Steve Walsh dumped by IRB

by BigTrevsbigmac Wed 27 Mar 2013, 4:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

No surprise here then!

Independent -

Steve Walsh, the controversial Australian official who frustrated England to within an inch of their lives during the Six Nations finale in Wales 11 days ago, is the heaviest faller in the latest round of refereeing appointments sanctioned by the International Rugby Board.

Walsh will not control any of the 30 Tests scheduled for early summer, although he has been awarded the opening British and Irish Lions tour match with the Barbarians in Hong Kong on 1 June.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 27 Mar 2013, 9:14 pm

ozzy
I got the feeling that you just didnt like him as a person...isnt it his personality that he expresses during a game? surely we can have much bigger issues with referees than that?

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 27 Mar 2013, 9:17 pm

Laurie

I don't know him as a person, so I can't say that I like or dislike him. What I dislike is that I always notice him in the games that he referees. I dislike that we are in the position where we are discussing him. I would much rather that I was struggling to remember who refereed the England vs. Wales game, much as I am when thinking back to the England vs. Australia game in the autumn.

by stub Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:14 pm

Firstly Wales were by far the better team as has been stated but I agree with Ozzy on the whole centre of attention thing. Also hasn't there a bit of previous with Walsh and England? However I'm sure the IRB decision is not about Walsh v England - it's more about his career performance as a whole. I would certainly be happier if other refs reffed Eng matches in the future... That said, I understand that I'm probably looking at things from a particular perspective and that others will have a completely different view. Oh well, I feel a bit better for having shared!! Sorry for any offence caused.

by Glas a du Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:30 pm

That's OK stub. Being narcissistic (which it is claimed he is) is one thing, being biased is quite another. He seems vain, but biased? How on earth has he got this far if he's biased?

by nathan Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:34 pm

Glas a du wrote:That's OK stub. Being narcissistic (which it is claimed he is) is one thing, being biased is quite another. He seems vain, but biased? How on earth has he got this far if he's biased?

He's certainly not biased, i do wonder about his temperament though, i think he gets annoyed pretty easily.

by Glas a du Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:47 pm

Come on! He's a bloke not a cyborg. None of them are perfect. Look, you're not used to it. I went through over a decade of hammerings, much worse than 30-3 when I was tearing my hair out with the refs because. as bad as they were, the players were Welsh and the refs were not! I know exactly what you are going through. I also remember how the wider rugby World reacted at the time. Did we get the awful French and Irish referees booted down the ranks? No, we moaned like hell for a bit and then got on with it!

by blackcanelion Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:52 pm

Just a question has he really been dumped? He's a got a non-test Lions game against the Barbarians in Hong Kong. He doesn't have any others. But a bit of context might help. There are 30 matches. Most are however minor. There is also a glut of international referees needing games. He can't referee Lions matches in Australia or French games in NZ. You also have a number of British referees looking to ref the few quality games left and you need development games for up and coming refs. To put it in perspective Barnes, Rolland and Clancy have one game. A number of other refs only have 2 (one of which often involves a tour by understrength home nations sides). I think more is being made out of this than need be. The reality is the big games this summer are in NZ and Australia and he's ineligible to referee either.

by nathan Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:56 pm

blackcanelion wrote:Just a question has he really been dumped? He's a got a non-test Lions game against the Barbarians in Hong Kong. He doesn't have any others. But a bit of context might help. There are 30 matches. Most are however minor. There is also a glut of international referees needing games. He can't referee Lions matches in Australia or French games in NZ. You also have a number of British referees looking to ref the few quality games left and you need development games for up and coming refs. To put it in perspective Barnes, Rolland and Clancy have one game. A number of other refs only have 2 (one of which often involves a tour by understrength home nations sides). I think more is being made out of this than need be. The reality is the big games this summer are in NZ and Australia and he's ineligible to referee either.

I think your probably right, Media plays up Rowntree's comments and now there playing this up. All to sell a few more papers.

by Glas a du Wed 27 Mar 2013, 10:56 pm

Independent need to sell newspapers shocker eh?

by maestegmafia Thu 28 Mar 2013, 7:07 am

Lets hope that Rowntree and Lancasters comments have had no effect on his career and he is back to referee in the Autumn internationals.

by Glas a du Thu 28 Mar 2013, 8:03 am

It's likely to have more impact on theirs!

by maestegmafia Thu 28 Mar 2013, 8:20 am

Glas a du wrote:It's likely to have more impact on theirs!

