Thracian

Fantastic? What were you watching? There was nothing "fantastic" about Leicester's football tonight. It was just a commendable effort. Yes, Chilwell did okay. As most anyone might have done against a side who'd largely given up on any serious attacking intent. But his final ball was woeful and, sadly, reflected generally. Yet attacking football, and more especially when we're fighting for our continued presence in the Champions League, is all about the final ball and we, generally didn't have one either from Chilwell or anyone else. The boy rated 7/10 at best - an average performance all but mirrored across the team. But 7/10 was never going to be good enough and Shakespeare had few other worthwhile options apart from Gray and I'd doubt that was his fault. Sure, we did okay for those satisfied with our reaching the Champions League quarter-finals. Me, I still think we could have gone further despite our being snookered so unforgiveably by the referee in Madrid.

You clearly haven't got a clue what I think. As for being "a hypocrite" judge all you like (it's discouraged in the Bible but I wouldn't imagine you a Christian) regarding me or your daughter. But look to yourself first. Few of even my worst enemies call me a hypocrite.

There are some who'd find reason to excuse the law enforcers murder if they had "orders". It might be different if they were the victims, mind, and if they still had life and breath to respond at all.

Isn't the feeling of "tolerating" something, a sure sign of something being wrong?

You clearly don't read many of my posts.

But we won't - and there's no sense pretending otherwise. To take a purely random example Soulsby wants to build a new road for buses in Leicester City Centre. To do that he needs someone else's land. How can it be right that he can impose his will by acquiring that land through the process of a compulsory purchase order and likely negotiations as a consequence? I'm not in any way suggesting Soulsby's intended development is wrong or right - simply that it exactly illustrates my point that what prevails is not what's right or wrong but the will of the strongest "authority", be that a government, an army, a multi-national corporation or even the people for better or worse.

A 79 off the white tees for a net 69 ln our Easter Cup competition was helped by using a heavier putter for the first time. Not sure if it'll get me anywhere near the prizes but it sure beat my medal round a few days earlier when a catastrophic third hole (lost ball and another hit out of bounds) effectively put me out of the contest with 15 holes to go.

When I suggested reacting to the Twin towers attrocity with acts of positive commemoration of the victims (like the setting up of youth clubs/theatres/communal orchards) I don't remember anyone on here agreeing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. At least the Americans aren't limp-wristed appeasers whose actions constantly make the problems worse from much of what i see. And in the case of the wacky administration in North Korea something needs to be done for sure. Certainly as far as the threat to the US is concerned. This side of the Atlantic do we even have a proper, consistent, foreign policy on anything related to the Middle East and offshoot difficulties these days? Haha, we promised action on immigration years back and have done sod all so far in terms of even official numbers let alone the reality. . Eventually comes the need to jump down from the fence and decide what you're going to stand for. Yet, so often, I hear people expressing a perfectly defensible view but then reflecting uncertainty and indecision when the view is tested. To me it's not really about who's right or wrong it's about what you want to effect in the end. Right or wrong could actually be quite easy to agree in the main - though someone somewhere down the line would doubtless move the goalposts - but I doubt it ever will be in any case, and certainly not by some minds.

We'll see. Lots of enthusiastic over-reaction because none of us have seen enough of Benny to really be able to judge him. What I've seen has been mixed. Definitely man of the match in our first leg against Atletico. Rolled over by Lukako at Everton but so are a lot of centre-backs because the guy is unusually difficult to contain. But bullied too by Benteke at the Palace and this is what concerns me most. He's tough enough, I'm sure, in a general sense but he doesn't have the kind of physical presence Huth and Morgan have to contain the biggest, strongest and best strikers. Huth and Morgan are masters when it comes to baulking opponents. They stand their ground and become immoveable. Benny gets trampled over and it's a major problem for all that he's undoubtedly our best footballing centre-back - and the most mobile. Depends who Benny's up against as to how he's likely to cope but I don't see the powerfully calm authority that would categorise my own choice for the job.

Laughing and joking with my 94-year-old mother who's still looking after her own home, bright as a guardsman's buttons and looking as well as I've seen her for a while. My sister seemed to have a good idea for a book series too, which I hope she can bring to fruition. All positives. Best Easter Sunday for years including avoiding the holiday crowd on the golf course by staying away!

Nowhere have I tried to defend the troublemakers. I think society too often abdicates its responsibility regarding people who are repeatedly violent. Just like terrorists, so many have "previous" but turn up again and again. My entire focus is on indiscriminate "law enforcement" which I believe to be entirely wrong and totally indefensible. I know and you know the law enforcers are perfectly capable of acting responsibly and taking the sting out of most situations if they choose to. But a lot of the best work is down to prevention in the first place. Not only at football matches but in society in general. .

But our rules are supposed to be their rules on this issue. And while I see no point in linking the issue to the immigration debate I can promise you that I'd be just as angry to see an innocent/uninvolved immigrant being unfairly whacked with a baton as seeing anyone else being struck. I detest bullies of all kinds and will never forget seeing a copper whack a (presumably) junior school kiddie at a Derby-Leicester game some seasons back for no reason I ever understood. The kid looked about 10, skinny as a wishbone, and about as intimidating as a waste paper bin. .

You don't need to - I've openly stated that I'm not a fan of human rights legislation as it stands. However, that's the law as it stands and, as you know, I gladly voted for us to leave the EU and the actions of the Spanish law enforcers only serve to emphasise that choice. Indeed if the various nations choose only to act on the legislation they like there's not much point in having EU-encompassing law at all. Nor any law which is ambiguous or which doesn't protect people from being indiscriminately whacked by loose canons with batons. Quite apart from anything else hitting innocent people with batons is highly irresponsible and potentially inflamatory. .

