JPB
I used the word poaching the same way you used the word "policy", so whats the difference. You chose to be petty and focus your whole argument on that.
I dont think im wrong at all as they are south african at the end of the day or are they not?
I used the word poaching the same way you used the word "policy", so whats the difference. You chose to be petty and focus your whole argument on that.
I dont think im wrong at all as they are south african at the end of the day or are they not?
=========================
how you not think you are wrong ?
you have accused england of "poaching" "saffas". you have said that they should change this approach. it's you who is engaging in semantics, not me. whether you use the word "approach", "method" or "policy", it makes no difference. either way you are suggesting that england has chosen to select foreigners. as a matter of fact this allegation is baseless. as a matter of fact :
- england have not poached anyone
- england's "saffas" either moved here as children, have always held a british passport, except for pietersen who approached england when he was a bowler.
- the ecb's qualification policy is as strict as the law allows.
your accusation is therefore invalid, whichever word you use to accompany your allegation that england "poaches" overseas players.
and what on earth is your reference to "my argument" ? what argument ? my "argument" that england does not choose to recruit overseas players ? it's not an argument, it's a fact.
it's no more an argument than your allegation that england chooses to "poach" "foreigners" is an argument. that isnt an argument either, it's a falsehood, which is what this whole matter is about.
it's not "petty" to point out that someone has made an erroneous allegation. if you dont want to be told that you have made a false allegation, then dont make a false allegation.
do you think that i have impinged your human rights or something by pointing out that your allegation is baseless ? why dont you run off to brussels and see if youve got a case ? at the same time you can ask them why their laws prevent england from imposing a stricter qualification requirement than they current ly have in place
ok you win.
im wrong and you are right.
i agree with you that players should play in the country where they learn the game.
for this reason, i dont really think that it's right that trott and pietersen are qualified to play for england, but as i understand it, there is nothing that england can do about that.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Kevin guilty of sharing national secret with enemies.
yeah KP should be tried for treason. How dare he divulged such a top secret info that Straussy cant play balls from round the wicket..
strauss
that's nearly as bad as when adam hollioake left one that hit half way up middle
comment by Fasheezy (U14359)
posted 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
I dont think im wrong at all as they are south african at the end of the day or are they not?
_____________________
No. You just have a very ignorant and simplistic view of nationality.
Your nationality is not necessarily defined by your location at the time of your birth, although of course statistically there will usually be a direct link and that's probably why you are getting confused.
Does your relationship to a certain country in terms of sharing common descent, personal development, history, culture, language etc not count if your mother happened to be in a different country at the time of your birth?
Do you have no nationality if you are born on a plane or on a ship in international waters or would whatever country you first hit then count?
How about if your Australian parents were travelling and you were born on those travels when they happened to be in India, before returning back to Oz weeks later, would you be Indian from then on no matter what?
How about if your parents were displaced during a conflict and crossed the border to a safer country, had you and then you all returned home months later after the war to be reunited with the rest of the ancestral family?
How about if your Scottish parents moved to China for a few years because of your fathers diplomatic job, and you were born there, before you all returned to Scotland some short years later to spend the rest of your life? Would you be Chinese or have more of a relationship with Scotland? Should you not consider Scotland your nation and be able to represent them should you wish to? Would it make more sense to represent China?
Obviously perceived nationality can be debated on a case by case basis, and some peoples official nationality can feel, and maybe is, rather suspect due to the existence of other motives or facts, but to simply apply a blanket rule to everyone and then therefore claim their nationality as fact is ignorant in the extreme.
It certainly is when you state Strauss is a South African, no matter what he believes and feels, no matter his ancestry, no matter what his almost life-long relationship is to England apart from the first 6 years of his life, no matter the location of his entire formal education including sporting, his cultural development, indeed his identity.
yeah, i think it's already sorted Pea
Oh well I obviously stamped it home a little late
nice speech anyway
i thought we were at the battle of trafalgar or something for a minute
If KP has done that, there is no way back sadly.
Could you imagine if Wayne Rooney went up to the opposition strikers in the European Cup and advised about our goalkeeper weaknesses.
I have always stuck up for Pieterson, but if this is true - and texts can be traced - He needs to be expelled for good.
