Ready for the flak........but why oh why does the club give A Campbell the platform he gets.....

Hopefully if there is a takeover that,ll be the end of him...

Not an attack so no need to take cover, but I for one found his latest book "Living Better" very helpful. On the couple of occasions I've been near him at a match he's been OK too. His life outside football is just that.

Deleted

Jimmymaccer wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:33 am

Ready for the flak........but why oh why does the club give A Campbell the platform he gets.....

Hopefully if there is a takeover that,ll be the end of him...

There are a lot more odious Clarets on this forum than Campbell.

I have always found him to be reasonable on the odd time I've talked to him

RammyClaret61 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:28 am

There are a lot more odious Clarets on this forum than Campbell.

Pretty sure that no one on here has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions and the destabilising of an entire region.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:57 am

Pretty sure that no one on here has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions and the destabilising of an entire region.

I'm not. Far from it.

We have a choice who we hand over the controls to...and us plebs simply love a good warmonger.. the Maggies and the Blairs....or the Trumps.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:18 am

I'm not. Far from it.

We have a choice who we hand over the controls to...and us plebs simply love a good warmonger.. the Maggies and the Blairs....or the Trumps.

What wars have Margaret Thatcher and Donald Trump started exactly?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:57 am

Pretty sure that no one on here has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions and the destabilising of an entire region.

What has the Anglo-French stitch up of the Middle East after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire post 1918 got to do with Alistair Campbell not to mention the carve up of Palestine after the second world war?

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:55 am

What has the Anglo-French stitch up of the Middle East after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire post 1918 got to do with Alistair Campbell not to mention the carve up of Palestine after the second world war?

Those have nothing to do with him, as you well know.

However to claim that there are worse people on here than Campbell is just laughable.

Nothing personal,
I just hope he's a better narrator than he is a co-commentator

Woodleyclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:39 am

I have always found him to be reasonable on the odd time I've talked to him

Me too ....
We sat almost next to each other at Portsmouth quite a few years ago ... I had been sat near him for about 20 minutes at Fratton park before I realised exactly why I recognised him ...

We walked back to the station together for the Train back up to Waterloo. We chatted about all things BFC, and he was just a normal everyday Claret fan not the uber-political ****hole you would expect at all.

Several times since, I have seen him at away games, and he nods and acknowledges me

Always found him to be a passionate Claret and never covers any other topics during match day conversations.

Any of us at a football match could be sat near a drug pusher, thief, child abuser et al.

JohnMac wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:23 am

Always found him to be a passionate Claret and never covers any other topics during match day conversations.

Any of us at a football match could be sat near a drug pusher, thief, child abuser et al.

I know for a fact that many thieves and drug pushers attend football games

Jimmymaccer wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:33 am

Ready for the flak........but why oh why does the club give A Campbell the platform he gets.....

Hopefully if there is a takeover that,ll be the end of him...

Gotta admire your optimism....Somebody like Campbell will end up being the new boards (If this ever happens) mouthpiece. He will do what he’s good at, and ‘spin’ himself into a really good position. I’m sure there will be plenty who reckon he’s good as far as being around the club is concerned, but because of who he is and what he’s done in the past, I’d be inclined to distrust him entirely.
Put it this way, if he shook my hand I’d count my fingers as he was leaving.

Always came across as very pleasant to me, whenever i have passed him going to the Turf he always smiled and nodded or said hello.
He is certainly no fool and has held down a couple of high profile jobs.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:11 am

What wars have Margaret Thatcher and Donald Trump started exactly?

Standard definition of warmonger..

"" a person who encourages or promotes aggression towards other countries or groups""

You'd seriously contend that neither Trump or Thatcher did this?
If so you're turning into Ringo. Keep it real Rowls.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:54 am

Standard definition of warmonger..

"" a person who encourages or promotes aggression towards other countries or groups""

You'd seriously contend that neither Trump or Thatcher did this?
If so you're turning into Ringo. Keep it real Rowls.

