Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  




+ www.altyfans.co.uk » Profile of Hugh » Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hugh

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 54
Altrincham FC First Team / Re: News..
« on: January 07, 2022, 05:40:42 AM »
Hope he has full vaccination

Get in the OT with me! :)

(Hope he doesn't...  though personally I agree with Joey Barton and would hate to miss out on a good player over his medical choices.


At least he wouldn't be banned like Djokovich anyway!)

Altrincham FC First Team / Re: News..
« on: January 07, 2022, 05:38:18 AM »
Knows Phil, great pedigree to get in county championship side, sign for fleetwood and then sign for the league again.

Hulme listed on stockport forum as tomorrows signing. will judge that in 4 weeks after hes scored 3.

Well if he’s a decent cricketer that always puts someone up in my estimation 👍

Get in the off topic with Hugh.

Going to tell B.4D too or have you got double standards as well? There's been loads of OT on here for years, lad. It's not likely to change until people start taking the other forums seriously like Chester "City" fans do. Anyway, by rights, most of my OT posts should probably be on here, that business probably has quite a lot to do with Altrincham F.C. first team at the moment. Yes, and we used to have a fair bit of OT talk on the supporters' coach too. They were fairly lax about it. (We used to have booze on it too believe it or not - those were the days!).

P.S. Graham Heathcote also liked his cricket, and was well known with Urmston. Probably one of the best ball players we ever had. Certainly he could cross it as well as anyone else in training before his knee went. I suppose it's similar skills for a good cross as you need in cricket. Boxers often seem to make good players too, I think Joe Palladino was a boxer.

See here.


Among other places. During the ATP match (where every player has to be "fully vaccinated"), he was apparently heard saying, "every shot I'm out of breath" before retiring. Not that there's a trend or anything. Still, one to keep an eye on, and I repeat that especiallyhealthy younger males would be well advised to inform themselves before taking these medical interventions.

Meanwhile, the perfectly healthy tennis number one Novak Djokovich has apparently been barred from the Australian Open. Sensible fellow.

Quite honestly I did not want to be involved in any more controversy on her after the Graham Heathcote saga. I never discussed Brexit on here at length. Or politics, or religion or any other controversy. But at the current time, we have managers of some clubs saying they will not sign players based on their personal health choices on this medication; we have Wrexham fans banned from home games, with Alty fans too if restrictions remain at the Racecourse until April; we have the County match cancelled; we have the capacity restricted to 3.9 k, and some supporters who can't or won't  test or "vaccinate" for whatever reason presumably barred from attending matches at grounds like Notts County; we have the threat of further restrictions affecting football (although hopefully that won't happen).

Yes, I have posted on this more than some people, but I am not the only one. Someone only just recently posted on the first team forum "get the jab". I am also very strong on free speech and have been for years. Some people think it's alright for one person to say "get the jab" but not for someone else to give an alternative view such as "inform yourself if you want to get the jab. And don't get coerced into it". It has to work both ways. When this issue no longer affects the club in any way, then maybe we can forget about this nonsense. But that moment is clearly not now is it? And many people continue to suffer from these draconian restrictions.

Looking at my two most recent posts (written before I read your message), if "covid" is really now equivalent in severity to flu, that has possible implications for future and current restrictions relating to the club. And as for signing "vaccinated" players, it is something that our management has presumably made a decision on one way or another, with the decision potentially having a bearing on who we will sign. It seems to me that these are matters of current interest to Altrincham supporters and, if perhaps not suitable for the first team forum, they are certainly legitimate topics on here.

What you seem to be saying is, don't post about this because it is controversial (but it's alright if people on the first team forum mindlessly repeat "get the jab"). I mean, is that really your position?

I understand that many people have a positive perception of these "vaccines", and I have heard such positive views many times. But I have also heard some terrible things about these "vaccines" too, and it is a fact that they are being administered under emergency authorisation (and against JCVI advice in the case of 12-15 year olds), and on a scale not seen before with such medication, and I fear that some people will only hear one side. Surely both sides need to be heard, and people besides me will be asking questions after the high profile collapses that have occurred.

Apparently league players will no longer be tested on match days for a virus that's been going round unless they have symptoms of it.