Regarding the other usual debate, Strauss and Prior are completrly English. Trott, Pieterson and Kieswetter is scrapping the barrel. Morgsn is wrong too in my opinion. However, one must see where the players hve been coached - In Morgans case, Lords.
On a side note, why do we have so many Saffers in the UK?
im not sure i'd agree about morgan yorkie.
although the team's called england, it's always really been a british isles team.
>>> On a side note, why do we have so many Saffers in the UK?
They got knocked back by Ecuador
Morgan is wrong too in my opinion.
__________________________
On this point I would agree compared to Strauss as Morgan is Irish, doesn't claim to be anything other than Irish, played for Ireland, and switched to the England & Wales Cricket Board team simply because Ireland is an associate member rather a full test playing member of the ICC.
However, I dont think we should feel too bad about this stuff, because our competitors in all sports have been doing this for years as well. I always laugh when the Australians moan about our teams, and yet seem happy to grab any pacific island nation player they can for their rugby team, (as do NZ but they don't get too sanctimonious about us) and if birth place was indeed the pure definition of your nationality, which it isn't as we've discussed, they've had quite a few English born players over the years in their cricket team.
Pea - England bought Ireland from the Pope in 11 hundred and something
Further explanation of my comment on the union of ireland and england. As you will see the Pope formally confirmed in 1555 that the Queen of England and her hiers and successors were the lawful Queen/King of Ireland in accordance with the Crown of Ireland Act of 1541 :
-8000 First inhabitants of the island arrive from scotland (celts)
-100 Gails from scotland invade the island (commencement of pagan gaelic culture)
400 St Patrick tries (and fails) to convert the sparcely distributed Pagan population to catholicism
795-1014 Viking invasion and assimilation with Gaels and into Pagan Gaelic culture
c900 Kingships' form within the island - ulster, lienster, connaght, munster
900-1100+ Kingships at war with one another
1155 Pope issues Laudabiliter requesting the King of England to introduce Catholicism to Ireland and to bring the "uncivilised" inhabitants of the island to order. Laudabiliter grants Lordship of Ireland to the King of England in excahge for annual taxes paid by the English Crown to the Vatican
1169 Strongbow, King of Leinster, reqests the Earl of Pembroke to bring an army to Dublin to fight the King of Munster.
Strongbow and Pembroke's army defeats Munster. Pembroke marries strongbow's daughter and on strongbow's death becomes King of Leinster
Pembroke succesful in increasing Leinster's territory
1171 Henry 2 takes Leinster from the Earl of Pembroke, and forms Lordship of Ireland
1171 - 1541 Lordship of Ireland controls much of the island, as a part of the Kingdom of England, under the reign of the King of England / Lord of Ireland, and spreads catholicism across the island, replacing the gaelic pagan religion
During this time Old English intermarry with Gaels throughout the sparcely populated island
1297 Parliament of ireland introduced in Dublin by the Lord of Ireland/King of England
1531 Henry 8 requires all land (old english and gaelic) to be formally passed to the Crown
1541 Crown of Ireland Act passed and Henry v111 becomes King of Ireland instead of Lord of Ireland
1555 Pope issues a formal written decree that Queen Mary of England and her successors and heirs are the rightful King or Queen of Ireland
1531-1601 Rebellions from gaels and old english against more strongly enforced rule from England. Finished in 1601 when Hugh Oniell, Earl of Tyrone, surrenders to the Queen after fighting alongside the Spanish against the english army
1641 King Charles 1 quells gaelic rebellion in ireland
1648 rebellious gaels wilfully pledge allegiance to the Crown and Charles 1
1649 Cromwell's army attack Charles' army and gaelic supporters in ireland
1660 Monarchy restored in England and Ireland under Charles ii
1707 Act of Union between English and Scottish crowns creates Kingdom of Great Britain and effects a union of the Irish crown with the new British crown.
1800 Act of Union formally merges the Irish and British Crowns
Sign in if you want to comment
KP finished ?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 19/8/12
JPB
I used the word poaching the same way you used the word "policy", so whats the difference. You chose to be petty and focus your whole argument on that.
I dont think im wrong at all as they are south african at the end of the day or are they not?
posted on 19/8/12
I used the word poaching the same way you used the word "policy", so whats the difference. You chose to be petty and focus your whole argument on that.
