comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 JA... (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 35 seconds ago
Why is it a disgrace?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest disgrace is that by 2038 the UK will not have held a World Cup for 72 years,

Given that one thing the UK is very good at is hosting these kinds of events.

Sadly the UK isn't good at being as corrupt as FIFA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since England last had it Mexico will have had it three times and the US and Germany will have had it twice. It is rather strange England hasn't had it and don't look like having it soon either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3 out of 9 euros softens the blow
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1996 - host nation
2020 - one of 11 host nations

How did you make that add up to three times?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

England had six home games and a neutral site venue. It doesn't get any closer to having the advantage of a host nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not the same as being the host nation. But even if you count that, 1+1 still only adds up to 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And 2028. We shall see but I bet England are at home throughout. No other nation has had such a leg up in Europe before.

comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Cinciwolf-----JA606 NFL fantasy champ 2023 (U11551)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Fred Slot (U3979)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Fred Slot (U3979)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 33 seconds ago
whut temps is it in S Arabia in June n Julie?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much warmer than Dallas where the 2026 world cup semi final will be held.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish. Dallas up to mid 30s average whereas Saudi is into the 40s

Another winter WC beckons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you on about? Dallas tops 100F most days in the summer, it's exceedingly hot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As a resident living in Arizona with temps of a 100+ for 140-150 days a year I have concluded most people are just poosies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona was snowing the last time I went
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah the north gets snow. Grand Canyon etc. Its an amazing state with almost low desert and also high mountains and the largest ponderosa forest in the world. Our place looks straight out to 7500 ft peaks which occasionally get snow on them.

England halve play bye, pho moor internashnul turnyment games at Wembley than any uther nation has play atta single venue

comment by BerbaKing11
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 3 minutes ago
In the UK 4.3 million children live in "relative poverty." How can we allow such inequality to take hold while taking the moral high ground over the Middle East regarding alleged breaches of safeguards? We simply can't. Our history reveals far greater failures, the stance by some on JA is therefore highly hypothetical and disappointing but not surprising!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not sure this particular line of argument works given that child poverty in Saudi Arabia is likely far greater than in the UK.

All countries have economic issues that result in things like child poverty and such like. There’s no doubt that Saudi’s internal human rights record is awful, and there’s no real comparison between that and our own internal human rights record. Where the discussion does get muddied is as I described several posts back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While protections may be greater here, the fact that child poverty persists in 21st Century UK is even more damning. Those quick to throw around accusations of safeguarding failures in other regions often fail to recognise, perhaps out of ignorance, the inequality in their own country. This reflects the common tendency to view the UK or the West as a perfect model, when, as you suggest, every country has room for improvement. Acknowledging our own inequalities is the first crucial step in addressing them. If we are aware of own inequalities we tend to throw around casual comments far less. As I mentioned to RR, my view is that ethics should not be used as a way to shut down discourse, but rather to make it more engaging.

52, please can you explain this statement:

"What a fecking disgrace the world cup is going there."

😊

Saudi is much more open for overseas folks these days at least. My best buddy is going out for the fight in a few weeks, wanted me to go but the missus doesn't like me going to new countries without her

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 3 minutes ago
In the UK 4.3 million children live in "relative poverty." How can we allow such inequality to take hold while taking the moral high ground over the Middle East regarding alleged breaches of safeguards? We simply can't. Our history reveals far greater failures, the stance by some on JA is therefore highly hypothetical and disappointing but not surprising!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not sure this particular line of argument works given that child poverty in Saudi Arabia is likely far greater than in the UK.

All countries have economic issues that result in things like child poverty and such like. There’s no doubt that Saudi’s internal human rights record is awful, and there’s no real comparison between that and our own internal human rights record. Where the discussion does get muddied is as I described several posts back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While protections may be greater here, the fact that child poverty persists in 21st Century UK is even more damning. Those quick to throw around accusations of safeguarding failures in other regions often fail to recognise, perhaps out of ignorance, the inequality in their own country. This reflects the common tendency to view the UK or the West as a perfect model, when, as you suggest, every country has room for improvement. Acknowledging our own inequalities is the first crucial step in addressing them. If we are aware of own inequalities we tend to throw around casual comments far less. As I mentioned to RR, my view is that ethics should not be used as a way to shut down discourse, but rather to make it more engaging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK can't say anything about the Saudi's treatment of both the LGBTQ community and anyone who disagrees with the Saudi regime because of (Tory austerity enforced) child poverty in the UK.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 17 minutes ago
I don’t think alcohol is a particularly big issue in isolation, after all you should respect the laws and culture when travelling.

