JonnyF

On 4/24/2025 at 4:44 PM, RayC said:

, it's clear that the Brexit implemented by Johnson is not in the countries' best interests, so any sensible politician would take steps to rectify the situation.

Unless you export to the US of course. 

But hey, nobody does that right?

On 4/24/2025 at 3:43 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I did warn you.

 

It started with Sunak and will continue until the UK retakes its rightful place in the EU.

 

 

 

The EU will be gone within 10 years so they better hurry up. 

On 4/25/2025 at 6:55 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d like to hear more of what you know about this ‘psychological element’ to sport and if you think it differs between men and women.

 

Care to share your knowledge on the matter?

Intelligence, ability to perform under pressure, concentration levels, confidence.

Take away the physical element and men still win. Chess is a good example. 

That's why you ladies need a separate category. Unless of course we get a new sport called gaslighting and getting the last word in an argument. Women could maybe compete in that. 

29 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Johnny, you obviously don't know much about F1. There are plenty of slow drivers plodding about at the back of the field on daddy's sponsorship cash. They're not there for their speed.

So there are no daughters of wealthy sponsors? Why aren't they plodding around? Fact is they cannot compete at the very highest level. 

29 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

 

And your Ronnie Sullivan analogy is daft. 99% of male snooker professionals can't live with Ronnie. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to compete?

I'm saying the best male is far better than the best female. I bet anyone in the men's top 50 would easily beat that woman who made a 147 "in practice". Probably top 100. I remember in tennis the men's number 200 beat Serena Williams easily. 

29 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

 

I actually agree with you in part about the designation of non-mixed sports but not for the reasons you quote. My worry is that mixed participation will dilute people's interest, not that women couldn't compete. If The Masters, say, was 50/50 men and women it wouldn't attract the same interest,  rightly or wrongly. That's just the way people are.  

Yes, they want to see the best of the best at The Masters. The creme de la creme. Not shoehorn in some women for the sake of it. If you want to watch women play they have the women's tour. But the standard is nowhere near. 

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

From the OP:

 

“While transgender women can participate in the mass race as females, Brasher reiterated that only those assigned female at birth are eligible for the elite, championship, and good-for-age women’s events.”

 

 

Makes you wonder why he doesn't just do it across the board if he recognizes the unfairness of it at other levels. 

Seems like he is throwing his toys out of the pram. They are quitting X as well.  😆

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cwynx45gxglo

What a big girl's blouse. 😆

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

I know what I mean. 

 

There have been women drivers competing in F1 since the 50s. They have had limited success because it has not been seen as a sport for women, so they haven't had the sponsorship needed but there is no reason why they can't rival the men in the future. 

They can't get sponsorship because they are not fast enough. 

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

 

Similarly in snooker women compete on an equal basis and a Thai player has recently achieved the highest score of 147. No lack of co-ordination there. 

Impressive for a woman, but that wasn't even in competition.

Jackson Page just made 2 147s in the same match.

Ronnie O'Sullivan has 15 in competitons, including one in just over 5 minutes. 

Not even close to the same level. 

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

 

I'm curious, are you opposed to biological women competing in men's sports?

 

 

Yes. Allowing women to participate just lowers the standard, it's a gimmick for the Woke lobby to salivate over and opens the door for men to compete in and ultimately dominate Women's sport. The categories exist for a reason and should remain separate. 

6 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

How about fat people? 150kg+ events

I think Sumo wrestling takes care of that. 

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

Biological females (sic) compete in the professional snooker, probably the sport most dependent on hand-eye co-ordination. 

 

Moreover biological females can compete in F1, without doubt the most physically demanding of all sports with massive G forces. 

 

 

 

Compete?

I think you mean "participate".

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Obviously the sensible approach.

 

The law as it stands now is perfectly.

Flouting it because you await future potential rulings that may or may not go your way is not a sensible approach.

I'm surprised China would want to risk investing in the mess that the UK has become.

But I guess the two governments have a lot in common now. 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I want 'both options' to be available to everyone

Me too.

Which makes us both anti-cashless.

It really isn't complicated.

Admitting to it doesn't make you a luddite. You don't need to sit in a room of a 20 people in a circle and stand up and say "I'm Richard and I'm anti cashless".    

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

The phrase "not anti-cashless" means that I'm is not opposed to the use of cashless payment systems like cards, mobile payments, or digital wallets -  but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm fully pro-cashless either.

Anti cashless simply means you do not want to see cash disappear completely. 

That doesn't mean you are opposed to digital payments being available as well. Being anti cashless doesn't mean you think everything must be cash 100% of the time. 

So you are anti cashless. Just like me.

Welcome to the club. 

And you're welcome for the clarification of the terms you have been using. Now you can use them properly and stop contradicting yourself.  

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Throughout this thread, from the second comment on this thread - I've stated both options (cash and digital payment) should be available for all customers.

Yes, which makes you anti cashless.

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

 

Why ??? 

 

....are you only capable of a binary approach ???  are you one of those who struggle with a nuane and neglect a balanced perspective instead seeking to label others as either fully for or against ???

 

What is wrong with suggesting that both cashless and digital payments should be an option ????

 

Did you give your response any thought at all ?

On one hand you say you are not anti-cashless (i.e. you think getting rid of cash is OK).

Then you say both cash and digital should be an option (which BTW is my stance since I am very much anti-cashless).  

So which is it? Because if you want both options available like I do, then by definition you are very much anti-cashless.  

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I find myself neither strictly pro-cash nor anti-cashless; I simply believe in a more measured approach that both options always remain available. 

 

I'm pro both cash and digital payments and have repeated through-out this thread that both should be available options.

So you are not anti-cashless, but you are pro both cash and digital? 😆

Quite the position...

Just now, josephbloggs said:

So do you sleep with all of your hard earned cash in a bag under your bed?  Or do you keep it in a bank?

I don't keep large sums in the bank earning a pittance that's for sure. You'd have to be pretty dumb to do that. In the unlikely event you ever lucked yourself into a large sum I'd bet that's exactly where we'd find it though.  😃

Just now, josephbloggs said:

If it is kept in a bank then you can be "turned off" just as easily so that argument is nonsense.

If it was, eventually, yes. But not overnight if cash still exists. If someone froze my bank accounts right now I could survive several months quite easily. 

Just now, josephbloggs said:

(And often I wish someone would turn you off, but that's another story).

Well it would have to be someone else since you'd have no chance. 😆

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Yes, the economic benefits of Brexit are plain for all to see. Only a fool would seek to reverse them🤦

Clearly, like most Remainers you have no respect for Democracy. 

But we already knew that. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Bias - how many times are you stuck behind 'some old granny' ???...   

Well, I can never be sure if they have grandchildren, but slow people? quite often. Quite a few people seem to struggle with it. I prefer the system in the UK where you just hold the card up to the machine. Tap and Go. Far superior to the QR code phone app nonsense.  

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

More often than not, its someone who just flashes their QR code, or scans a QR and make payment faster than dealing with cash...   

Showing your bias again.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I agree...   I believe we should never lose cash, so from the perspective of 'use it or lose it' I would vote to always maintain the option of 'cash payments'  and I think thats a strong enough argument on its own.

Which was my main point. I am not against Tap and Go, but cash needs to remain an option. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

.... All the other arguments used against digital payment can be so readily picked apart they weaken the argument rather than contribute any additional validity or strength to the points being made (your 'granny argument' being a perfect example).

 

Strawman. I'm not against digital payments (if they are implemented right). I actually like Monzo cards where you can put a couple of hundred quid on it for a night out and so if you lose it then it's no big deal, unlike losing a bank a credit card. 

I am against removing cash as an option.