Jump to content

peach0000

Member
  • Post count

    854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

339 Good

About peach0000

  • Rank
    First Team

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,207 profile views
  1. Far too political, surprised it’s allowed. However my suspicion is that they might be a bit worried about something (contracts maybe) so are trying to score points with the king. Not many better ways to do so that advertising their love during a premier league match
  2. I may be wrong but I believe there was actually a foul committed slightly before all the clips show. Fabinho stays on his feat so an advantage of sorts is played, Fabinho then dives and the lineman flags for the earlier offence.
  3. A lot has happened with both of them, plus their various crimes will be forgotten long before their footballing achievements in my opinion.
  4. I reckon history will remember Ronaldo better, purely because he's done it in multiple leagues for multiple clubs.
  5. Taking your points one by one; Zoos - need to be held to a high standard and primarily used for conservation purposes. I personally would prefer a well run safari park environment to a zoo though. Circuses - If they are using animals they should be shut down. Aquariums - as long as the fish are being kept in a spacious and appropriate space and looked after I would not see them as exploitative. However bigger more intelligent animals kept in similar places (orcas for example) should be freed and the institutions shut down. Animal breeding institutions - I would need to research the issue more, I don't want to just jump on a side without knowing what I'm talking about. Butchers - this is where some may see me as hypocritical but I see a distinct difference between keeping animals for food (in good conditions) and exploiting animals for entertainment Humans for sport - free choice, end of These are of course just my views and I know people will disagree and find certain things I say hypocritical, so if I've missed any key points I'd be very happy to consider them.
  6. The ‘what would happen to all the horses’ argument is definitely one that worries me but I’m sure they could be sold off to owners who would give them a great life if there’s legislation put in place to stop them being destroyed. I’m not normally one for animal rights activism but horse racing to me just seems particularly unnecessary.
  7. On the day that a horse died in the grand national I wanted to know does anyone have any legitimate reasons why this barbaric excuse for a sport should be allowed? It's just a disgusting abuse of animals in my opinion.
  8. You're are being overly picky due to an apparent superiority complex you seem to have on this issue. The European Commission acts as the executive, ie the body the proposes the legislation for the European Parliament. Yes you're correct that this body is made up of thousands and thousands of civil servants but it is also run by officials that aren't democratically elected. Where the commission differs from the HoL is in it's primary function, that of proposing legislation which in a normal system is done by the government. The HoL on the other hand just ratifies and amends legislation and has very little power ie if the HoC wants the HoL bypassed then that can happen.
  9. You are totally right, my argument was completely flawed, a slip of the mind lead me to write European Council rather than commission. It's been corrected now though.
  10. I believe agents do have a role to play in the sport. Someone experienced needs to be in the negotiations to stand up for the footballers interests. You have to remember when negotiations are happening they are worth millions of pounds and you'll have a really young footballer negotiating with a billion pound company. It's only fair that the footballer has someone to support them.
  11. Okay so for me it was more an issue of democracy. I don't have any ideological issues against what the EU were trying to achieve just the way they go about it. The main issue that compelled me to vote leave was the role the European Commission plays in setting the agenda for the legislative process in Europe despite not being directly elected by the people of Europe. Further I felt that the way the European Commission is elected (by governments of member states) was wholly floored in the fact that the majority of EU member states will be run by centre right parties. This means that EU member states with differing ideologies in charge of their central government will likely be restricted by the centre right consensus within the European Commission. This to me goes against my values of open democracy. Now what's made me more sure of the position is the lack of consequences we have seen so far. When making my choice I was apprehensive about the economic turmoil that might unfold and to me it has been a lot smoother than I expected. Therefore I'm more sure that I made the right choice in standing by my beliefs. I hope that answered your question.
  12. Voted leave and am even more convinced by it now
  13. I would have to properly dig them out of past papers but if you google it I'm sure you'd find them especially on something like google scholar. Also when I say slight bias I really emphasis the slight, it is really really marginal.
  14. I've read a lot of academic studies on BBC bias and it all tends to suggest that there's actually a slight bias towards leave and right wing politics in general.
×
×
  • Create New...