matbro1984

I said that to mattbro because he said we crowed. I feel the Welsh crow worse because the Welsh act like their victories mean more because it's some victory for pure rugby. It's this superior attitude which annoys the rest of us.

Absolute bollocks, and I've already addressed why.

as the largest rugby union in the world by a HUGE margin, that is why we and other teams crow when we beat you. You are the biggest, the richest, and have a large number of people to pick from

Nothing to do with a superior attitude. If anything, you should be flattered not annoyed - England clearly are perceived as the team to beat; a benchmark of sorts by which the other nations test themselves.

On a related note, I wonder if any of my rugby-related nominations ended up in the 2011 Twatlist Top 30? Probably not. I nominated Chris Ashton for being an arrogant, showboating nonce. It's 100% pure chippyness but I can't stand the guy. In hindsight though, there probably are more worthy contenders. I stand by the choice of Lawrence Dallaglio though. Surely even the most hardened English fan must think he's a colossal gimp?

Actually, scrap all that. Sonia McLaughlin. She must be blowing someone for the BBC to still be employing her. She knows less than fuck all.

Every year is a grand slam.

I'm sold on the idea. Imagine how cheap the highlight DVDs would be to produce.

Quality trolling btw. I bit.

Jack Whitehall is funny, but he's also a cunt. An interesting dichotomy. I like the list so far. Looking forward to the rest.

I love the Anglocentric media, I also love the also rans thinking they have a place at the big boys table.

Last time I checked the also-rans are 2nd in the table. So, I presume you're an advocate for England breaking away for it's own RBS 1 Nation tournament and leaving the other 5 to flounder in mediocrity?

The RFU is the most dysfunctional organisation in professional sport. If we ever get our shit together, we'll dominate world rugby. According to a young rugby-playing colleague, that will come sooner than many would think.

Can't disagree with that one bit.

Crowing is crowing, warranted or not, and the English and their Media is the worst proponent of it in Rugby Union where a struggling victory over someone like the Argies is seen as a new dawn of the boring dull days of Bumface. With England's large population, large number of registered players, and decent levels of funding you haven't really achieved half as much as you should have, so I don't see any real reason to brag about the place.

I'd argue that Wales should crow when big wins come along. Goodness know you'll barely hear about their wins in the horrendously Anglocentric media, and, let's be fair, they're few and far between.

England can't have it both ways. You can't be "the team to beat" and have a sense of entitlement without nations like Wales taking great delight in beating you when such events come along. It's all relative to how a team presents itself. Is beating France a big deal? Not especially, but the Italians reacted like they'd won the World Cup. Is Wales winning a grand slam a big deal? To us, yes, because until 2005 it hadn't happened since the 70s. You see what I mean?

Compare these statistics.

England. 2549196 registered players;

Wales. 50557 registered players;

Roughly speaking, overall England has 50x the talent pool to choose from. This is misleading though. If you examine the breakdown of pre-teen/teen/adult players, England has 10x the pool of current players to choose from.

Check out the next generations - England have approx 100x the number of registered teenage players that Wales has, and 30x that New Zealand has. In the next decade, England should have no excuse for not being the best side in the world.

I say all this not in criticism of the English system which is clearly getting kids interested in rugby and this talent is being nurtured. It's a shame Wales can't do the same. However, as the largest rugby union in the world by a HUGE margin, that is why we and other teams crow when we beat you. You are the biggest, the richest, and have a large number of people to pick from. You should never be losing to the likes of Wales and Ireland, but you do, relatively regularly. In fact, the stats for the tri-nations respective rugby unions make for interesting comparisons but I'll leave that to someone with a vested interest to examine.

The whinging Irish are such a bunch of chippy, hypocritical cunts. When the ref's decisions favour them, it's all cheeky smiles and "luck of the Irish" rhetoric; when the ref is against them, suddenly they're terribly hard done by. I lost count of the number of things Kaplan missed that benefitted Ireland - 2 obvious knock ons for starters,

Much as I can't stand the crowing English when they win, I can't bring myself to support Ireland after this. I hope England stuff them.

It's ridiculous that they've demanded (and are going to get!) an IRB apology. Perhaps the IRB should also apologise for:

This... not one but TWO perfectly legal tries denied and the Irish win the game

And O'Driscoll getting that try against France in 2001 which he did not ground?

And Bowe's non-try v Italy in 2006?

And Horgan's try against England in 2006 (at the 5:28 mark)?

See what I mean? They need to man the fuck up. More often than not, the referees decisions favour them, and that's not even counting the times they cheat and get away with it. Fuck them.

(Please don't bomb my house.)

Iron Shiek v Warrior and some convention promoter:

Interested to see who the top twats are. I'd have thought Michael McIntyre and Lady Gaga must be ranking fairly highly.

I'm amazed at the John Bishop hate. There are far, far more offensive people worthy of nomination. You could make up a whole top 10 based solely on The X Factor, for example. Cheryl Cole needs to be in this list, I feel my accompanying explanation to her nomination deserves an airing, unless someone has expressed the same sentiment in more eloquent fashion.