I presume this testing business is continuing in the NL? Just to be clear, I am not prepared to buy a ticket days in advance for a match that could be called off at any time. If there are tickets still available on Monday, then fine, but it is disappointing that once again this season people are having to miss out on a significant number of matches. Hopefully things will be back to normal after Stockport (or if we go down). Lucky old Narine not having to worry about getting to this level.

I wouldn’t say people are having to miss out on games.

The option for you to go is there, you have chosen not to take up that opportunity to ensure a ticket..

Your choice Hugh

The Wrexham match sold out of tickets, and I suspect the problem was especially acute for Wrexham fans who would have brought many more than a thousand. People who try hard enough and are prepared to take the risk will not be able to go. If Wrexham sold out, Stockport sure would have. Are you having a go at however many hundred would have gone with a 6,000 capacity but didn't get a ticket in time? Do be sensible.

It didn't sell out, the crowd was well under 3.9k capacity.

It merely sold out in the away end.

My mistake. I was told on the day of the match when I phoned the club that there were no tickets left. Maybe they just weren't selling any on the day.

I still say that more would have gone if we could have paid on the gate (me for a start) though I accept the club did the right thing in the circumstances and applaud their stance.

Unlikely any restrictions will hit before 2nd Jan. It's pretty clear the Government is desperate not to hit hospitality over Christmas and New Year. From the 2nd, all bets are off.

There will be no restrictions on England at all now. What'd be the point?

Noo point of course, but the pressure's still mounting for it this week. Go figure.

The horse has bolted, people have been in and out of each other's homes, pubs, restaurants and theatres for ten days. We have record numbers of cases. The gvt didn't impose restrictions on England as Johnson had made himself a hostage to fortune when he said that this Christmas would be far better than 2020. Never mind any debate about science and stats, that was a purely political decision.

It's too late for restrictions, I'm looking for a reason not to let omicron run its course and I can't find one.

Get your jabs, wear a mask, wash your hands and carry on.
There are of course alternative opinions to the science and the stats - and there always has been amongst some distinguished epidemoligists and medical professionals - it's just that only one side has been presented to the public. The 'papers' and journals have always been out thete. However I do think we are now seeing more balanced debate.

The horse has definately bolted, but maybe it should have been allowed to do so in April 21 after the over 60s and vulnerable were all double jabbed.
100% this, we were told in December 2020 that 15 million "vaccinations" were needed to end the cycle of lockdowns, every adult has now been offered three, and yet here we are again with Wrexham fans barred from home matches.
With cases apparently already peaking in London, there's no point in restrictions now If there ever was) and I look forward to attending home games soon, all being well.

Altrincham FC First Team / Re: LIVE STREAMING
« on: January 04, 2022, 01:37:16 AM »
I am sure that if the league went B.C.D. then we would be allowed to stream the matches. As for regular games, not for me.

I really do appreciate how useful it would be for those who cannot travel for health reasons but it would be vastly outweighed by those who would have travelled, but decide to watch the stream instead, because it's convenient and easy.

The team needs physical, vocal support from everyone who is able to do so, particularly away from home. Regular streaming of games would promote armchair support. That's fine if you're United and there's always a next person to take the spare away ticket, but not us.

Are they streaming in Wales and Scotland then?

They're talking about restrictions in Scotland until April, so there's a slight chance that Wrexham would be bcd when we play them if Wales does the same thing(though it shouldn't happen if things go as I expect). Obviously in those circumstances, one would hope the game would be streamed.

In comments critical of Jurgen Klopp and whoever the Manchester United manager is these days, who have said they would consider a player's covid "vaccination" status when signing a player, he affirmed that he would sign players regardless of their personal health choices on the matter, acknowledging that the 25% of EFL players who do not intend to get this medication have their reasons and committing to placing a player's ability first.

Admittedly things are a bit different in the PL with European matches in places like Italy where "unvaccinated" players are not allowed to play (though personally I think in such cases a team from Italy playing a team from a country with different rules should play their home game in a neutral country or forfeit the match if exemption is not granted), bit I  think that Barton, regardless of what he may have done in the past, has made the right call on this one, and I would hate to see Alty missing out on a good player because of his legitimate health choices over a medication being used underr emergency authorisation.