Are you referring to the miners who'd been striking for over a decade along with the support of other unions?

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:54 am

Standard definition of warmonger..

"" a person who encourages or promotes aggression towards other countries or groups""

You'd seriously contend that neither Trump or Thatcher did this?
If so you're turning into Ringo. Keep it real Rowls.

A better definition is someone who wants to start a war, or starts a war. I despise Trump but there are many, many more world leaders who have fitted that definition than Trump.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:54 am

Standard definition of warmonger..

"" a person who encourages or promotes aggression towards other countries or groups""

You'd seriously contend that neither Trump or Thatcher did this?

OK, take that definition and give me an example of Margaret Thatcher or Donald Trump promoting aggression.

My pigeons/ chess alarm just went off.

Thatcher orderd the sinking of the General Belgrano when it was outside the exclusion zone steaming away from the Falklands. If this was not an act of aggression then I don't know what is.

fzr162 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:05 pm

Thatcher orderd the sinking of the General Belgrano when it was outside the exclusion zone steaming away from the Falklands. If this was not an act of aggression then I don't know what is.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 5/uk.world

Awkward

He's a Claret and a passionate one too. Not really arsed about the rest because it's been done to death on here, by the same people too.

I don't like a lot of the stuff he was involved in with Blair.
But on the couple of times I've had a few words with him, he's been fine. Loved his enthusiasm of all things Claret, which is shared.

Blair was the leader and had the love-in with GWB to facilitate his post parliamentary position in the USA. Campbell was his spin doctor who spun whatever he was given and very successfully. To blame Campbell for Americas hatred of anything that isn’t to America's advantage is a bit far fetched.

huw.Y.WattfromWare wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:35 pm

Blair was the leader and had the love-in with GWB to facilitate his post parliamentary position in the USA. Campbell was his spin doctor who spun whatever he was given and very successfully. To blame Campbell for Americas hatred of anything that isn’t to America's advantage is a bit far fetched.

He doesn't get blamed for that though.

Campbell rightly gets blamed for the sexed up dossier that was used to help the lies told by Blair and take us into Iraq under false pretences.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:11 am

What wars have Margaret Thatcher and Donald Trump started exactly?

Thatcherwoman engineered the Falklands, to avoid election defeat like no other.

Trump sacrificed the Kurds to the Turks and others.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:01 pm

Thatcherwoman engineered the Falklands, to avoid election defeat like no other.

Wait, what?

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:01 pm

Thatcherwoman engineered the Falklands, to avoid election defeat like no other.

Trump sacrificed the Kurds to the Turks and others.

" hi, is that the Argentine president...its Maggie here,look, Iam really struggling in the polls, any chance you can invade the Falklands...we'll kill a load of your soldiers and it'll get me re elected.....thanks"

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:01 pm

Thatcherwoman engineered the Falklands, to avoid election defeat like no other.

Trump sacrificed the Kurds to the Turks and others.

Now that is a conspiracy theory and a half Ian

Thatcher declared war on the Northern working class.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:01 pm

Thatcherwoman engineered the Falklands, to avoid election defeat like no other.

Trump sacrificed the Kurds to the Turks and others.

Someone’s hacked your account.... hopefully....

Thatcher’s government weakened the Falklands enough to embolden the Argentine government to attack. I don’t think she did this purposely, as taking the islands back was by no means a guarantied thing, but it remains her failure.

Turning the police on the miners showed a willingness to employ violence for her political purpose. Calling fellow citizens “the enemy within” was using charged and inflammatory language, much like the government still do now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-rhetoric

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:52 pm

Thatcher’s government weakened the Falklands enough to embolden the Argentine government to attack. I don’t think she did this purposely, as taking the islands back was by no means a guarantied thing, but it remains her failure.