I'm surprised not to see more X-Factor related names being thrown about.

My list consisted of 3 people from X Factor, 2 sportsmen, 2 musicians, 1 politician and 2 comedians. A well-rounded twat list I felt.

Just PMed my list. I feel so much better.

Thoughts on this? More Law-Making Powers For Welsh Assembly

I am Welsh, and I voted no. There was a fairly substantial campaign in my area to vote yes, almost entirely from the Plaid Cymru nationalist/socialist mob. The principal arguments being

1. No-one takes us seriously. How will anyone take us seriously if we aren't confident in our own capacity to rule?

2. You're not a patriot if you vote no.

3. Shane Williams is voting yes.

4. English decisionmaking destroyed our Welsh speaking communities and our countryside.

This devolution stuff is all bullshit. We are supposed to be a United Kingdom. Wales and Scotland rely on England for funding; England relies on Wales and Scotland for water, oil and gas. (Not that Wales has the oil and gas reserves, but a fucking enormous pipeline stretches the length of Wales to supply it to England). That is a fairly symbiotic relationship, and it has worked just fine. Now these narrow minded people actually believe that this referendum result is a positive thing. It's anti-English bigotry disguised as nationalism, and it really is the ultimate act of cutting one's nose off to spite a face. If England really cut us loose, we'd be fucked. England can get its resources elsewhere; and what is there of a Welsh economy really? No natural resources to tap, and Thatcher killed off our industries a few decades ago.

Another unconvincing win from Wales. Italy were looking dangerous in that second half but inconsistencies from Italy got Wales off the hook too many times. Man of the Match should have been the ref. Wales's second try was a thing of beauty though.

 

I would say that the mark of a good team is winning when you play badly. But we aren't a good team. The second half was testament to that. I half fancy us against Ireland who are going through a similar phase as us, but the French will muller us.

Ah yes but which France will show up? (To use a cliche)

Another unconvincing win from Wales. Italy were looking dangerous in that second half but inconsistencies from Italy got Wales off the hook too many times. Man of the Match should have been the ref. Wales's second try was a thing of beauty though.

England v France next - this is the match that'll decide the tournament IMO. Can't see anything other than an England win for this, leading to an English Grand Slam. I'd be deliriously happy to be proved wrong though, if only because it would lead to even more Anglocentric coverage of the remainder of the tournament and indeed the World Cup. It's bad enough as it is.

Pfft. You're all wrong. When I have my Reich you'll see, you'll all see...

On a more serious note, this is the General politics discussion thread, not the General politics agreement thread. It is therefore an almost guaranteed outcome that the left-wing and right-wing are going to be butting heads whereas a couple of centrists will agree on the odd point from either side. What I was hoping to see was an occasional bulletproof argument for/against certain issues. Naturally, politics is not that simple, and no argument however logical it is to one person, has caveats in the eyes of others.

What would be nice though is if this could be kept to an actual discussion rather than descending into sarcasm and ridicule. This has been happening of both sides of the arguments and is the reason I too have been lurking rather than contributing. In my case, I'm happy to read someone's counterpoints and respond accordingly and concede the caveats with my POV even where that is a strongly held opinion. However I see little point in responding when I am not afforded the same courtesy i.e. said response is a slightly more eloquently worded "no I'm right, you're wrong lolz!!1!!1".

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

 

Nope. What I'm saying is that this is just another example of the distance in the modern perception of rights versus responsibilities. A person may want a child, but if they can't afford to support it then they should be more responsible than simply having it and expecting government to foot the bill.

 

Generations live on benefit because they see no alternative, while not actually looking for an alternative, and so the problem perpetuates. The problem with making misery bearable is that it doesn't encourage change. Got fags, got booze, got TV = happy. One thing I have learnt is that you cannot change someone who does not want to change. Now, before David jumps in to try and put words into my mouth again, I'm not suggesting for one second that we don't support those who need it. What I am suggesting is that without fostering the attitude that strives for upward mobility, I see no end to the problem.

Very well put.

It's a very, very slippery slope that Yoghurt and Happ are on (though I suspect Happ is on the wind-up as well). Once you start making qualitative decisions on who is or isn't appropriate to have children, you're only 1 or two logical leaps away from eugenics. And in case you think it can't happen, it DID happen within the last 100 years (puts on Glenn Beck voice) in a little place called Nazi Germany.

That's an unfair comparison. You make it sound like it's someone in an office ticking a box and determining who can and cannot have children. It's not that simple. What is being advocated is :

(a) Would-be parents do so because they want children, not because they need children to obtain larger sums in benefits, and

(b) those who have decided to have children are in a position to adequately care for it.

In fact, having read that back, clearly it's part A that's the problem, and is a consequence of tackling the problem of part B. Regardless of whatever spin someone puts on it, it is an undeniable fact that children are being born in the country to parents who view the child as a means to an end. Solving this is not simple, I concede.

