https://twitter.com/BBCTeesSport/status ... ijOtw&s=19

Going to make that an interesting game

Sensible idea.

Problem is you are unlikely to be allowed to attend as Boris stutters into a January Lockdown.

And what would YOU do in his position?

If he hadn't messed up with last year and all the lies about parties we would be in lockdown 2 weeks ago. The Christmas spread will see January and probably February a no go for sports crowds. We are told it is a milder virus but the hospitals will still be beyond breaking point again.

If it were me I'd crack out the stilton and cabernet.

Hospitalizations been around the 7/800 mark for about 6 weeks now and 80% of them r tossers who are unvaccinated. And like you say Omicron is a milder virus were the jabs so far are reducing it to a bit of a cold.
We need to see where we are week by week.
Im optimistic sports n pubs entertaintment wont be shutdown for a longish time zone.

Boris is too busy answering questions on what constitutes a party cos that's all the pundits, the press and all the opposition parties are interested in.
Maybe that's why people are stopping buying newspapers, cancelling TV licences and keeping the opposition in their places...... as opposition.

It was only ever going to be the good will of the people that meant covid measures would be followed in sufficient numbers. They really needed to stay squeaky clean for that. Alas....

I've got my ticket, but if the worst happens FA Cup 3rd Round ties are far more likely to be played behind closed doors or with a reduced capacity than on a rearranged date
The Premier League won't stand for any more fixture congestion, and as we all know they call the shots with the FA's cup.

You want a lockdown...?

Can’t say I disagree with you....

To be fair, the MSM would have dug something up...... outrage over a Xmas party in the office must have most countries politicians around the world pissing themselves laughing.

[quote="Flying Hogans"][

I've got my ticket, but if the worst happens FA Cup 3rd Round ties are far more likely to be played behind closed doors or with a reduced capacity than on a rearranged date

just wonder how many tickets have been sold. would be better in todays world if they stopped selling them just in case its behind closed doors or reduced capacity. each to their own but nowadays i,d never dream of buying a ticket for anything before the day unless a sell out is on the cards. saves any future hassle.

Certainly will make for a more high tempo game as we cant play out for the draw hoping to gain something in Blackpool like we did with Wycombe. Just hope it doesn't come down to penners as our Pizza trophy games did. Think we will take home advantage and may grab the win - although Blackpool been picking up points lately ain't they.
In terms of no support at games - its anyone's guess just now - The bumbling idiot that runs this country says its an hour by hour reaction - mans sleep deprived from the new born, wouldn't surprise me if something harsh came tomorrow and totally bugger Xmas up once again !

I'm afraid you will be faced with new variants for quite some time. The secret here is the word new, therefore unknown, unpredictable and difficult to manage accurately without precise data, which has to be collected and analysed, which in turn takes time.
We could of course just lockdown everything at the first sign of a new variant under the heading "till we know more" and face countless and perhaps unnecessary lockdowns, or we could do nothing and just let it rip, or we could try to balance our response proportionately. The guy who is responsible for responding chose the third option and is a bumbling idiot. So which of the other two options should he have chosen? Asking for a friend.

Just close our Borders till April.
Give the anti vaxes a 2 week deadline.
A choice of jab or jail.
A bit of discipline required.
We already paying enuf tax to keep the Boris clan in wine n cheeseboards.

I am sure we will do the same as Wales and Scotland in banning fans after xmas.
They lead Little England follows.

that seems to be the case. we need a change of leader fast as i,m afraid any new restrictions will be ignored by many just to stick two fingers up at the bumbling baby making machine. david blunkett would have made a better job of being a heart surgeon than johnson is a PM.

[quote="kevin pooles gloves"]Just close our Borders till April.
Give the anti vaxes a 2 week deadline.
A choice of jab or jail.
A bit of discipline required.
We already paying enuf tax to keep the Boris clan in wine n cheeseboards.[/quote

Closing the borders isn't going to stop Omicron, it's already here.
Then there is over eight million tons worth of freight passing between us and the continent per annum.
Honda UK require 350 lorries per day through our ports to keep their Swindon plant operative.
That is just one plant.
You can't just switch a supply chain on and off like a tap.

I think you are forgetting the the vast majority of Parliament voted for the current measures, including the main opposition party, it's not just down to Boris and they would have to do the same to get your Jab plan off the ground.
Do you honestly believe Labour and the SNP would vote for that.
Might be best if we leave it to the people responsible and ignore the political shit stirring by the media.

Scotland are calling their situation a Tsunami.

By all means change the leader but it is Parliament who control whether the current leader's covid policies are adopted or not. If they don't agree with them why are they voting for them. It would be so easy to stick two fingers up at him, so why don't they. The Labour party are backing him. Are they so devoid of ideas and policies that they are actually propping up a bumbling baby machine.

No politician is ever going to ignore the advice of the medical experts. End of!

true, but no person can lead a party and a country when they have lost their credibility. its not the love of starmer thats causing the tories popularity to keep waining.

And no person can expect to run a country when they have no credibility to start with.
Who would you put in his place is the obvious question and who would actually want to do it with the media poised to turn their machine on whoever has a go. Not to mention the back bench snipers who seem to have formed a party within a party, who you would also have to deal with. I know that I wouldn't touch the job with a bargepole.
Getting rid of Boris is the game right now but surely nobody thinks that the media would stop there with a smug job done look on their faces. The whole show would just rumble on with a different name in the headlines.
The only sure thing you can guarantee on getting rid of a politician is that he/she will be replaced by another politician.
We will then look to that politician to be honest, hardworking, a perfect example to us all, never break a rule, never do a favour for their mates, lilywhite etc etc and the media will scrutinize that person to the nth degree until the rejection process inevitably takes place. Then we start all over again looking for the perfect politician, even though we know that person does not exist within the realms of politics, or within the realms of any walks of life.
Whilst the media go on stirring the shit and enjoying a very nice living on over inflated salaries, conning the majority that they are performing in the public interest. Yeah right.
We need to wake up and realise who the biggest enemy is.

kuenssberg is going .......and the sooner the bbc licence fee goes the better...