According to Professor Anthony Brookes, quoted in the Expreee, "currently the risk of death for the population as a whole is no worse than for seasonal influenza... and virtually zero for healthy teenagers". See here:


Sorry to bring "not actual evidence" on here again. Still, my advice stands - if you are considering having these covid "vaccines" that are being administered under emergency authorisation, and especially if you are a younger healthy male, it is worth fully researching the matter. And here once again is a place you could start, remembering to read it carefully, ask questions and be aware of what is not said, as well as what is said:


Non Altrincham FC Talk / Re: Sounds a right mess in Wales.
« on: January 02, 2022, 05:50:43 AM »
Well, if what is happening in South Africa (and London, where cases are apparently already falling), hopefully it won't be too long til crowds return in full. I can only hope the Welsh government sees it that way. And that the "English government" don't start imposing more restrictions. I was hopeful of things being fairly back to normal after when the County match was supposed to happen.

Deary me! Where to start?

If you want to throw around accusations of killing, maybe I should say something about collaborating with a lying corrupt pharmaceutical industry that we know has done some very dubious things in the past, including things that have been harmful to people's health, an industry that appears to have backed the government into imposing health apartheid on England (and the club into a 3.9k capacity limit for that matter meaning that some people inevitably missed out on the Wrexham game) and has previously made concerted attempts to influence NHS policy, and that is about business and profit rather than charity.

But leaving that aside, the article I link to states "hospital admission or death" and "the general population".

Saying hospital admission or death is not very useful on its own as it does not tell us how many of each. If the hospital admissions who don't die and only have mild myocarditis are greater for one group than the other, that is a vital factor too. And there is evidence that people who get myocarditis after these "vaccines" rather than after "covid" have a more severe case of myocarditis. According to 'eminent cardiologist' Dr. Peter McCullough, "the myocarditis experienced by those infected with covid is milder than that experienced by the 'vaccinated' and is 'inconsequential". So if he is right, even for the general population, they may not necessarily be less likely to die of myocarditis from these "vaccines" - it is not clear from this study. But whether or not he is right, the Oxford study goes straight on to say that "the risk of myocarditis in younger males following 'vaccination' is consistently higher" . I wrote "males under 40" in the title of the post, I also mentioned "younger males" in the final paragraph, I linked to the article where people can read it for themselves, and I encouraged people to do their own research - such as reading this article. I maybe could have mentioned what it says about other groups but then again I could have mentioned any number of other things not relating to the group to whom I was referring. It's fair enough of course if you want to point out what it says about other groups too, but I don't think I have been unreasonable in what I have written, and I suggest it is important to read very carefully what these studies say and don't say. If you are saying that young healthy males should have these controversial "vaccines" without doing any research - and we know from the government's own data that no healthy 15-17 year olds had died from "covid" (the last I heard), it could be that that would put their health at greater risk, depending on their circumstances. And that's all I am saying - research it, be aware of the risks and benefits. And as it happens, the law also says that people may only be given medication with free and informed consent. And that's all I am saying - inform yourself. I think it is important not to brush these risks under the carpet as you and too many others appear to advocate. It will only make people at low risk more suspicious of these "vaccines" if they think that people are down-playing the risks - and by implication more suspicious of future new medications too if they think they have not been told everything about this one. It is absolutely vital to discuss these things.

If we're going to quote  from the study, I may also add that it mentions the JCVI, which recommended against giving these "vaccines" to healthy 12-15 year olds and was overruled by the government, so  I make no apologies for questioning some of the things we are being told, I don't believe that it is acceptable to put children at risk for anything really and am very concerned about the JCVI being overruled like this. The article also mentions funding from Cancer Research UK, which is owned by pharmaceutical companies - one of many,  many conflicts of interest among some of the people who we hear from on the pharmaceutical industry's  mRNA coronavirus "vaccines".

Apparently you get to decide what counts as "actual" evidence and are dismissing out of hand various groups of doctors and medical scientists, the government's own yellow card data, an inventor of mRNA technology called Dr. Robert Mallone, a professor who said that there is "no reliable evidence that the 'vaccines' reduce all-cause mortality", LifeSiteNews (which rather looks like you're having a go at Catholics now) and I dare say you will dismiss "eminent cardiologist" Peter McCullough and former vice president of Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon (who is pro-vaccine but very concerned about this novel mRNA "vaccine"). But if you're going to insist on all that, then maybe I am entitled to insist on a second opinion about these "vaccines" when we hear a lot about them from people (including people who advise the government) who have a conflict of interest on them.