In fact, while we're encouraging undesirables like Gypsies not to have children, let's make them more productive to society at the same time. Perhaps we should house them all in some sort of work camp where they can do useful physical labour and contribute properly to society: after all, work makes you free as the saying goes.

So what was your take on this?

You may think that disincentivising poor people not to have children will help reduce the tax burden but the more the make up of the population shifts from young to old the more the ratio of pensioners to non-pensioners will beeven higher than it is now. State Pensions are a huge part of the welfare state and all we'd be doing is increasing the burden of workers to pay for an ever growing pensioner population. We're just storing up further problems for ourselves.

Though it's forward looking, I always find that a myopic argument.

 

If we argue that there need to be four workers to cover one retiree's pension and so we need to make sure that we add workers to the tax-paying stock, what happens decades down the line? Once those people are retired, they will also require four workers to cover their contributions too. In other words, we need to add more and more people to the workforce. And we'll need four workers for every one of them later too. We're talking exponential growth over generations, with all that that entails for resources of food, water, space and so forth.

Ponzi schemes FTW

We need to look at the demographics of people, and identify which socio-economic groups contribute the most, which contribute a fair amount, and which contribute the least. Then we should create policies which encourage the former to have many children, the middle group to have some children and the latter group to have few or no children.

That is mad. What are these socio-economic groups? White people, black people, rich people, poor people, Jews, Muslims, Christians, people who work in shops, people who work in offices, gingers, albinos? Who is going to say that one person's child is less worthy of being born than another person's child? You can't really believe that.

Definitely. Gypsies for example. They should be encouraged not to breed.

Actually you'll find those are the same thing.

Sorry Happ, you've lost me with this one. It pains me to agree with soretooth but this really would just create a culture where clearly some people's children are more worthy of being conceived that others. We already have a policy that is supposed to discriminate roughly along these lines, and that is taxation. All that we should really be asking is that people pay for their own children, without relying on the state. That's a fairly simple and fundamental request.

On a lighter note: Gypsies should be encouraged to breed so future generations can enjoy Channel 4 documentaries at their expense.

I don't know why Happ Hazzard is getting any grief over that comment. It's a perfectly valid statement.

 

Schoolgirls getting themselves up the duff solely as a means to secure themselves a council flat is a pretty widespread problem.

So why are these young girls getting pregnant? Is it to deliberately rob us hardworking taxpayers of our money and get free houses, plasma TVs and so on? Or is it because they come from broken homes, workless families, they have no aspirations, no self-respect, they are under-educated and have no real hope for the future other than that free council flat?

 

So how do we stop their kids from turning out the same as their 16yr old mums and their 32yr old grandmothers? By investing in their futures through child benefit, Sure Start, Bookstart, child tax credits, free activities in libraries, investment in schools, health education, and so on. These are the very things the coalition are taking away. They won't make things better, they will just perpetuate the problem.

 

Human beings won't stop having children, no matter what carrots or sticks you try. All we can do is try to make sure those children have a better future

Deliberate or not, robbing is exactly what it is IMO. What you're doing here though is changing the argument. I don't oppose investment in schools and Bookstart and the like. But, we should be able to make sure kids have a better future without giving young girls a reason to have them in the first place. You say yourself that they have no hope for the future other than that free council flat. Do you not agree that this scenario is itself the problem? Take this away (i.e. the benefit to the parent, not the child), you take away the incentive to have kids if you are ill-equipped to care for one.

What you said before that statement maybe wasn't regurgitated nonsense from the Daily Mail letters page, but what followed certainly was.

 

Get a grip.

Does that mean you disagree with my assessment? Please elaborate on how I've got it wrong. I genuinely don't believe I've overstated it, even if my displeasure at the scenario is apparent.

I don't know why Happ Hazzard is getting any grief over that comment. It's a perfectly valid statement.

Schoolgirls getting themselves up the duff solely as a means to secure themselves a council flat is a pretty widespread problem. Two of my friends work for the council and by and large, they report that new claimants tend to be single mothers, almost exclusively teens or very early twenties.

That's not some regurgitated hyperbole from the Daily Mail, that's just an honest assessment of the status quo from two people in their mid-20s who are in gainful employment - taxpayers with no children - who supervise the free provision of houses (as good as or sometime better than they can afford on their salaries) to girls who are barely out of school, bugger all in the way of meaningful academic qualifications, so whose only tangible achievement in life is to pop out a child solely for the purposes of securing a home for themselves at the taxpayers expense.

I don't advocate the Chinese approach to population control, but by all means lets take away the perks to parenthood and lets see how many young mums are willing to bring Junior into the world if they're picking up the tab themselves.

Has anyone ever vomited in the ring / during a match?

He's a hell of a twat, but George Galloway is giving a great performance on Sky News right now

Two Libyan airforce pilots have landed and claimed asylum in Malta after they were ordered to bomb the protesters. Brave men.

Astounding, and lets hope their colleagues follow suit.