Rayvin

Ashley can't actually make Lascelles leave short of tearing up his contract. He can't even leave him out of the team really. If it looks like he's trying to force him out somehow, it'll be an even bigger PR disaster than anything we've seen so far this summer.

He was the one who decided to be the pantomime villain. We didn't change the name of the stadium, hire Joe Kinnear, get us relegated twice and, more recently, pick fights with our best manager in a decade. He could so easily have been... if not 'well loved' then something at least approximating 'respected' if he just ran the place like a football club and not a cut price sportswear store.

Why "women" in particular? I get that its a bit of a desperate situation but does equality just go out the window when push comes to shove? Also, support for the elderly should be triaged based on the level of responsibility they have for their predicament.

Why would someone buy with so little time left before the window closes anyway. They'd have no ability to be productive ahead of the season, and it's looking grim as it stands anyway.

Sunderland are 1-0 down at home to Charlton in their first game, penalty scored by a guy who turned them down this summer and who their crowd had spent the previous 10 mins of the game taunting I mean, I'm sure they're going to do well this season and may even win this game 5-1, but they're still Sunderland

I think it speaks volumes about the moral compass of this forum that this thread is nearly a day old with people seemingly calmly discussing whether or not Ashley should die Did anyone vote in the poll...? EDIT - of course they did

He's actually bigger than Arsenal Fan TV now. Idk how he's done it, but he's somehow managed to move from Newcastle > Football > Sport > YouTube celebrity culture. He's interviewed Shearer, Dyer, Robbie Williams, some guy who is a world champion at lifting weights... and now he's mixing with the biggest YouTubers out there, people with 20 odd million subs. I really don't understand how he managed this He's made it though, he really has. He'll be over 2 million in no time IMO as he seems to be winning people over by being 'genuine' and 'down to earth' and 'not fake'. Standard Newcastle shtick really. Can't say I'm not pleased for him like...

Aye, the tracker thing i looked at suggests he could be earning up to 400k. He has sponsorships as well, so that'll be more again. I think he's close to getting TV slots you know... actually think he may have had some on lower end football shows... He does fuck all about Newcastle now though, it's football and sport in general. Pitching himself as a commentator for the YT age.

I think I've worked out where Parky went... https://wokesloth.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-qanon-conspiracy-theory/jake/

@The Fish True Geordie now has 1.2m subs, his recent video got 2.5m views, and he's become a YouTube celebrity as the moderator for a boxing match involving two other YT 'celebrities', one of whom is the guy who filmed a dead body in Japan. This could have been you!

Holy fuck @adios

And the Fish

Saw Renton's plea for attention and didn't have it in me to turn him down Happy Birthday man Hope you have a great one!

The contention that Labour's PR people are fucking useless is not a new one. Also, Corbyn genuinely doesn't seem to give a shit about confronting the media on such allegations, to his detriment.

You were just dying for an excuse to post that, weren't you?

This guy is really good - another tweet thread he has covers that Labour has adopted the phrasing for the definition of anti-semitism word for word from the IHRA, and his contention is that the bits that they've changed were done because the IHRA document is non legally binding, and the code of conduct -is- legally binding. They can't have woolly examples, and need clarity. Maybe this guy is a very good PR person, or maybe this is a media witch hunt again.

@Dr Gloom Yeah fair enough - I won't go through point by point as I think some of those have reached natural endings, but the last bit you mentioned where you said the bit about not consulting actual Jews - it's my understanding that they did. They just didn't consult Jews with pro-Israel sympathies? Good post btw.

Which history specifically? I know that Zionist terrorism was a thing in the run up to WW2 as Jewish people tried to take Jerusalem by force, but I don't really know what the demographic make up of the society was. If you mean that it was originally the homeland of Jewish people until conquest and imperialism took it away, then I am aware of that, and would simply point out that one act of racism doesn't negate another.