Aye,

Plenty of english blokes are annoyed at their publicly complaining to the IRB post GS lost.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 8:51 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Biltong wrote:Lordowlais, I think you are assuming things here.

I as a neutral observer questioned the manner in which Walsh officiated the scrums.

This is not about the English Rugby Union, this is about a referee.

Biltong, I have watched the game now about a dozen times, let's just say, there was only one team who wanted to scrummage that day, England were constantly trying it on, they were trying to avoid the hit and were out muscled as a result, as for the breakdowns, watch the game again, Wales hardley ever commited more than two players to the rucks, thus they could not be penalised as much, England at nearly every ruck had a player, sometimes two on the wrong side, ok most of the time they were not doing anything, but they were still there, and for people telling me that Rowntree and Lancaster were not complaining about Walsh and that they just wanted clarification on his decisions, that is a load of bull, we all know that this is just a clever way of them saying, it's not our fault, the ref cheated us. This all smacks of bad losing and I for one will now look at those two with a different with a different perspective, as it was not so long ago when I held them both in high regard for they way they turned team England around and went on to beat the All Blacks, and I could not have been happier to have Rowntree involved with the Lions, now I just do not want him there, because if we lose to the Aussies I do not want to have anything to do with his whinging about the refs.

You need to get a life.

by Cyril Thu 28 Mar 2013, 8:54 am

LordDowlais wrote:I have watched the game now about a dozen times

I've not even watched the 2003 RWC Final that many times Laugh

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:07 am

I too hope that comments made by coaches did not create this decision. Frankly I doubt they did - the IRB do not like to look as if they are bending to criticism so this will be a result of a number of things.

That Walsh apparently told the team in the dressing room he was going to ref one way, then did something different and refused to talk to Robshaw during the game or Rowntree afterwards tells us a bit about the sort of thing that may have caused this "demotion".

As far as I know Andy Farrell has yet to be implicated in Walshgate. If so he will be the only member of the lions coaching panel not to have whinged about refs to the press in the last 12 months.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:12 am

Fact is if the IRB want Walsh to referee matches involving England he will and there is nothing much England can do about it. Where they get the belief that they can prevent Walsh reffing them defies me. Walsh is one of the most competent ref's in the "WORLD" (ok cyril) and all praise to him after what he went through.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:24 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:Fact is if the IRB want Walsh to referee matches involving England he will and there is nothing much England can do about it. Where they get the belief that they can prevent Walsh reffing them defies me. Walsh is one of the most competent ref's in the "WORLD" (ok cyril) and all praise to him after what he went through.

I expect it defies everybody's beliefs, since that isn't what England sought. Nor was the IRB decision based upon his officiation of just one match.

by **George Carlin** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:26 am

Surely it was the push on Smith that led to this.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:30 am

George Carlin wrote:Surely it was the push on Smith that led to this.

That was over hyped as well to be honest, if you look at the footage of that incident, Walsh never looked like he intended it in a malicious way, appeared to be more of a reflex to avoid a collision. Still Super 15 require refs and with the Lions playing the rest of the Summer tours are small cheese and he would be better utilised in the S15.

by Cyril Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:31 am

George Carlin wrote:Surely it was the push on Smith that led to this.

Which is his 9th strike I'd say. It makes you wonder which nation he'll ref for next.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:42 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:Fact is if the IRB want Walsh to referee matches involving England he will and there is nothing much England can do about it. Where they get the belief that they can prevent Walsh reffing them defies me. Walsh is one of the most competent ref's in the "WORLD" (ok cyril) and all praise to him after what he went through.

I thought it was within any sides right to refuse the referee, the same as in court the jury can be rejected too.

by damage_13 Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:43 am

I for one don't mind it if the ref has personallity (like owens) so long as they are fair and enforce the rules without being swayed or fooled.