Being part of a "hostile crowd" and sitting minding your own business when a "hostile crowd" materialises and passes by, is entirely different.

I thought Spain was part of the EU and therefore subject to the same Human Rights legislation. Things like a right not to suffer "degrading treatment" or the right to be considered "innocent until proven guilty". Or is it a matter of Spain doing what the hell they like because it's Spain?

Thanks, I appreciate that, although I don't kid myself it's a universal feeling!

Having been in Seville myself I'm understanding. agreeing and sympathising with a great deal of what you say but still see absolutely no reason for the indiscriminate whacking of innocent/uninvolved people with batons (or anything else) just because they happened to be there and as caught in the melee as the lowlife's who were trying to hide in it. And especially women and children, because i can't imagine any law enforcer would make the mistake of thinking they were somehow going to breach the peace so dramatically as to create a riot or serious disturbance. But it's not just women and children. I wouldn't want to be having a quiet drink and suddenly find myself in the midst of a baton charge. Imagine instead it was a terrorist incident and some wacko started shooting people dead. If he tried to shelter among the crowd would that give the law enforcers the right to shoot anyone between them and the gunman or to shoot randomly in all sorts of directions? I don't think so. Handling large crowds should be a disciplined exercise whereby the authorities do all they can to calm trouble at source and use force only as a last resort and then only the minimum force needed - and with due consideration for the uninvolved - to restore order. Anything beyond that is provocative, an exercise in bullying rather than containment, highly dangerous for all sorts of reasons and any injuring of people not involved would amount, in my view, to a serious, reactionary assault and anything but the disciplined response required. I well understand the law enforcers have a difficult, often unenviable job. But the very nature of their work and their training should reflect and emphasise their responsibility to the innocent as well as the troublemakers. It should not be a licence to take advantage and whack people for no justifiable reason, .

At least I do paragraphs!

Orders or not, no law enforcer should whack people indiscriminately.

Not having a ticket and still going to an away game doesn't make you a loutish moron.

What a mess and what an advert! Gives about the same impression as last night's penalty decision.

I've expected Kingy to be superceded for a while but the likes of Mendy, and Amartey have been disappointing because neither seems to offer what we actually need which is someone who's mobile but genuinely creative, fast enough and strong enough to compete and track the runners and ruthlessly effective when offered a shooting chance. It's asking a lot i know but those we've signed as potential replacements for King don't really tick many of those boxes at all. As it stands Kingy would definitely remain my go-to replacement midfielder and, like one or two others, I think of him as a better bet than Drinky on recent form and particularly if playing with Shinji and Ndidi. But, certainly we need to think about improving our first choices in central midfield and somehow being able to compete and flow against opponents fielding three men in the engine room. But, again like others, I wonder if part of the problem relates to defensive support. There wasn't much yesterday due to the pressure Everton exerted and were always going to exert against two in midfield for all that I understand Shaky's reasons for resting folk. Amartey and Benny were like caught like rabbits in the morning sunshine - totally disorientated at times. Kingy needs passing options. they're part of his essential diet and, without people running off him and making give-and-go's possible he'll always look ordinary. Conversely with runners around him he's still our quickest, most reliable and best evaluater of a pass and a guy who still has a few goals and assists left in him. if given the chance. But a box to box guy he's not any more, not for long enough and not at a quick enough pace. But I'd still have him in the squad unless we can make categoric improvements. . .

King's just a whipping boy for some on here. Even if he played brilliantly there would be a kind of grudging acceptance - and delight a week later if the sceptics had chance to hammer him some more. It's always been the case for some even despite the part he's played in so much of our success. There were plenty worse than King yesterday but as I said at the time. we were never 100% up for the game and he wouldn't have been playin if we had been. But the proof of my words - and the level of bias on here - is the fact that King's hardly played in weeks and any other player (especially the serially disappointing Drinkwater of late) would be given some slack over that. But not King. Some fans' agendas are more important than that. Having said all that it's time he moved. I've said it before but can only see a bit part future for him here as a player now. But he's certainly worn the shirt with distinction and been a part of the best chapter and team in our history over the last decade.

King's just a whipping boy for some on here. Even if he played brilliantly there would be a kind of grudging acceptance - and delight a week later if the sceptics had chance to hammer him some more. It's always been the case for some even despite the part he's played in so much of our success. There were plenty worse than King yesterday but as I said at the time. we were never 100% up for the game and he wouldn't have been playing if we had been. But the proof of my words - and the level of bias on here - is the fact that King's hardly played in weeks and any other player (especially the serially disappointing Drinkwater of late) would be given some slack over that. But not King. Some fans' agendas are more important than that. Having said all that it's time he moved. I've said it before but can only see a bit part future for him here as a player now. Some fans just see what they want and I don't think many saw five tackles, four interceptions and an 80 per cent pass completion rate as the second part of a midfield pair up against a midfield three. Even the picture of Jagielka's goal tells a story with Kingy tight on his man and ready to match any leap while Benny - tight as well - never gets off the ground, and does no more than try to hold the scorer's arm as he leaps way above him. Whatever the verdict of yesterday's inquest, King has and still wears our shirt with distinction and has been part of the best chapter and team in our history over the last decade. And that without the real support and encouragement so many have always given to Drinkwater who, apart from his combativeness, is neither the greatst creator nor the greatest threat. Yet King is effectively muscled out of that role - and by a bloke who's form and whose percentage of good games has dipped noticeably this season. Again, what yesterday most showed apart from our defensive failings, was how badly Shinji's absence means for us in central midfield. Two against three in that area doesn't work for us especially when the three have such outstanding creative support from Barkley and Lukako.