Search results

VPN companies are distraught. But what a stupid idea in the first place.

Yes, I get that. But she is going to be completely flat footed, so I'm not surprised she didn't save it. She's only got to have her weight the other way and she won't be able to adjust. It's why if they insist on this, no keeper is going to save a penalty.

Well, the keeper has to be able to jump and push off. Not surprising she was flat footed that time. This is VAR though. Judging on an inch here or there. Good freeze frame below, she was hardly taking the piss:

Doesn't matter if it's a yard or an inch though, VAR will insist it's re-taken. It's not possible for them to be anchored to the line like that.

Without looking down at their feet while the kick is being taken, how the hell can they? They can't just stand there, they'll never save a penalty again. It's a ridiculous enforcement of a rule that's not viable.

Depends entirely on the industry. There's a rather big difference between working in paperclips and working in hotel distribution.

They have the right to say stupid things too. As do you. The dangerous ones are those who think they can decide what's just a joke and what isn't.

Actually no. If you (generic comment, rather than you personally) start screaming about those whose opinions you don't like, you are the problem. I support Jo Brand's right to offend people, and I support politicians' rights to offend people too. I don't care if someone is a lefty snowflake or...

The most ridiculous thing about it is the idea that Jo Brand would waste a milkshake by throwing it.

One did say he wishes he had done. It's possible, or some kind of deal anyway. I daresay it'll change around the margins.

I've read your comments too, and you are under the misplaced impression I remotely give a stuff what you think about anything at all.

I know you are seriously hard of thinking, but conversations work so much better if you don't make up stuff and pretend you've made a valid point. I've not backtracked on anything, you just don't have the wit to comprehend a point and prefer to argue with yourself on an entirely different one.

Yes. Though they all are on this one.

I said it was disingenuous of Sky. It doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't be criticised for not appearing. Happy to help.

I know you're a bit dense, and that you can't help that, but you too can next time try and post something that I've said, not what I haven't said.

A perfectly fair and valid question. And the honest answer is I doubt it.

Because at no stage have I done so. People have answered me based on the original Sky story as though it's some kind of gotcha when it's about something else entirely. I've also said on several occasions now that criticising him for not appearing is completely valid. What it does seem to show...

Sigh, this is not complex. I have not said he shouldn't be criticised if he doesn't appear, go for your life. I have said that Sky are conflating two different subjects in order to promote their own particular agenda on this. No, it was a comment by virtue of the language used. Which I said...

Because it isn't a national election we vote in.

As was yours. That's the point. When did you stop beating your wife?