Its a tough job, but there needs to be a better turnover of refs at elite level, its become too cliquey.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:53 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:Fact is if the IRB want Walsh to referee matches involving England he will and there is nothing much England can do about it. Where they get the belief that they can prevent Walsh reffing them defies me. Walsh is one of the most competent ref's in the "WORLD" (ok cyril) and all praise to him after what he went through.

I thought it was within any sides right to refuse the referee, the same as in court the jury can be rejected too.

How does that work then? The IRB are the governing body and their refs are allocated by them. To refuse a ref you must be accusing them of a serious offence and must prove that. To compare with a process of law does not make sense.

by **Ozzy3213** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:56 am

For once rainbow-warrior is correct. Comparing the referee to a jury is wide of the mark. If you were to compare him to anybody in a criminal trial it would be the judge, and a defendant has no right to reject the judge.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:56 am

Ozzy3213 wrote:For once rainbow-warrior is correct. Comparing the referee to a jury is wide of the mark. If you were to compare him to anybody in a criminal trial it would be the judge, and a defendant has no right to reject the judge.

For once....really???

by **Ozzy3213** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 9:58 am

Yes, really, I was surprised as well! Wink

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:00 am

Ozzy3213 wrote:For once rainbow-warrior is correct. Comparing the referee to a jury is wide of the mark. If you were to compare him to anybody in a criminal trial it would be the judge, and a defendant has no right to reject the judge.

I'm not entirely sure thats correct. If a defendant believes that the outcome of the trial will be adversely affected by the judge then I think there are rules of appeal - whether that is after the fact or not I don't know for sure.

by **Ozzy3213** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:05 am

Judge does not decide guilt/innocence in a trial, he is merely there to administer the hearing and direct on points of law. Once a verdict is reached he decides on the sentence. As far as I am aware you cannot object to a particular judge pre-trial. If he misdirects on a point of law you can then appeal.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:08 am

Jimpy wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:For once rainbow-warrior is correct. Comparing the referee to a jury is wide of the mark. If you were to compare him to anybody in a criminal trial it would be the judge, and a defendant has no right to reject the judge.

I'm not entirely sure thats correct. If a defendant believes that the outcome of the trial will be adversely affected by the judge then I think there are rules of appeal - whether that is after the fact or not I don't know for sure.

The defendant can appeal against the verdict (guilty usually!) but there again the prosecution can also argue the sentence and force a re-trial, however, how that compares with Walsh defies me unless England are accusing him of gross negligence etc.

In law if new evidence arises because of new technology or evidence then a review can take place and the decision can be overturned. Unfortunately for England the 30 - 3 hammering will stand forever. Just like Geoff Hurst's non goal etc.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:16 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:For once rainbow-warrior is correct. Comparing the referee to a jury is wide of the mark. If you were to compare him to anybody in a criminal trial it would be the judge, and a defendant has no right to reject the judge.

I'm not entirely sure thats correct. If a defendant believes that the outcome of the trial will be adversely affected by the judge then I think there are rules of appeal - whether that is after the fact or not I don't know for sure.

The defendant can appeal against the verdict (guilty usually!) but there again the prosecution can also argue the sentence and force a re-trial, however, how that compares with Walsh defies me unless England are accusing him of gross negligence etc.

In law if new evidence arises because of new technology or evidence then a review can take place and the decision can be overturned. Unfortunately for England the 30 - 3 hammering will stand forever. Just like Geoff Hurst's non goal etc.

Much like the 62-5 hammering I suspect.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:27 am

Jimpy wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:For once rainbow-warrior is correct. Comparing the referee to a jury is wide of the mark. If you were to compare him to anybody in a criminal trial it would be the judge, and a defendant has no right to reject the judge.

I'm not entirely sure thats correct. If a defendant believes that the outcome of the trial will be adversely affected by the judge then I think there are rules of appeal - whether that is after the fact or not I don't know for sure.

The defendant can appeal against the verdict (guilty usually!) but there again the prosecution can also argue the sentence and force a re-trial, however, how that compares with Walsh defies me unless England are accusing him of gross negligence etc.

In law if new evidence arises because of new technology or evidence then a review can take place and the decision can be overturned. Unfortunately for England the 30 - 3 hammering will stand forever. Just like Geoff Hurst's non goal etc.