True, the last comment there was more about Britain's role in the Middle East generally. We did promise Israel to the Jews though, with Balfour. I would argue this was the same racist sentiments that eventually won out, even if we did climb down from there.

In truth that's a possible come back, but I think the Leavers would need to demonstrate that actually, enough new information has been brought to light that a re-run is needed. I've no idea how they would do that at all. Maybe if another country exits the EU and survives?

You really think civil unrest is a possibility? On what basis? If we have another referendum and the vote is Remain, what can the Leavers actually point to? The only possible point they could make is that a lot of people are now better informed and that this democratic result overturns one where we had less information about the outcomes, and fewer people understood any of the implications at all. How do you logically build up support for such a stupid contention?

How in fuck is 'No Deal' polling at 27%. It shouldn't be polling at half a fucking percent, let alone 27.

I think you could comfortably argue that when the British, Americans, and yes, the Jewish lobbyists in those countries, looked at the middle east and where Israel would 'be', they considered the lives, cultures and humanity of those they were displacing to be of far lesser importance. Presumably because these were brown people who they are moving around like chess pieces. So yeah, tbh, I think that was racist. I defy anyone to say it isn't, frankly. And it was racist when it was done to other countries too. Are we not allowed to say that about Iran? The whole splitting up of the Middle East was a British clusterfuck born out of our profound ignorance or possibly apathy about the cultures and tribal alliances we were splitting up. Yes mate, this was racist. I acknowledge the left has a particular focus on Israel, but in fairness, of all the countries you've mentioned, they are by far and away the most powerful, and with the most support from Western governments. It is indeed wrong to say Jewish people shouldn't have a home, not that I've seen anyone phrase it that way, but I'm not sure we can say it's right that "Jewish people should have a home at the expense of brown people who have been settled in the area for hundreds of years, and who have no power or say in the matter, at the behest of a bunch of rich white guys who feel guilty about what a bunch of other rich white guys did to the Jews in the first place (and also because a key ally in the middle east is politically expedient to encircle Stalin)". If Germany had turned around and offered Jewish people their own state from some part of their own country, I doubt the left would be quite so worked up about it. I do accept that there's a water under the bridge element to this of course, but I'm not entirely sure that stopping people saying this is acceptable. People should be free to point out and discuss how Israel came to be, and how insanely unfair it was on the people already living in that area - and that this stupid notion has created decades of conflict and the loss of many lives. Something which, for the record, I hold Britain almost entirely responsible for. I guess I could get on board with the notion that even if people -should- be able to say this, if it has the potential to stir up tensions and cost lives, it should not be said. But is there evidence of this? There may well be for all I know, I'm woefully uninformed on the narrative with respect of Israel, I've only really bothered looked at the history, and even then only on a cursory level. Is Ian Austin being investigated for criticizing the party, or for being abusive or something else inappropriate? Serious question, I don't know the answer. It would certainly be depressingly hypocritical if he simply disagreed with them and was investigated for it. I don't consider Friedland's opinion worthwhile I'm afraid but I read it anyway, breaking a year long embargo on his articles just to educate myself better (you're welcome ). His contention seems to be that the left wing anti-semites believe that Jewish people shouldn't have a home full stop, and to give them one anywhere is racist. Yes, I would concur that this is antisemitic. If that's what people are saying, and that's what the fuss is about, then I guess I agree with you - Labour should rule that out of acceptable parlance and be done with it. If people are saying that Israel itself, as it came to be in 'our timeline' was a racist endeavour, then I'm still struggling with that one. It does look like one in terms of the total lack of consideration for all the other people in the equation - that's not the same as saying the actual plan had racist intent, I might add.

Can someone explain why free speech needs to be curtailed on this one point. Why cant we call the creation of Israel a racist endeavour? Also, why would we want to call it that? The notion presumably is that to do so denies the right of Jewish people to have a homeland? In fairness though, they never should have been given what they have in the way they were. Does it make me antisemitic to state this or...? I dont get the significance of this point really.