Rayvin

Not mincing words there...

Interesting point actually - has anyone with with Trump equivalent politics run for the Presidency in the past?

Tbh, I genuinely believe what I said. I really don't think he cares about us enough to even be spiteful. This notion that anything we do has any bearing on Ashley's decision making is ludicrous IMO. The other thing is that since that interview last summer, everything that has followed in terms of transfers has supported what he said he would do. I mean the alternative is thinking that he could spend money if he wanted to, but is choosing not to at the risk of £100m lost through relegation, because a group of fans have annoyed him...?

It's not personal man, he doesn't care about us enough for that. It's the same thing it was in the summer - he'll only spend what the club has available to spend, and that isn't very much. He's not going to put his own money in anymore, so Rafa needed to sell to buy if anything serious was going to happen at all. Ashley said as much in the summer and while we've considered that relegation will cost him more in the long run, the reality is that as he is actively looking to sell the club, he's not likely to want to throw more money into it. Even if there is a chance of us going down, apparently. It is what it is.

Rocket league for multiplayer you could team up with me and adios.

Its like a microcosm of what feminism did to wages in general this way round though. And the BBC has finite resources i guess. The whole thing is fucking dumb.

The Red Pilling of Andrew continues As for the article: "Everything is racist, everything is sexist, and you have to point it all out" -- Anita Sarkeesian.

It does look a bit "white power"

If they weren't hired basically as escorts, for that purpose, then it was absolutely harassment, is absolutely not their fault, and the hosts and businesspeople there should be ashamed of themselves.

Ok well that's the argument I would be using to avoid being sued then! "Signer didn't have time to memorise everything because we dragged our feet and had to be taken to court before we would agree to go ahead with it" doesn't sound great from a PR standpoint but it should cover them legally assuming they were told by the court that they had to do this. If they just changed their minds separate to the court ruling (or before one was issued), I don't think it will help much. It also doesn't get them out of having to do this for every concert they organise in future...

The Hague can get pretty wild tbf..

That's my understanding of it. Look I don't know for sure though so I'm happy to concede the point, I was really only saying that the company has set a precedent and that it was stupid to do so

I don't know tbh, but interpreters work under these conditions all the time. They'll not need to be word perfect I would think, it'll be about the overall meaning. But ultimately, I would have argued that the whole thing was unreasonable.

Yeah that's a technicality specific to this case tbf. In general I just meant that if a company sets a precedent in demonstrating that it can do something on the basis of 'making a reasonable effort' and then doesn't do so consistently, they're setting themselves up for legal action IMO. I certainly wouldn't have made the same call as them in a similar scenario. It would be all or nothing in this case - or at the very least an explanation out ahead of the fact stating why it had to be like this. Disagree from a legal standpoint, it's an entirely different line of reasoning. You're making an argument for something subjective that I would file under 'quality control', whereas the case being made is about delivery of a service. Why would the signer have had to learn the songs? Why couldn't they just respond as things were being sang as they would do with standard speech in all other cases? But that said yeah, if the company turns around and says we couldn't deliver this for a legitimately good reason then fine. My only point here was that setting a precedent concerning what represents 'reasonable effort', which they have done by providing a signer at short notice, leaves them vulnerable now and in future. Yes it's an act of good faith, but presumably they will now have to do this every time (or at least every time it is requested), since they have set a precedent of what 'reasonable effort' permits them to do. I would have said it was simply an unreasonable thing to do and contested it in court if need be. Probably cheaper in the long run.

That isnt the same line though. The line here is 'can the company claim to have made reasonable effort?' If they are capable of providing an interpreter for one part of the show, what legal defence will be used to explain that it was also beyond them to provide one for the rest of it? The only thing they will be able to point to IMO will be cost. And that is unlikely to get them very far unless the fee for this was utterly astronomical.

The company accepted the premise of her argument by providing the interpreter, so they've opened the door to being sued here IMO.

That goal is amazing I think they make a huge difference. The batmobile is very different to the octane. Octane is far easier to use in the air, batmobile better on the ground for flicks. Depends on your playstyle. And no, as far as i know, no one saves boost on kick off.

Just saw that aye, although I understand the background to that one far less

What the fuck was this about

Cheers man...

Credit where due there for ewerk, that's a comprehensive take down of CT

Struggling a bit with that one, which of my many personality quirks is that poking fun at?

On loan until the end of the season, maybe. Permanent signings doubtful given that there's no real reason to believe that Rafa will be here next season.