nnfox

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy8dy2pr8ymt

Reports of a train crash on the London to Leicester line.  Hopefully not as bad as it potentially could be.  Thoughts to those involved.

Can't wait for this.

4 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Poor kid never stood a chance. Was taken into care because his 14 year old mum was in prison for murder.

 

I think that his mum went to prison when she was 14 for murder, but was actually 38 when she had him, but yeah, sounds like an extremely dysfunctional family unit so the child was taken into care at 5 days old.  

Horrifying that wholly unsuitable people are able to dupe the authorities into handing vulnerable children into their care.

Calling out the board might be the best thing he's done since signing.  Fair play. 

Football is an unimaginable mess. 

6 hours ago, bovril said:

So I now need to upload my personal data to use youtube when I'm in the UK? Wonderful.

Have you read Google's Privacy Policy?  You do realise they probably already know an awful lot about you?

29 minutes ago, Jobyfox said:

I’m fed up with all the negativity on these pages. Give him a chance. 

 

I reckon he’ll keep us up! 

Brave call at this early stage.

It's starting to become clear that McCarron has been brought in as some sort of "Yes" man who will do as he's told and when it all goes wrong, Top will be able to say "There, there Rudders, it's not your fault, we'll blame this guy instead and the fans will hate him now, not you.  It's not your fault, buttercup".

Looks like AI to me.  Still not convinced it's happening 

1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Martin is in the training ground as we speak

I refuse to believe this.  It's just the most stupid thing ever.  It's all a smokescreen, it must be.

Announce Dyche!

17 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

My main issue with it is that it's a way for government to look like they're doing something about the problem while putting off the harder things that would actually deal with the problem:

• Stop making government announcements on X
• Classify social media companies as publishers
• Enforce regulatory standards and levy huge fines on companies who break them 
• Work with international bodies to develop a worldwide system of social media regulation (challenging while this US administration are in power, but they won't be there forever) 

All decent suggestions.  Maybe something like this will come later on.  I suspect the measures announced today could be the start of more regulation to come.

Unregulated social media is bad.  In the early days it was OK, but time and technology have made it a hotbed for narcissists, liars and idiots.  Something has to change.  Who knows... 20 or 30 years from now it might be under some sort of control, but there's certainly no easy fix.  

7 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

Think you've misread my post. There are two proposals announced today:

 

1. Ban social media for under 16s

2. Prevent 16 and 17 year olds from using social media after 8.30pm

 

The first appears unworkable to me, even if you agree with the objectives. There is emerging evidence from Australia that children and teenagers are simply working around the ban with VPNs, fooling facial age ID checks etc.

The second seems completely illiberal to me because 16 year olds are classed as adults by the state in terms of their (soon to be) voting rights, ability to join the armed forces, freedom to consent etc. 

I don't think anyone sensible would argue that the outcomes you're describing aren't bad for children and young people, and bad for society. The question is how best to address these challenges effectively. 

Ok, yeah I missed the bit about about 16-17 year olds with a curfew.  Seems like a social media "lite" experiment - we'll have to see how it works out.

As for getting around it, of course kids will.  I think in Australia it's around 50% have managed to find a way?  But if it is effective for 50% then that's better than what we have now.  Better to start now and get perfect later, than wait for a perfect solution that will likely never exist.

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I get where you're coming from here, but such arguments (well, the first and third ones anyway) could easily be leveled against people of any age, given what I've seen in terms of social media activity.

 

Don't get me wrong, something has to be done, but this is just one piece of the puzzle and addressing how social media negatively affects everyone, not just kids, is a critical thing to address. 

Yes, people of all ages struggle with it but eventually you have to let adults stand on their own two feet.  We're talking here about protecting children, and actually, the adults who struggle with it are quite possibly of a generation of young adults who have grown up with unfiltered access to all of this stuff.

Personally, I don't think it goes far enough, this is a bit of a halfway house, but it's a step in the right direction.