But a lot of their laws simply don’t align with western values, which again, is their choice but such events shouldn’t be held there imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s difficult to have a coherent conversation about this issue because Saudi Arabia is a major recipient of UK arms, UK diplomatic support, joint military & RAF training, operational support in its wars (in Yemen for eg), parliamentary support and we have at least 10 personnel (that we know of) embedded in the Saudi National Guard. Saudi Arabia also invests significantly in the UK.

So what are these “Western Values” that are so incompatible with Saudi Arabia if our own governments are, in every conceivable way, complicit in the human rights violations of countries like Saudi Arabia (not to mention our own wars of aggression and so on&hellip?

I’m not a fan of the idea of countries like this hosting these sorts of international events and I agree with criticisms around the issue of sportswashing, but I also cannot see how any serious discussion on the matter can take place without first and foremost addressing our own role in the world as a nation. On human rights & international conduct grounds, we have the least right of anyone in the world other than the US to host international events. Human rights within the UK are drastically superior to inside Saudi, but our conduct outside of our own borders makes Saudi Arabia look like Disneyland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
spot on as usual

The UK can't say anything about the Saudi's treatment of both the LGBTQ community and anyone who disagrees with the Saudi regime because of (Tory austerity enforced) child poverty in the UK.

--

The UK can address matters involving Sharia law but often chooses not to, as these issues are culturally and religiously sensitive. Islam recognises a biological man and biological woman, who procreate in support of humankind, and anything outside of this is seen as incompatible. Challenging this is fundamentally questioning aspects of the holy scripture. That's the issue.

Whatever your views on Saudi hosting, what is a fuсking disgrace is the downright stupidity and arrogance of the man who had the audacity to write below.

"It does not matter what was decreed by Infantino and his many stooges on Wednesday. If little more than six countries refused to participate, the World Cup would be done. If Germany, England, Italy, France, Spain and Brazil were not there, the tournament would have no worth."

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
Whatever your views on Saudi hosting, what is a fuсking disgrace is the downright stupidity and arrogance of the man who had the audacity to write below.

"It does not matter what was decreed by Infantino and his many stooges on Wednesday. If little more than six countries refused to participate, the World Cup would be done. If Germany, England, Italy, France, Spain and Brazil were not there, the tournament would have no worth."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair he got five out of six right. Switch out England for the world champions Argentina and it makes more sense.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 7 minutes ago
The UK can't say anything about the Saudi's treatment of both the LGBTQ community and anyone who disagrees with the Saudi regime because of (Tory austerity enforced) child poverty in the UK.

--

The UK can address matters involving Sharia law but often chooses not to, as these issues are culturally and religiously sensitive. Islam recognises a biological man and biological woman, who procreate in support of humankind, and anything outside of this is seen as incompatible. Challenging this is fundamentally questioning aspects of the holy scripture. That's the issue.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above has what to do with the world cup and spectators being able to go without fear of prejudice or possible imprisonment based onsexuality?

comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 10 minutes ago
Whatever your views on Saudi hosting, what is a fuсking disgrace is the downright stupidity and arrogance of the man who had the audacity to write below.

"It does not matter what was decreed by Infantino and his many stooges on Wednesday. If little more than six countries refused to participate, the World Cup would be done. If Germany, England, Italy, France, Spain and Brazil were not there, the tournament would have no worth."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that’s a stupid and arrogant thing to say

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 7 minutes ago
The UK can't say anything about the Saudi's treatment of both the LGBTQ community and anyone who disagrees with the Saudi regime because of (Tory austerity enforced) child poverty in the UK.

--

The UK can address matters involving Sharia law but often chooses not to, as these issues are culturally and religiously sensitive. Islam recognises a biological man and biological woman, who procreate in support of humankind, and anything outside of this is seen as incompatible. Challenging this is fundamentally questioning aspects of the holy scripture. That's the issue.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above has what to do with the world cup and spectators being able to go without fear of prejudice or possible imprisonment based onsexuality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The rules are clear in all Middle Eastern countries: adhere to the law. It doesn’t matter whether you are straight or otherwise; as long as you follow the rules, you won’t face issues.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 46 minutes ago
52, please can you explain this statement:

"What a fecking disgrace the world cup is going there."