Agree.

the faces of bbc football.....lineker.....shearer.....alex scott....never in this history of television.... has so much been paid......by so many .... to so few .......for so little......utter complete dross...

If the BBC closed down and ceased to broadcast one still needs a tv licence as it is a licence to receive a tv signal.

stanley.....bollox......licence fee funds bbc....if the bbc didnt exist....or funded itself commercially like nearly all other tv... there would be no need for a licence fee....not complicated pal.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televisio ... ed_Kingdom

"The licence fee is used almost entirely to fund BBC domestic radio, television and internet services. The money received from the fee represents approximately 75% of the cost of these services, with most of the remainder coming from the profits of BBC Studios, a commercial arm of the corporation which markets and distributes its content outside of the United Kingdom, and operates or licences BBC-branded television services and brands.[84] The BBC also receives some funding from the Scottish Government via MG Alba to finance the BBC Alba Gaelic-language television service in Scotland. The BBC used to receive a direct government grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to fund television and radio services broadcast to other countries, such as the BBC World Service radio and BBC Arabic Television. These services run on a non-profit, non-commercial basis. The grant was abolished on 1 April 2014, leaving these services to be funded by the UK licence fee, a move which has caused some controversy.[85][86]"

Well, 86% of licence fees go directly to the BBC. According to the TV Licencing authorities own website.
The remaining 14% covers thing things like collection of TV licences, admin etc.
So even if the licence cost was to receive the TV signal, with the removal of the 86 % the BBC gets, any licence cost would be a mere approximately 10% of the present cost.

lineker.....dullest of the dull.....and 2 million a year for reading off a teleprinter......ffs

https://deadline.com/2021/07/bbc-star-p ... 234786675/

I suggest that you ask a magistrate to clarify the law.

You can be fined for having no tv licence even if you do not have a tv, if you record a programme.

Is Lineker related to Catweazle ? If you stood them side by side you’d be hard pushed to decide who was who.
One’s a popular TV personality with wit, charm and an endearing sense of humour and unique sense of style. The other’s a tvvat who does the footy...in a fashion.
I often think if you put four scaffolding planks in the studio with photos of Lineker, Shearer etc on them they have more personality.

stanley......is this a wind up?...yes i know you can be fined for not having a t.v licence.....and .. ??

ron on lineker....about right......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4I1ye2gcEo

lots of the humour has gone out of the game nowadays. thats why you have shearer and co. doing their jobs.

Well, 86% of licence fees go directly to the BBC. According to the TV Licencing authorities own website.
The remaining 14% covers thing things like collection of TV licences, admin etc.
So even if the licence cost was to receive the TV signal, with the removal of the 86 % the BBC gets, any licence cost would be a mere approximately 10% of the present cost.[/quote]
. would not bother me one bit if the BBC finished today and i paid the 10 per cent licence. with all the repeats of repeats shown how many times have we wasted the 90 per cent of it. just wonder anyway how many watch it anyway when there are alternatives around thats better, like owning a dog licence from the past when you had a cat.

I’ll sum up the BBC in one programme .... Casualty.
Broadcast continuously since 1986 at the same time on a Saturday night...the same old boring format banged out a peak time for 35 years, seriously, it’s banal, tedious and boring but it steams sedately on just like the BBC.

then you have ......strictly......dance to bbc diversity politics ......ffs

The government require you (by law) to have a licence to receive a television signal. That they decide to fund the BBC from the proceeds is a seperate matter.
Another example of the law: if you have a monochrome tv and a recording device, you need a colour to licence. Nothing to do with the BBC!
No wind up and bollocks to you!

stanley......."That they decide to fund the BBC from the proceeds is a seperate matter.".......a separate matter.....mmmmmmmm.......can i ask you a question?........are you wired up to your tv and receiving messages from aliens on the planet zog ? .....ffs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok6CoIwcJ-E

It’s everything to do with the BBC as they receive 86% of that fee funded by the TV Licence.
If the BBC want to continue as a broadcaster, take advertising...oops they do, constantly advertising themselves and their services.
If we weren’t shelling out 86% of the licence fee to keep the BBC on life support it would then be an insignificant amount to pay for a TV Licence.
Simple, basic mathematics.

Also agree.

Also, where is this so called "Christmas food shortage" the media were banging on about?

The media don’t report the news that happens nowadays, they manufacture the news agenda in advance to suit their own political viewpoint.
I don’t think they ever got over Brexit, especially the reaction of Parliament who fought tooth and claw to hang onto their holiday homes in the Dordogne. Their contempt for the public blew up in their faces yet still they cling on to the wreckage of their golden days of yore..... and the public knowing their place.
I’m waiting for the day voting will restricted to those with a degree in the 18 to 25 age band....y’know, the gullible idealists with no practical life experience who are easily shepherded.

The Guardian was still banging on about it a couple of days ago, so you'd think it must be happening somewhere, except - there's no actual examples given, just a YouGov poll (size of sample not given either) with 56% of Brits claiming to have experiences 'some' shortages this month.

Maybe there's been a run on the truffle infused pigs blankets at Waitrose, who knows?

if they had gone into waitrose or fortnum and masons later in the day their favourite poncy food might have been available to them. mind you home bargains were without the dog food i buy last sunday.