Orraloon's Content - Page 4 - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Orraloon

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,256

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Tartan Army Message Board News

Media Demo

Posts posted by Orraloon

    Injury Watch

    in TA specific

    Posted

    10 hours ago, ceudmilefailte said:

    Hickey is a no brairner Patterson has been pathetic that’s were the problem lies. 

    Hickey might be worse than pathetic after three months off. We just don't know yet.

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    14 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

    Taking to X, Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Government Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings said it was not accurate to say that he and colleagues had banned wood burning and biomass heating.

    "This isn't true. I've seen people worried by these claims, thinking they'll be forced to rip out their wood burner! No, you won't," he said.

    "What's changing is rules for new buildings and major conversions applying for a building warrant from this month. It has nothing to do with existing heating systems, or replacements that aren't part of a building conversion. There are exemptions for emergency heating systems too.

    "This is because it's better, easier and cheaper to install clean heating systems from the outset, rather than go back and retrofit later."

    In London, on the other hand, there is not a direct ban….. however there pretty much is.

    Confused about London’s wood burning laws? You’re not alone.

    In the capital, for instance, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, set stringent air pollution limits for new and refurbished buildings, which has impacted the use of traditional wood burners. However, this development has led to increased interest in eco-friendly wood stoves. These advanced stoves are designed to burn wood more efficiently and cleanly, significantly reducing pollution and emissions. They are becoming increasingly popular because they provide a more environmentally responsible way to enjoy the cosiness, character and warmth of a roaring fire while adhering to the new air quality standards set by regulations. 

    The policy doesn’t outright ban wood burners but introduces strict air pollution limits for new and refurbished buildings in London. These limits are set at levels that wood or other solid fuel burners cannot meet. As a result, while there isn’t a direct ban, the effect of the policy is to prevent the installation of conventional wood burners in these buildings due to their contribution to air pollution. This approach focuses on improving air quality and public health by indirectly limiting the use of high-pollution heating methods.

     

     

    Exactly. There is no ban, yet some folk just like to regurgitate unionist propaganda.

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    3 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

    Tbf it was an unusually poor choice of words from him.  I imagine he was quite emotional in the aftermath of coming so close and was probably referring to how important that chance had been.

     

    He didn't say it after the referendum, it was before the referendum. The point of saying it was to emphasise to voters that the Tories had sanctioned this one off opportunity, and we might not get another chance for a long time.

    He wasn't specifying any timescale before we can have another one, just emphasising how important the referendum was. And it wasn't an emotional poor choice of words, after the event. It was written into the "Scotlands Future" document. He was basically saying to voters, not to expect to get a second chance at this as there is no guarantee that Westminster will allow us to have another go. So far he has been proved correct. 

    "557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?

    The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

    It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent."

     

    Season 23/24

    in Football related - Discussion of non TA football

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

    So you are saying if player A kicks the ball full on but on his follow through kicks Player B then thats a foul? Because thats blatantly not correct.

    Whereas in the same scenario, if Player A misses the ball and only kicks player B then that is a foul.

    If the ref deems it to be "careless" or "reckless" it's a foul, whether the ball is touched or not. The laws of the game don't mention "making contact with the ball". The only thing that the ref needs to convince himself of, is, - was the tackle careless? If it was it's a foul, if he decides it wasn't careless it's not a foul.

    Season 23/24

    in Football related - Discussion of non TA football

    Posted · Edited by Orraloon

    16 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

    If the defending player kicks the ball then then follows through onto the attacker then how much contact he makes with the ball 100% matters.

     

    It doesn't matter in determining whether a foul has been committed. It's either a foul or it isn't. Whether a player touches the ball before, during, or after, only comes into play in determining the severity of the foul. The ref can consider that in mitigation when determining the level of intent, and hence it can be used to help him decide if it warrants a yellow or red card, for example. 

    Touching the ball only plays a small role in the refs decision making, and should have no bearing whatsoever in whether a foul has been committed. 

    Season 23/24

    in Football related - Discussion of non TA football

    Posted

    57 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

    Really poor game in terms of quality but action and incident packed.

    I normally like Sutton but having him commentate on this match is pointless as there is the natural bias.

    I thought Rangers penalty was a dive real time. But when you see the replay Silva is caught about the knee. He goes down easy and might have gone down anyway but Sutton just repeatedly said he was already down at the point of contact, even though at the same time you were getting numerous replays showing that wasnt the case. What this did was take away from the other aspect which was how much did Johnstone touch the ball. Unfortunetly Sky didnt even show that part of the replay.

    CCV was the standout for Celtic.

    Tavinear, Goldson and Lawrence were shocking for Rangers who were lucky to get a draw.

    That bit is largely irrelevant. A foul is a foul, it doesn't matter whether the player touches the ball or not. Not that I've seen this one you are talking about, so I've no idea whether it was a foul or not. 

    Indyref 2 (2)

    in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Dave78 said:

     

    I've noticed this seems to drive a lot of the frustration with the current SNP. Old men desperate to see indy before they die, allowing themselves to be manipulated by the culture war into opposing the main vehicle to indy, or even independence itself unless it's on their own narrow terms (as Wings and Thplinth (formerly of this parish) admitted to).

     

    297.png

     

     

    The truth is there's no quick and easy way to indy so soon after bottling our opportunity in 2014. In fact history shows us it's hard to win independence. Like really fucking hard, and usually involves a war. 

    True, the SNP might have secured indyref2 during the brexit turmoil. Doing a deal with Theresa May to get her brexit deal through parliament should have been explored. Might not have been possible, but it was an error by Sturgeon not to explore it.

    To me that was the problem with her: her tactical errors, not that she was a progressive.

     

     

    Another auld guy railing against the SNP. He's obviously an armchair Irish republican. Criticises Sturgeon for bowing down to the English monarch, then ends with an endorsement of the Alba party, led by long-time royalist Alex Salmond? Ok....

    For someone so enamoured with the Irish republic, he'd hate it here, what with all the gender recognition reform that's been in place for years with no big hoo-ha. Or the new bottle deposit return scheme that seems to be working smoothly. Or the incoming hate crime laws....

    It's just the old "divide and rule" tactic. Seems to work most of the time. You would think folk would have sussed this tactic out by now, but no, people just keep on falling for it. Maybe we are too ignorant to be independent?

×
×
  • Create New...