😊
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article explains it far better than I can. But it is corrupt, they have absolutely no footballing history,
their human rights record is appalling.
It's solely for money that they will have it.

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 46 minutes ago
52, please can you explain this statement:

"What a fecking disgrace the world cup is going there."

😊
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article explains it far better than I can.
It's solely for money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s face it, so is the PL these days.

But you are right it’s quite an awful decision

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 46 minutes ago
52, please can you explain this statement:

"What a fecking disgrace the world cup is going there."

😊
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article explains it far better than I can. But it is corrupt, they have absolutely no footballing history,
their human rights record is appalling.
It's solely for money that they will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you measure Saudi Arabia's corruption compared to, say, the UK? Are you referring to official metrics, or are you relying on perception as a basis for comparison? I'm intrigued.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 7 minutes ago
The UK can't say anything about the Saudi's treatment of both the LGBTQ community and anyone who disagrees with the Saudi regime because of (Tory austerity enforced) child poverty in the UK.

--

The UK can address matters involving Sharia law but often chooses not to, as these issues are culturally and religiously sensitive. Islam recognises a biological man and biological woman, who procreate in support of humankind, and anything outside of this is seen as incompatible. Challenging this is fundamentally questioning aspects of the holy scripture. That's the issue.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above has what to do with the world cup and spectators being able to go without fear of prejudice or possible imprisonment based onsexuality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The rules are clear in all Middle Eastern countries: adhere to the law. It doesn’t matter whether you are straight or otherwise; as long as you follow the rules, you won’t face issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For instance, you should be bound by laws such as prohibition of murder in Saudi Arabia, which is punishable by death. Unless you intend to murder e.g. Jamal Khashoggi.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 46 minutes ago
52, please can you explain this statement:

"What a fecking disgrace the world cup is going there."

😊
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article explains it far better than I can. But it is corrupt, they have absolutely no footballing history,
their human rights record is appalling.
It's solely for money that they will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you measure Saudi Arabia's corruption compared to, say, the UK? Are you referring to official metrics, or are you relying on perception as a basis for comparison? I'm intrigued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't compare them. I just say that the wc going there is based on money.

How do you measure Saudi Arabia's corruption compared to, say, the UK? Are you referring to official metrics, or are you relying on perception as a basis for comparison? I'm intrigued.

….

You are coming off like an utter tw@t Plumpy.

I am sure 52 is aiming his corruption comment more at FIFA than the Saudi’s. And let’s not pretend the Saudis are not involved in the passing of full envelopes of cash.

It's solely for money that they will have it.

----------------------------------------------------------

If they came out and said so, it wouldn't be quite so galling. But they want that petro-oligarchy money, and at the same time they want us to take them seriously when they talk about football being a family in which everyone is welcome. Sometimes you have to make choices. Football can either be an inclusive space in which gay people are welcome to participate or it can sell itself to a state that executes gay people. It can't be both.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 5 seconds ago
How do you measure Saudi Arabia's corruption compared to, say, the UK? Are you referring to official metrics, or are you relying on perception as a basis for comparison? I'm intrigued.

….

You are coming off like an utter tw@t Plumpy.

I am sure 52 is aiming his corruption comment more at FIFA than the Saudi’s. And let’s not pretend the Saudis are not involved in the passing of full envelopes of cash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, be quiet. Let 52 speak for himself, he’s not your puppet.

You are coming off like an utter tw@t Plumpy.

—

Not like him at all

Two morons, joined at the hip, have arrived! 🤣

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 46 minutes ago
52, please can you explain this statement:

"What a fecking disgrace the world cup is going there."

😊
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article explains it far better than I can. But it is corrupt, they have absolutely no footballing history,
their human rights record is appalling.
It's solely for money that they will have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you measure Saudi Arabia's corruption compared to, say, the UK? Are you referring to official metrics, or are you relying on perception as a basis for comparison? I'm intrigued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Official metrics do, of course, conclude that Saudi Arabia is considerably more corrupt than the UK. And these metrics are confined to looking at corruption in a narrow sense. They are not assessing things like the absolute ruler facing no investigation or domestic media exposure, let alone prosecution, after being exposed internationally as the murderer of a dissident.