquestionably pissed somewhat more vigourously on the NUFC bonfire than we ever have. I can understand if it's down to our fans, though. Liverpool fans, especially Scousers, can be a bit, err, special.

I don't have to read this thread, like. I do get the odd opportunity to gloat, too. At least, I'm pretty certain I used to. It's been a good long while

Well, usually they're pretty nice shirts.

No, they don't. You're projecting your own dislikes onto everyone else. LFC is hardly universally admired in England, but it's generally a well looked upon club abroad.

Well, I'm sold. The new Paul Scholes.

I've got a bad feeling this is going to play out exactly like last time

Leo Messi. There. Now he's been mentioned, too.