I dont think im wrong at all as they are south african at the end of the day or are they not?
=========================
how you not think you are wrong ?
you have accused england of "poaching" "saffas". you have said that they should change this approach. it's you who is engaging in semantics, not me. whether you use the word "approach", "method" or "policy", it makes no difference. either way you are suggesting that england has chosen to select foreigners. as a matter of fact this allegation is baseless. as a matter of fact :
- england have not poached anyone
- england's "saffas" either moved here as children, have always held a british passport, except for pietersen who approached england when he was a bowler.
- the ecb's qualification policy is as strict as the law allows.
your accusation is therefore invalid, whichever word you use to accompany your allegation that england "poaches" overseas players.
and what on earth is your reference to "my argument" ? what argument ? my "argument" that england does not choose to recruit overseas players ? it's not an argument, it's a fact.
it's no more an argument than your allegation that england chooses to "poach" "foreigners" is an argument. that isnt an argument either, it's a falsehood, which is what this whole matter is about.
it's not "petty" to point out that someone has made an erroneous allegation. if you dont want to be told that you have made a false allegation, then dont make a false allegation.
do you think that i have impinged your human rights or something by pointing out that your allegation is baseless ? why dont you run off to brussels and see if youve got a case ? at the same time you can ask them why their laws prevent england from imposing a stricter qualification requirement than they current ly have in place
posted on 19/8/12
ok you win.
im wrong and you are right.
posted on 19/8/12
i agree with you that players should play in the country where they learn the game.
for this reason, i dont really think that it's right that trott and pietersen are qualified to play for england, but as i understand it, there is nothing that england can do about that.
posted on 19/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/8/12
Kevin guilty of sharing national secret with enemies.
posted on 19/8/12
yeah KP should be tried for treason. How dare he divulged such a top secret info that Straussy cant play balls from round the wicket..
posted on 19/8/12
strauss
that's nearly as bad as when adam hollioake left one that hit half way up middle
posted on 19/8/12
comment by Fasheezy (U14359)
posted 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
I dont think im wrong at all as they are south african at the end of the day or are they not?
_____________________
No. You just have a very ignorant and simplistic view of nationality.
Your nationality is not necessarily defined by your location at the time of your birth, although of course statistically there will usually be a direct link and that's probably why you are getting confused.
Does your relationship to a certain country in terms of sharing common descent, personal development, history, culture, language etc not count if your mother happened to be in a different country at the time of your birth?
Do you have no nationality if you are born on a plane or on a ship in international waters or would whatever country you first hit then count?
How about if your Australian parents were travelling and you were born on those travels when they happened to be in India, before returning back to Oz weeks later, would you be Indian from then on no matter what?
How about if your parents were displaced during a conflict and crossed the border to a safer country, had you and then you all returned home months later after the war to be reunited with the rest of the ancestral family?
How about if your Scottish parents moved to China for a few years because of your fathers diplomatic job, and you were born there, before you all returned to Scotland some short years later to spend the rest of your life? Would you be Chinese or have more of a relationship with Scotland? Should you not consider Scotland your nation and be able to represent them should you wish to? Would it make more sense to represent China?
Obviously perceived nationality can be debated on a case by case basis, and some peoples official nationality can feel, and maybe is, rather suspect due to the existence of other motives or facts, but to simply apply a blanket rule to everyone and then therefore claim their nationality as fact is ignorant in the extreme.
It certainly is when you state Strauss is a South African, no matter what he believes and feels, no matter his ancestry, no matter what his almost life-long relationship is to England apart from the first 6 years of his life, no matter the location of his entire formal education including sporting, his cultural development, indeed his identity.
posted on 19/8/12
yeah, i think it's already sorted Pea
posted on 19/8/12
Oh well I obviously stamped it home a little late
posted on 19/8/12
nice speech anyway
i thought we were at the battle of trafalgar or something for a minute
posted on 19/8/12
posted on 19/8/12
If KP has done that, there is no way back sadly.
Could you imagine if Wayne Rooney went up to the opposition strikers in the European Cup and advised about our goalkeeper weaknesses.