Turning the police on the miners showed a willingness to employ violence for her political purpose. Calling fellow citizens “the enemy within” was using charged and inflammatory language, much like the government still do now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-rhetoric

I wish she was in charge now...there would be no mixed, or poor messages for sure.

Some real poor fishing and some dreadful "I was fishing" excuses popping up here.

Have yourself a fun time, folks.

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:52 pm

Thatcher’s government weakened the Falklands enough to embolden the Argentine government to attack. I don’t think she did this purposely, as taking the islands back was by no means a guarantied thing, but it remains her failure.

Turning the police on the miners showed a willingness to employ violence for her political purpose. Calling fellow citizens “the enemy within” was using charged and inflammatory language, much like the government still do now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-rhetoric

The miners had been striking for nearly 2 decades...

What would you suggest the best way to stop militant unions to be?

Interesting it started with Campbell and ended up with Marmite Thatcher

Politics aside he has always talked about Burnley FC and our fans very positively and has contributed more than most in improving the profile of the club.
Away from football he has also done a lot for men’s mental health and talked openly about his own problems and his coping mechanisms etc.

And I get that in his case it’s very difficult to put politics aside but I do think in the 2 above areas he has made really positive contributions.

Grumps wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:34 pm

" hi, is that the Argentine president...its Maggie here,look, Iam really struggling in the polls, any chance you can invade the Falklands...we'll kill a load of your soldiers and it'll get me re elected.....thanks"

You more or less have it!
If Argentina had been really serious, there is no way British forces could have retaken a wee island, so far from home. Just had to make it look good.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:49 pm

Politics aside he has always talked about Burnley FC and our fans very positively and has contributed more than most in improving the profile of the club.
Away from football he has also done a lot for men’s mental health and talked openly about his own problems and his coping mechanisms etc.

And I get that in his case it’s very difficult to put politics aside but I do think in the 2 above areas he has made really positive contributions.

He’s got hell of a lot of repentance to make up for.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:26 pm

You more or less have it!
If Argentina had been really serious, there is no way British forces could have retaken a wee island, so far from home. Just had to make it look good.

You're really bored tonight aren't you?

The Argies were ill-equipped and ill prepared to firstly invade Argentina and secondly defend it from the British army retaking it.
I think the Argie armed forces were only given a few hours notice to prepare.

Our armed forces were better trained, equipped and more professional and clearly didn't **** about.
My dad was in the army back then and he said the squaddies were queueing up to get deployed there.

Its clear you don't like Maggie but your drivel is just hilarious tonight.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:26 pm

You more or less have it!
If Argentina had been really serious, there is no way British forces could have retaken a wee island, so far from home. Just had to make it look good.

You’re off your rocker.

Always makes me laugh when any northerner supports the tories, but particularly Thatcher.

You do know she ****** the north up the arse, don't you?

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:25 pm

Always makes me laugh when any northerner supports the tories, but particularly Thatcher.

You do know she ****** the north up the arse, don't you?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... d-economic

Well balanced article here, showing that the North was neglected by both Maggie and Blair, but issues were there prior to Maggie taking charge.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:36 pm

You're really bored tonight aren't you?

The Argies were ill-equipped and ill prepared to firstly invade Argentina and secondly defend it from the British army retaking it.
I think the Argie armed forces were only given a few hours notice to prepare.

Our armed forces were better trained, equipped and more professional and clearly didn't **** about.
My dad was in the army back then and he said the squaddies were queueing up to get deployed there.

Its clear you don't like Maggie but your drivel is just hilarious tonight.

The Argentinians didn’t expect Britain to attempt retaking the islands. Why else would they also invade South Georgia? A place Argentina never claimed, and beyond the range of their airforce to defend.

Us winning was no foregone conclusion. It wasn’t a simple task at all, with the success hinging on us not losing too many ships. Had the islands been properly defended in the first place no invasion would have taken place. That was the real failure, but just as they’ve always done in power, the Tories were too busy cutting spending and cutting taxes for the rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec ... -falklands

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:48 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... d-economic

Well balanced article here, showing that the North was neglected by both Maggie and Blair, but issues were there prior to Maggie taking charge.