I should add that I have serious concerns that free and informed consent may not be taking place with people who get this medication in some instances and in the current circumstances. I am well aware from my years of pro-life involvement of how with other medical interventions where vested interests and politics are involved  there are cases where people do not give free and informed consent to medical interventions administered, and with so many powerful voices (some of who have interests in the pharmaceutical industry as I say) urging people to take these controversial gene therapy drugs that are being administered under emergency authorisation, I am certain that similar things will be happening with these "vaccines", and I think it is perfectly reasonable to provide some balance, tell people to do their own research and do what is best for their health which as we have seen (from the JCVI being overruled) may be something different from the sophisticated and incessant government propaganda

Only a small number of healthy males under 40 have died from "covid" and no healthy people at all aged 15-17 last I heard. And this new variant is more mild and will give them natural immunity once they have had it. Don't endanger those who are not at risk from "covid" by telling them to get a controversial "vaccine" without informing themselves about it, and which some scientists say may put them at increased risk (including the JCVI for 12-15 year olds apparently).

And just so you know, some people are suggesting that people should have three or four doses of these "vaccines" every year for a decade or more. Even if there is only relatively low risk from 2 doses, the risk may increase significantly by the time they get to thirty or forty doses - when I had ibuprofen for an extended period, I  found I had to give it up in the end. A similar principle will apply with some other medication. Furthermore, four times a year is rather more times than people would get symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 after acquiring natural immunity. Let people make their own choices.

I do think you need to learn to take on board that other people have different opinions from you on some things, and that they may have good and deeply felt reasons for doing so. It's not just on this, is it, that you have a bit of an attitude. People are having to miss match attendance because of all this nonsense so of course some of us will have strong views about this.

Altrincham FC First Team / Re: Who's coming in then?
« on: January 02, 2022, 01:06:31 AM »
Ashley Hemmings (even though he's too old and too small) and next Summer when we've changed the squad a bit and moved towards full time (we hope). :)

Altrincham FC First Team / Re: Covid , Chris Senior and Jordan Hulme
« on: January 02, 2022, 01:04:12 AM »
Would you have any of them back at Alty? Any would probably be a bit controversial, and you might struggle to find one or two of them...

Happy new year! Might even get to see you at a match one of these days!

Altrincham FC First Team / Re: Blimey, looks like I was right
« on: January 02, 2022, 12:51:03 AM »
The large number of matches being postponed (sometimes with very little notice) because of the redundant test and isolate for 10 (or is it 7 now?) days for asymptomatic (i.e. healthy)  "cases" (or even just contacts?) of a (likely) mild variant of a virus that's been going round. Is this for every Winter now? Just asking.

Admittedly this could happen for bad weather (though not at the moment, it's 60 degrees and we have a new pitch). This business is wrecking football, and other things besides. Some people will have arguments that we should be doing this of course (perhaps something for the ot forum) but that doesn't change the damage it's doing. The EFL have stopped match day testing, isolation has been cut to 7 days in some places (I forget where). What are the NL doing to minimise the fallout? Or are they saying there's nothing they can do?

Maybe the club were unable to make tickets available after Friday for whatever reason, but I bet I'm not the only one who was reluctant to take a chance in the current situation (and as it happens, if I had bought on Friday, I would have ended up without a match to go to as I feared, though I suppose I might have been able to use it for a rearranged match). And if everyone had got tickets early, it still wouldn't change the fact that some would have missed out. The club were of course right to limit the capacity to 3.9k due to circumstances beyond their control and I don't particularly have any criticism of  them, indeed they have acted well and honourably in ensuring that people of all beliefs, ethnicities and social classes will continue to have an equal chance of attending games, but it would be nice if someone at the NL (or anyone else who could help) could do something.

Unlikely any restrictions will hit before 2nd Jan. It's pretty clear the Government is desperate not to hit hospitality over Christmas and New Year. From the 2nd, all bets are off.

There will be no restrictions on England at all now. What'd be the point?

Noo point of course, but the pressure's still mounting for it this week. Go figure.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 54