Much like the 62-5 hammering I suspect.

Ouch. That 62-5 defeat came in such an important match, too.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:37 am

Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:38 am

I really shouldn't have risen to the bait.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:42 am

Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:48 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

There have been other hammerings believe me - although I concede that the circumstances may have been less important.

I think we can all agree that Wales 'hammered' England in their last encounter. Well done, congratulations, I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it was a hammering and that Wales thoroughly deserved it. What is a bit bloody tedious is a hard core of Welsh WUMs that are seeking every opportunity to remind the collective of the result in an attempt to - well - WUM. The vast majority of sensible Welsh contributors have let this go over a week ago.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:52 am

Jimpy wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

There have been other hammerings believe me - although I concede that the circumstances may have been less important.

I think we can all agree that Wales 'hammered' England in their last encounter. Well done, congratulations, I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it was a hammering and that Wales thoroughly deserved it. What is a bit bloody tedious is a hard core of Welsh WUMs that are seeking every opportunity to remind the collective of the result in an attempt to - well - WUM.

Agreed, but counter-wumming isn't the cleverest thing to do.

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:55 am

Jimpy wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

There have been other hammerings believe me - although I concede that the circumstances may have been less important.

I think we can all agree that Wales 'hammered' England in their last encounter. Well done, congratulations, I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it was a hammering and that Wales thoroughly deserved it. What is a bit bloody tedious is a hard core of Welsh WUMs that are seeking every opportunity to remind the collective of the result in an attempt to - well - WUM. The vast majority of sensible Welsh contributors have let this go over a week ago.

I have seen very little to nil posts from you at all, everyone bar a few have been deliberate jibes against others, time to suck one of your sweeties and grow up I think...oh and stop living in the past pal. Wales have beaten you 3 on the trot now, the games between us are equally shared, you have nothing to gloat about.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:56 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

There have been other hammerings believe me - although I concede that the circumstances may have been less important.

I think we can all agree that Wales 'hammered' England in their last encounter. Well done, congratulations, I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it was a hammering and that Wales thoroughly deserved it. What is a bit bloody tedious is a hard core of Welsh WUMs that are seeking every opportunity to remind the collective of the result in an attempt to - well - WUM. The vast majority of sensible Welsh contributors have let this go over a week ago.

I have seen very little to nil posts from you at all, everyone bar a few have been deliberate jibes against others, time to suck one of your sweeties and grow up I think...oh and stop living in the past pal. Wales have beaten you 3 on the trot now, the games between us are equally shared, you have nothing to gloat about.

And therefore, you have nothing to gloat OR WUM about then do you?

I'm not your pal and you telling someone else to grow up is ironic in the extreme.

What a gobbler.

by Glas a du Thu 28 Mar 2013, 10:58 am

Hoi, we're taking legel things by here now see.

You cant reject a jury, you can only object to certain memebers and only then with good cause, e.g. "the defendent was wearing a Welsh rugby jersey at the time of the alleged GBH on the victim, who was English - are any of you called Jimpy, Hersh, Cyril, English Warrior..." etc.

by Scarpia Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:01 am

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:I have watched the game now about a dozen times
I've not even watched the 2003 RWC Final that many times

But the rest of us have had to watch that flippin' drop goal thousands of times!

by rainbow-warrior Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:03 am

Jimpy wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

There have been other hammerings believe me - although I concede that the circumstances may have been less important.

I think we can all agree that Wales 'hammered' England in their last encounter. Well done, congratulations, I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it was a hammering and that Wales thoroughly deserved it. What is a bit bloody tedious is a hard core of Welsh WUMs that are seeking every opportunity to remind the collective of the result in an attempt to - well - WUM. The vast majority of sensible Welsh contributors have let this go over a week ago.

I have seen very little to nil posts from you at all, everyone bar a few have been deliberate jibes against others, time to suck one of your sweeties and grow up I think...oh and stop living in the past pal. Wales have beaten you 3 on the trot now, the games between us are equally shared, you have nothing to gloat about.

And therefore, you have nothing to gloat OR WUM about then do you?

I'm not your pal and you telling someone else to grow up is ironic in the extreme.

What a gobbler.

