NJS

Thats why christianity is schizophrenic - the OT God is one of revenge - the NT God is one of forgiveness. People choose which one to quote when it suits their needs.

There are elements of the CofE/Royal Family relationship that could be used to "claim" it but bums on seats as a sign of "positive" belief counts imo.

The vast majority don't give a damn about the bible either despite your frequent referrals to this being a christian country but the point remains that if he is only "preaching" a holy book (of any kind) then its maybe the book that should be looked at. 82262[/snapback] they may not go to church but still accept the Bible as THE pillar of our religious belief The arsehole shouldn't be allowed to spout the koran, it is irrelevant to the law, if he thinks it is above it he should fuck off to where it is 82266[/snapback] 90% of people don't bother going to church yet you still state "the pillar of OUR religious belief" - when will you get it that calling Britain a christian country just doesn't hold water? The bible is irrelevant to just as many people as those who find the koran irrelevant, however as published documents they SHOULD both be subject to british laws imo.

The vast majority don't give a damn about the bible either despite your frequent referrals to this being a christian country but the point remains that if he is only "preaching" a holy book (of any kind) then its maybe the book that should be looked at.

Perhaps I went too far with "anything" - I think completely false allegations should be able to be challenged and I'd accept that its possible for a Hamza to go too far but I just recoil at the old student "no platform for facists" kind of thinking where freedom to speak is limited.

and the relevance is ? 82253[/snapback] Both the OT and the Koran (the former more so I think) advocate killing and/or making slaves of non-believers. Hamza is starting to use this as a defence.

Its not its shite or not that matters but the ability to spout it. One of the things I hate Thatcher for is her stated ambition "To kill socialism" - now you could argue thanks to Tony she's succeeded but it was the fact that she wanted to kill an idea that I found offensive - no matter what the idea is.

How far do you take it though? People committing crimes could easily say "Well because of x's remarks I thought it was okay" - when those remarks could be quite tame - going back to football for an example how about I love to go a wandering.... Obviously we're arguing over what "incitement" actually means but since even going to extremes neither of these two actually said "I urge you to kill asians/jews" its all about semantics. I'd also argue that until cases are brought against the old testament and the koran the law is a joke in this area imo.

Anyone read the classic quote from Alfie Conn who was the other player - he said people kept asking him "How could you jump the Dyke?"

In my slightly misguided but enjoyable youth, before I had a season ticket in the early 80s I used to stand in the Leazes (later crappy one) next to the away fans. I remember the coppers warning people that singing "We hate cockneys" was an arrestable offence because it incited other people to cause trouble. I always had a problem with this as I thought the emphasis of blame should always lie with the actual doer in "unpaid" cases. I honestly think anyone should be allowed to say anything - I don't think there are degrees fo freedom of speech - you either have it or you don't. What these two spout is shite - but I think they should have the right to spout it.

Thats the problem with the latest proposals of trust schools - they will know that their income will depend on the income of their kid's parents and will start recruiting on "poshness" for want of a better word thus perpetuating the divide. What they need to do is find out the root key to good results which I hope isn't as simple as class/location or faith and apply it everywhere [/idealist]

The thing is theres a correlation between faith schools and good results - parents/politicians add 2 and 2 and make 5 - they think its the faith element that matters instead of looking at other factors. I went to a catholic school which did overdo the god element but at the same time I felt that the good results came more from the fact that the kids were brought up "right" and worked harder/behaved. By this I don't mean only catholics behave or have intelligence but the morals which I don't think have to be linked to a god are pretty good (as I've always said). As long as the curriculum keeps it to a minimum (I'd not teach it at all a la USA) then the actual education element isn't that bad. The divisive social aspects are however a timebomb imo.

I recorded it but havem't watched it yet. I did however watch the first one on Sunday - I'd agree with GF that he was a bit took "meek" (and so will inherit the earth ) with the nutters but sometimes thats a better way to get them to show themselves up than "How fucking stupid are you?"

