Heroic Hart acknowledges Barcelona brilliance as Man City crash out of Europe

first_img Manchester City and England goalkeeper Joe Hart Manchester City goalkeeper Joe Hart acknowledged Barcelona’s superiority as Manuel Pellegrini’s side crashed out of the Champions League at the hands of the Catalans.Hart produced a magnificent rearguard performance, totalling ten saves in the 90 minutes, but his efforts were in vain as City lost 1-0 on the night and 3-1 on aggregate.England’s number one kept the scoreline respectable, with only Ivan Rakitic’s clever first-half strike escaping his clutches, and Hart was quick to recognise the hosts’ quality.“It’s disappointing – we gave ourselves a chance and didn’t take it,” said the City shot-stopper.We’ve gone out to a magnificent side, they’re going to get a lot of plaudits for how they play and they’ve got fantastic players, but that’s the second time in two years which is disappointing for us.“I had a lot to do, but I wanted it to count. I said that after the first leg, and it hasn’t.“But even when we lose – even when I make mistakes, and it’s all my fault – I am still proud of my efforts, and of my team, and we will keep going.City’s defeat mirrored their exit from last season’s competition in exactly the same circumstances, meaning they have failed to reach the last eight four years in a row.Hart was humble when reflecting on his own individual performance as the City stopper continually kept Barcelona’s front three of Lionel Messi, Luis Suarez and Neymar at bay.Messi, in particular, was in frightening form, but Hart emerged victorious in his ongoing personal duel with the Argentine maestro by frustrating him time and time again.Hart said: “It was busy. Messi is a phenomenal player, definitely the best in the world. I just tried to smother them as best I could because I know full well they’re thinking they’ve got to pass at all times.“From there my job is to rush them, with quality players it’s difficult to do sometimes, and I got a bit of luck on my side.”Despite Barcelona’s dominance, City squandered a great opening when Sergio Aguero’s controversial penalty was saved, and Hart rued the miss as a defining moment.“Make no bones about it, Barcelona were the better team in both legs, but we hung on in there, defended and made saves, and made tackles, then we had a big chance but unfortunately we couldn’t take it,” said the dejected England international.“We have to learn to take our chances. Sometimes in Europe you won’t be the better team and you have to somehow find a way to win.” 1last_img read more

Letterkenny takeaway forced to close over food safety concerns

first_imgUpdated: 2.30pm 9/12/2019A closure order was enforced on a Letterkenny takeaway last month over breaches of food safety regulations.East Ocean at 61 Port Road Letterkenny was served with a temporary closure order by the Health Service Executive on 5th November. The order was lifted on the 12th of November. The takeaway was found to be in breach of the FSAI Act 1998.Closure orders are served on businesses if authorised officers find that there is or there is likely to be a grave and immediate danger to public health at/or in the food premises.An inspection at East Ocean last month found a number of food safety breaches.Failure to protect food from contamination Food was stored uncovered in dirty fridges and freezers and food was stored in dirty containers throughout the premises. Some peppers were being prepared on the draining board of a sink that was also being used to wash dirty containers. Prawns were being drained into a dirty colander. A container of raw eggs was placed in noodles at one point during the inspection.The inspector noted that there was a failure to provide hot water for cleaning and disinfecting, which is a risk of food contamination, and there was no washhand basin available for staff. As a result, thy reported that no hand washing was seen taking place.There was a ‘lack of confidence’ that the food business could provide safe food as there was no evidence of a management system for food safety and the “person in charge had poor knowledge of food safety risks and of the measures necessary to ensure the safety of food…”Closures Orders can refer to the immediate closure of all or part of the food premises, or all or some of its activities.The Orders are lifted when the premises has improved to the satisfaction of the authorised officer. A total of 20 Irish businesses were served with closure orders for breaches of food safety legislation in November.Letterkenny takeaway forced to close over food safety concerns was last modified: December 9th, 2019 by Staff WriterShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Lamarckism Still Shuffles Around

first_imgExamine the following quotation and see if it sounds like what Darwin or Lamarck would say: Somewhere in the murky past, between four and seven million years ago, a hungry common ancestor of today’s primates, including humans, did something novel.  While temporarily standing on its rear feet to reach a piece of fruit, this protohominid spotted another juicy morsel in a nearby shrub and began shuffling toward it instead of dropping on all fours, crawling to the shrub and standing again.    A number of reasons have been proposed for the development of bipedal behavior, or walking on two feet, and now researchers from the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University have developed a mathematical model that suggests shuffling emerged as a precursor to walking as a way of saving metabolic energy.This is how Science Daily began a story about the evolution of human upright posture.  No attempt was made to tie the behavior to random mutations or to explain how natural selection acted on them.  It sounds like Lamarck’s old hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics through use and disuse – a discredited idea according to most contemporary Darwinists.  Nor was an explanation offered, if the new stance was so effective, why modern apes still stoop around most of the time on all fours.    Lest Science Daily be accused of misunderstanding evolutionary theory, quotations in the article tie the Lamarckism to the researchers themselves.  Patrick Kramer, an anthropologist at University of Washington, said, “There is nothing that will get you to do something you don’t want to do other than food.  That’s why we bribe animals with food to train them.”  Yet after centuries of bribing animals with food to stand upright, no elephant, horse or ape has acquired upright stance by either Lamarck’s or Darwin’s mechanism.    The researchers studied metabolic efficiency of standing, knuckle-walking and shuffling, but such measurements are about living animals.  They have no necessary connection to the evolutionary theory that made Darwin famous: natural selection acting on random variations.If a creationist were to make this kind of blunder, or tell this kind of just-so story, he or she would be condemned as an ignoramus.  Yet evolutionists get away with violating their own theoretical principles time and again and are only rarely called on the carpet for it (05/31/2004).  Why?  Because in support of their worldview (naturalism), facts don’t matter (see Fairfax’s Law in the Baloney Detector).  All’s fair in love for Darwin and war against creationism.  That’s why Darwin himself slipped back toward Lamarckism in his later years when stubborn facts hampered his ability to market natural selection.    A political cartoon by Mike Shelton illustrates unequal standards.  It applies just as well if relabeled with a Darwinist donkey and a creationist elephant.  Evolutionists will scream and preach about honesty when criticizing a creationist position, but then will lie shamelessly in their own work and call it science.  They will even lie while calling their critics liars, and hypocritically call creationists hypocrites (see Evolution News).    You can almost hear in advance the charges that would come from the pro-Darwin blogs about our pointing out this little inconsistency in their latest just-so story.  Let a creationist be caught in some inconsistency, and the sparks would fly: You creationists are such hypocrites; you Bible-thumping fundamentalists with your narrow religious agenda show that you just don’t understand science.  Let an evolutionist be caught in an inconsistency, and the response will be either (1) ignoring the criticism, or (2) rationalization, like Well, you know what I meant, and we all know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more