What Thatcher did in the north was ideological. A wise and good government could have achieved the same results of managing the decline of coal, and industry by having a plan of replacing them, but Thatcher left it all to the free market. If you walk into a town dependent on a particular industry and tell them it’s closing down, of course you’ll have strife. But if you go into that town and say “we need to diversify here, because we’re too dependent on this industry” then you’ve started a conversation.

Blair largely continued Thatcher’s Neo liberal economic policies. He didn’t re-empower the unions, nor tax the rich more, nor regulate the banks properly (which led to the financial crisis), nor stick to the promised ethical foreign policy (look up who voted for and against the Iraq War).

Now, what is the current government doing to benefit the north? Northern Powerhouse - okay, some local autonomy, which has been trodden all over with the pandemic. What else? Levelling up money, that the minister in charge has already dipped into to help his own constituency (which falls outside the top 100 most needy areas)? Setting up a PPE factory? They’ve wasted that money on two-Bob companies unable to actually provide it. Track and trace? With a budget of £12.3 Billion you’d think it might provide jobs in the north. But it all went to private companies who ran an excel spreadsheet badly. What are they doing for the north?

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:58 pm

The Argentinians didn’t expect Britain to attempt retaking the islands. Why else would they also invade South Georgia? A place Argentina never claimed, and beyond the range of their airforce to defend.

Us winning was no foregone conclusion. It wasn’t a simple task at all, with the success hinging on us not losing too many ships. Had the islands been properly defended in the first place no invasion would have taken place. That was the real failure, but just as they’ve always done in power, the Tories were too busy cutting spending and cutting taxes for the rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec ... -falklands

Maybe, just maybe, consider the damage done to the countries economy in the 70's by the militant unions.

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:47 pm

What Thatcher did in the north was ideological. A wise and good government could have achieved the same results of managing the decline of coal, and industry by having a plan of replacing them, but Thatcher left it all to the free market. If you walk into a town dependent on a particular industry and tell them it’s closing down, of course you’ll have strife. But if you go into that town and say “we need to diversify here, because we’re too dependent on this industry” then you’ve started a conversation.

Blair largely continued Thatcher’s Neo liberal economic policies. He didn’t re-empower the unions, nor tax the rich more, nor regulate the banks properly (which led to the financial crisis), nor stick to the promised ethical foreign policy (look up who voted for and against the Iraq War).

Now, what is the current government doing to benefit the north? Northern Powerhouse - okay, some local autonomy, which has been trodden all over with the pandemic. What else? Levelling up money, that the minister in charge has already dipped into to help his own constituency (which falls outside the top 100 most needy areas)? Setting up a PPE factory? They’ve wasted that money on two-Bob companies unable to actually provide it. Track and trace? With a budget of £12.3 Billion you’d think it might provide jobs in the north. But it all went to private companies who ran an excel spreadsheet badly. What are they doing for the north?

Labour closed more mines than Maggie ever did, but that is never really discussed...

We seem to both agree that Labour under Blair carried on the stitch up of the North yet people seemingly still vote for Labour cos of what Maggie did

As for the North, it became reliant on EU handouts, meaning successive London orientated governments didn't need to bother lifting much of a finger.
The interesting times will start now we are out of the EU and for the first time in decades a London based government will have to look after the whole country.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:24 am

Maybe, just maybe, consider the damage done to the countries economy in the 70's by the militant unions.

Militant unions? Why didn’t you reply to my other post that dealt with that subject? The post in which I pointed out that she wrecked the economy and lives of many people and places by killing their jobs and offering them nothing to replace it?

You blame the unions, who were looking out for their members. Yet thatcher planned and fought a war against them.

As for the Falklands War, she wasted lots of money and lives fighting to take them back, when her own cuts lost them. Where is the sense in that?