Surely as we've all agreed Souness has a less than long-term future then we can include Anelka in the same context as I've thought of our recent good signings - signing good players can't hurt anyway as managers are generally transitory. BTW if you take way the Man City comments (which I'm not convinced by) then all his problems look pretty historic.

I have no problem with people having concerns - I'd actually prefer a loan deal if its possible to see how he works out - I'm just worried we'll get nobody.

I'm sorry, but look at his track record - why is he never happy for more than a year at any club? What on Earth makes you think he will settle at this shambles of a club? I honestly can't fathom the sheer hypocrisy of people on here bearing in mind the Bellamy situation. 80474[/snapback] I know its bad but aren't people allowed to grow up? If its true Keegan was consulted in the summer then thats a good sign - he certainly never stood for player tantrums or bad attitude. It looks like he's trying to engineer a move now but thats something every player does - because of his record he is now being called more for doing it. Just to add on the year thing - he wanted to sign for Liverpool and Man City sold him to clear their debt.

Its funny how the mood changes things. When he was courted in the summer a lot of people mentioned that they thought he had grown up. He had jettisoned his odious brothers as agents and had been no problem at Liverpool or Man City. Now that we may go after him again in the current climate its back to "moody frenchman" and "worse tham Bellamy". I'm with Gemmill - I'd love him to come.

As a socialist I've always thought of patriotism as I see it as a sense of togetherness working for everyone's good - completely removed from the usual royalty/union jack/empire/St George bollocks which I despise. If the former is what Brown is alluding to and I'd like to think so then I salute him. Unfortunately the general response will be the same as Jimbo's (nowt personal). Sorry Jimbo I've just re-read your "agree with the sentiments" bit - I meant the sticking it up the arse and celebrating individual countries.

So is criminal conviction the only measure of misconduct for footballers? 78874[/snapback] Any reason in particular why you're asking? I thought we were talking about the club's debt. 78883[/snapback] I realised it was you who said the thing about on/off the pitch after you replied to Gemmill. The point is if "football is different" which implies footballers don't have "real world" standards then how do you measure misconduct? It applies to the debt as apparently the damage to the finances caused by Souness devaluing Bellamy is huge. I also noted that Gemmill pointed out that from an accountancy pov Player's are worth their price not their perceived worth. Therefore Bellamy's sale had an even more minimal effect from a purely financial pov (and a benefit allowing for write-down).

So is criminal conviction the only measure of misconduct for footballers?

I'm sure LM has implied in the past that short of criminal conviction, nothing a players does off the pitch "counts" as long as they do the business on it.

Souness only said that after the SSN interview. I agree Bellamy is too "emotional" to think about his actions but a cynic could eaily turn it around and say that if he wanted to leave then he couldn't have come up with a better plan. I would say he's too thick but then he has an agent.... I also rememeber his "I'd have to think about me" attitude to the Rooney pursuit.

One of the thick twats on SSN last night actually said "Liverpool were representing England" - I've never accepted this concept and why people "like to see English teams do well in Europe". Clubs are Clubs imo.

Just on this idea of Leazes' that its Souness who is to blame for the financial side. If Bellamy and Robert had been sold for £10m and £5m (what chance?) then that would make about £9m difference to these figures - hardly a crippling proportion and I believe anyway that if they had of done bigger bids would have been made for Anelka and others. The idea that as we had those two we didn't need any new players is also daft - We needed new strikers and at the very least competition for Robert. I don't think anyone is fooled when it comes to Shepherd - they know he backs the managers but takes the piss personally. The thrust of this article also suggests we aren't a good prospect for purchase - any purchaser would look at potential earnings as well as debt etc (like the Glazers did) which should put us "above" the likes of Villa etc imo.

As I've said before there seems to be an "rationality excuse" when it comes to religion - you can't question it on the grounds of causing offence as its "personal" or "faith based" but the same doesn't apply to say a racist who says "I believe whites are superior". The fact that they have no answers to the sensible questions is what they want to hide by refusing to answer.