As stated we are 3 on the bound and just hammered you 33 -3 plenty to gloat about pal.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:05 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
rainbow-warrior wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Jimpy wrote:Oh, there have been other hammerings, in more important matches. I just thought i'd use that one as an example.

There there sonny, you beat the English. Well done. Have a aweetie.

The most similar that I can think of would have been 1994, when Wales just missed out of the GS when England beat us in the last game, although not by enough.

There have been other hammerings believe me - although I concede that the circumstances may have been less important.

I think we can all agree that Wales 'hammered' England in their last encounter. Well done, congratulations, I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it was a hammering and that Wales thoroughly deserved it. What is a bit bloody tedious is a hard core of Welsh WUMs that are seeking every opportunity to remind the collective of the result in an attempt to - well - WUM. The vast majority of sensible Welsh contributors have let this go over a week ago.

I have seen very little to nil posts from you at all, everyone bar a few have been deliberate jibes against others, time to suck one of your sweeties and grow up I think...oh and stop living in the past pal. Wales have beaten you 3 on the trot now, the games between us are equally shared, you have nothing to gloat about.

And therefore, you have nothing to gloat OR WUM about then do you?

I'm not your pal and you telling someone else to grow up is ironic in the extreme.

What a gobbler.

As stated we are 3 on the bound and just hammered you 33 -3 plenty to gloat about pal.

If you're a small minded, xenophobic bell end then yes, i'd agree.

by ScarletSpiderman Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:06 am

Glas a du wrote:Hoi, we're taking legel things by here now see.

You cant reject a jury, you can only object to certain memebers and only then with good cause, e.g. "the defendent was wearing a Welsh rugby jersey at the time of the alleged GBH on the victim, who was English - are any of you called Jimpy, Hersh, Cyril, English Warrior..." etc.

I would like to withdraw my testimony that the referee, and/or the jury, can be refused to be used. However I would like to add a new ple (plee, ple, plie, pley... really not sure now), that with due cause for concern that the said refusal would be considered by the authorities in control.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:07 am

Why the need to gloat at all? That's what I don't understand. It's not as if any of us here even had a bearing on the result.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:08 am

Scarpia wrote:
Cyril on 606v2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:I have watched the game now about a dozen times
I've not even watched the 2003 RWC Final that many times

But the rest of us have had to watch that flippin' drop goal thousands of times!

Not that much really. IRB charge for showing it and most TV channels are too stingy to pay the fee.

Quite funny as on Radio 5 Live they cannot even play the Ian Robertson commentary with Rob Andrew squeaking in the background, ie their own commentary, without paying a large sum to IRB. Lord Patten, in one of the few sensible decisions by a Tory politician in donkeys years, has decided that this is a waste of tax payers money - so clip is banned.

by Jimpy Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:08 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Why the need to gloat at all? That's what I don't understand. It's not as if any of us here even had a bearing on the result.

Well indeed.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:09 am

rainbow-warrior wrote:
As stated we are 3 on the bound and just hammered you 33 -3 plenty to gloat about pal.

At least get the score-line right please.

by Cyril Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:11 am

LondonTiger wrote:
Scarpia wrote:
Cyril on 606v2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:I have watched the game now about a dozen times
I've not even watched the 2003 RWC Final that many times

But the rest of us have had to watch that flippin' drop goal thousands of times!

Not that much really. IRB charge for showing it and most TV channels are too stingy to pay the fee.

Quite funny as on Radio 5 Live they cannot even play the Ian Robertson commentary with Rob Andrew squeaking in the background, ie their own commentary, without paying a large sum to IRB. Lord Patten, in one of the few sensible decisions by a Tory politician in donkeys years, has decided that this is a waste of tax payers money - so clip is banned.

There's always YouTube. I think some posters view it on there five times before breakfast in order to work themselves into a state of righteous indignation. Then they log onto the forum.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:12 am

That, plus a clip of a bulldog p!ssing on some daffodils.

by Cyril Thu 28 Mar 2013, 11:14 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That, plus a clip of a bulldog p!ssing on some daffodils.

Cue images of pit closures, Maggie Thatcher, flooded villages, burning holiday cottages and John Redwood 'singing' the anthem.

by Sponsored content