1 hour ago, izzymuzzet said:

Not a parent so no particular skin in this game but the under 16s social media ban looks unworkable (kids will find a workaround through VPNs etc) and the 16 and 17 year old evening watershed is straightforwardly illiberal - if you're old enough to vote (as 16 year olds soon will be), join the army and get your leg over then you're old enough to decide what you watch and when on the internet. 

 

All this just seems like a distraction from the harder job of properly regulating social media companies, treating them as the publishers that they are and making them responsible for the harmful content that as far as I can tell is poisoning the minds of pensioners as much if not more than teenagers. 

But they're not banning 16 year olds.  It's kids under 16.  Very impressionable, sometimes very young brains that:

- Are susceptible to the harms that bad people do to them online (you were probably told not to talk to strangers, but it's very different now)

- Become over reliant on online relationships and lose key interpersonal skills and they are growing up to be young adults who, in times of difficulty, reach for the virtual world instead of real world relationships.

- Can't handle the effects of dopamine that flood their system.  It's the same chemical that drug addicts and alcoholics get from their vices and their are plenty of controls in place to protect children from them.

2 minutes ago, les-tah said:

Heres a conspiracy theory for you, weve been arse licking Enzo for so long to maintain a good relationship and hes promised us to be a feeder club aslong as we carry on his style of play so thats why they went for russel martin and maximum man city loans a year 

Except that playing for Leicester City in League One under Russell Martin with the players we have will, in now way whatsoever, prepare anyone for playing for Man City in the Premier League and Champions League under Enzo with the players they have.

1 hour ago, kenny said:

They needed to look at smart phones and tablets for children rather than social media imo.

 

Doom scrolling starts with 2 year olds being addicted to dopamine hits from scrolling images and needing constant high stimulation media from a young age. 

 

Social ban will probably do little, but if it moves towards an age ban on smart phones and tablets then it's a good thing.

This 100%. @kenny for PM.

6 hours ago, It'sblueupnorth said:

In fairness I don't think a club should consider fans view for managers or players

They absolutely should.

I'm not saying they should allow the fans to pick the manager.  

There has to be an objective process that scores the candidate against a number of criteria - from playing style and philosophy to bringing through youth players and performance in the transfer market.  One of those criteria must be consideration of the relationship with the fans.

This club is broken.  It needs the board, the manager, the coaches, the players AND the fans to pull in the same direction.  I've never known such resistance to a managerial appointment before the bloke has stepped through the door. 

The club are in full self-destruct mode and need the fans to get behind the decision making.

I watched his final interview when at Rangers on the BBC site.  It's actually really insightful.  He obviously has a very good football brain and knows A LOT about the technical aspects to the game, he was talking about:

1. The need to score more goals

2. The need to concede fewer goals

3. That wins are better than draws, and they need more wins.

Genius.

Nothing to worry about here.

Please come back Gary, all is forgiven!

This is all just a bad dream.  I refuse to accept that this is going to happen until I see a video of him at the training ground, with hands waved in front of his face.  It's just a massive wind up.  Has to be.

1 hour ago, Richmondfox said:

Guess we haven't hit rock bottom.  Our fault for having some faith left. 

We hit rock bottom a while back.  Unfortunately we kept digging and continue to do so.

I can't believe this thread has made it to 4 pages!

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely agree about the great many possibilities, but I'd be curious to know about just one or two plausible outcomes that would "win" a war against Russia on behalf of NATO without nuclear weaponry being used. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from, but I simply don't see how any scenario that's plausible enough to be worth staking a lot of money and indeed the future itself on doesn't end that way. 

I suspect that there are more than a few variables that need sorting out before any kind of accurate prediction as to what a plausible outcome would be and I'm certainly not qualified to venture into such an area.

What I would say though, is this:  I sleep OK at night knowing that there are people who are qualified to deal with such scenarios and they care passionately about it so that it allows me to sleep OK at night.  I also strongly suspect that the better funded they are, the better they can perform at their job and that on a macro scale, more funding for defence = less chance of a war breaking out in the first place, less funding = greater chance of war breaking out, and a much harder fight to come out the other end without pressing the master switch.