I have always stuck up for Pieterson, but if this is true - and texts can be traced - He needs to be expelled for good.
Regarding the other usual debate, Strauss and Prior are completrly English. Trott, Pieterson and Kieswetter is scrapping the barrel. Morgsn is wrong too in my opinion. However, one must see where the players hve been coached - In Morgans case, Lords.
On a side note, why do we have so many Saffers in the UK?
posted on 19/8/12
im not sure i'd agree about morgan yorkie.
although the team's called england, it's always really been a british isles team.
posted on 20/8/12
>>> On a side note, why do we have so many Saffers in the UK?
They got knocked back by Ecuador
posted on 20/8/12
Morgan is wrong too in my opinion.
__________________________
On this point I would agree compared to Strauss as Morgan is Irish, doesn't claim to be anything other than Irish, played for Ireland, and switched to the England & Wales Cricket Board team simply because Ireland is an associate member rather a full test playing member of the ICC.
However, I dont think we should feel too bad about this stuff, because our competitors in all sports have been doing this for years as well. I always laugh when the Australians moan about our teams, and yet seem happy to grab any pacific island nation player they can for their rugby team, (as do NZ but they don't get too sanctimonious about us) and if birth place was indeed the pure definition of your nationality, which it isn't as we've discussed, they've had quite a few English born players over the years in their cricket team.
posted on 20/8/12
Pea - England bought Ireland from the Pope in 11 hundred and something
posted on 20/8/12
Tony Grieg what a berk
posted on 23/8/12
Further explanation of my comment on the union of ireland and england. As you will see the Pope formally confirmed in 1555 that the Queen of England and her hiers and successors were the lawful Queen/King of Ireland in accordance with the Crown of Ireland Act of 1541 :
-8000 First inhabitants of the island arrive from scotland (celts)
-100 Gails from scotland invade the island (commencement of pagan gaelic culture)
400 St Patrick tries (and fails) to convert the sparcely distributed Pagan population to catholicism
795-1014 Viking invasion and assimilation with Gaels and into Pagan Gaelic culture
c900 Kingships' form within the island - ulster, lienster, connaght, munster
900-1100+ Kingships at war with one another
1155 Pope issues Laudabiliter requesting the King of England to introduce Catholicism to Ireland and to bring the "uncivilised" inhabitants of the island to order. Laudabiliter grants Lordship of Ireland to the King of England in excahge for annual taxes paid by the English Crown to the Vatican
1169 Strongbow, King of Leinster, reqests the Earl of Pembroke to bring an army to Dublin to fight the King of Munster.
Strongbow and Pembroke's army defeats Munster. Pembroke marries strongbow's daughter and on strongbow's death becomes King of Leinster
Pembroke succesful in increasing Leinster's territory
1171 Henry 2 takes Leinster from the Earl of Pembroke, and forms Lordship of Ireland
1171 - 1541 Lordship of Ireland controls much of the island, as a part of the Kingdom of England, under the reign of the King of England / Lord of Ireland, and spreads catholicism across the island, replacing the gaelic pagan religion
During this time Old English intermarry with Gaels throughout the sparcely populated island
1297 Parliament of ireland introduced in Dublin by the Lord of Ireland/King of England
1531 Henry 8 requires all land (old english and gaelic) to be formally passed to the Crown
1541 Crown of Ireland Act passed and Henry v111 becomes King of Ireland instead of Lord of Ireland
1555 Pope issues a formal written decree that Queen Mary of England and her successors and heirs are the rightful King or Queen of Ireland
1531-1601 Rebellions from gaels and old english against more strongly enforced rule from England. Finished in 1601 when Hugh Oniell, Earl of Tyrone, surrenders to the Queen after fighting alongside the Spanish against the english army
1641 King Charles 1 quells gaelic rebellion in ireland
1648 rebellious gaels wilfully pledge allegiance to the Crown and Charles 1
1649 Cromwell's army attack Charles' army and gaelic supporters in ireland
1660 Monarchy restored in England and Ireland under Charles ii
1707 Act of Union between English and Scottish crowns creates Kingdom of Great Britain and effects a union of the Irish crown with the new British crown.
1800 Act of Union formally merges the Irish and British Crowns
posted on 23/8/12
im a bit bored
Page 2 of 2