Holmes_and_Watson

They said shining, not The Shining. 🙂

Some signings are so important, that you don't want to tip your hand.

It’s been pointed out to you a few times that there will be a range of views within any group of people. That applies to both sides of a dispute. So, both sides will have ranges leading to extremism. And where extremist elements of both sides will try to gain an advantage. Bear that range in mind. The article states “To assume that a Jewish person in New York has “loyalty” to Israel – or is responsible for its actions – is undoubtedly anti-Semitic.” Yet you’ve spent recent days telling us that:- “You would expect Jewish people to feel aggrieved if members of a political party were sympathetic towards the Palestinians wouldn’t you?” “Perhaps look further into the reasons why 87% of Jewish people in the UK support that view.” “Jewish people have done a better job with the label “antisemitic” And the show stopping, reassessment of the holocaust with… “If you can’t see the difference between the prejudice shown against Jewish people under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s and people supporting Palestinians now.” So, the author of the article would consider you to be anti semitic. Because blaming all Jewish people is exactly what you‘ve been doing. That’s a writer on a platform that was only too happy to let a guy have his own show who supported the suicide bombing of Israelis, and that it was the will of Allah that Jewish people were killed by Hitler. You’ve only just been able to separate Israeli policy from Jewish people. Instead of this article being brought out as a point of discussion, it comes across as simply cover for your actual views quoted above. And that doesn’t even work, because the author finds your view to be anti-semitic too. Just like the president of Palestine example from yesterday, who didn’t share them. Your views are defintiely not shared by the person he’s discussing in the article either. Going by the article, she was at pains to specifically not endorse the things that you’re doing here. Oh, and on… “Businesses are entitled to pick and choose who they do business with.” Actually, there’s equality acts that tell them that’s exactly what they can’t do.

Did Norwich get a takeover? 🙂

Oh come on! That's ridiculous! Back then, we were run by someone who thought he knew better than everyone else and was going to take a squad full of kids with potential to … oh… oh…dear… 🙂

Master

He never seemed to progress or deliver on the potential he was supposed to have. I think JWP being super fit, prevented him getting played regularly in a position he would have preferred. And when opportunities did fall his way, he never really looked like pushing on, or looking effective in any of the tactics (as shambolic as they were). He was particularly unsuited at covering for Romeu's absence. I hope we managed to get a fee for him. But he's one less player filling out a large squad.

Babe

I was watching the first series of The Ark. No problems with the first set up episode. Another episode and a bit in, and I would have been happy if The Ark was hit by an asteroid, taking out at least the most annoying of the characters. Not Wesley Crusher levels of annoyance, in the same post code.

@Sadoldgit said:- “It is perfectly possible to support the Palestinian cause without hating Jewish people.” Well done. That’s two posts in a row since Saturday you’ve grasped this. You will find, if you look back, that no one has called you anti-semitic for holding that view. Try building an argument from that. But even in this post, you just can’t help yourself. “You would expect Jewish people to feel aggrieved if members of a political party were sympathetic towards the Palestinians wouldn’t you?” It’s been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that Jewish people, like any other group, will have a range of views on Israeli policy. But, once again, you’ve just lumped all Jewish people into your stereotyping. In the last post it was your feeling that 87% of people who felt that there was anti-semitism relating to labour, should all have a look at themselves. You’ve even dug out your utterly debunked Abbott views again. Her views, if ever close to getting near policy, would delegitimise the valid concerns of numerous minorities, based on the hierarchy of racism she holds. But, and I’ve quoted you in the last couple of posts about this, you feel that it’s all the fault of Jewish people, who have all done a “better job with the label antisemitic' “If you can’t see the difference between the prejudice shown against Jewish people under the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s and people supporting Palestinians now.” I don't think this came out as you intended. Sadly, I think the point you were trying to make was that we should compare the holocaust with the treatment of people in Palestine. Now when the Palestinian president said that Israel had committed “50 holocausts”, his office had to very quickly back peddle stating “stressing that [The Palestinian President’s] answer was not intended to deny the singularity of the Holocaust that occurred in the last century, and condemning it in the strongest terms." So, that's a key member of that Palestian cause not supporting your views there. But I’m sure you probably think the reaction to all that was all down to perception too, and that of course Jewish people would be outraged wouldn’t they? Even if the outrage was definitely not contained to Jewish people. Because you just can’t separate it out, for more than a couple of sentences, before letting us see your real, disturbing, views on it. Keep digging that hole SoG.

Not so much because it’s Farage. But it is interesting to see how financial institutions consider their risks. And the changes of that risk environment. Farage seems to have got the boot due to reputational risk. He’s not a sanctioned individual. Had he ongoing ties with sanctioned individuals, his accounts would have come under scrutiny at the point, either at the point of sanction or as part for ongoing sweeps. Likewise for his PEP status, which would be flagged on a regular basis. Banks continue to do business with non-sanctioned companies with activities that have reputational risks. The banks are often investors in such activities. Likewise with non-sanctioned regimes and wealthy individuals. A number of those are vastly more profitable than Mr Farage. All are managed by risk teams and relationship/ wealth managers. One quote from Farage was “The most extraordinary comments of all are the areas of the report talking about me ‘not aligning with [Coutts’s] views’ So, do Coutts actually employ the same criteria to the rest of their client base? Reputational risk may well have variables such as geographical location, profile etc. A wealthy international client, with a low profile, performing legitimate transactions involving non sanctioned parties might be fine. Regardless of how horrible the human rights violations in the country happen to be. A less wealthy Mr Farage, with a high domestic profile and contentious opinions in a much more liberal country, may simply be more trouble than he’s worth. This one seems to have caught the bank out as lying. It may swing back the other way, if Farage’s evidence is fully released and assessed. It seems that the decision has been “We think Mr Farage is a bit of a tit, does not bring us enough money to keep him on, and we consider his contentious views to be a potential risk to future income streams. We are cutting him loose.” But the bank may have specific reasons. It’s interesting that he couldn’t get an account elsewhere, suggesting legitimate information sharing of some sort going on in the background.

Fridge

@sadoldgit said “As I keep saying, it is entirely possible to strongly disagree with a nation’s foreign policy without hating the people of that country.” Nice of you to join the rest of us, SoG. Why it seems just like Saturday, despite the “As I keep saying” that you couldn’t tell Jewish people apart from Israel. SoG on Saturday: “but I assume when talking about Israeli policies or Jewish policies that they are the same thing.” Oh, it was just Saturday. But well done for being able to separate them, at least for the present. It’s been mentioned a few times, most recently by myself on Sunday and earlier today by SotonianWill, that you just can’t seem to help reverting to type. Whether it’s veering off into whatboutery or, in this case, persisting with anti-semitic tropes. The latest example: “Perhaps look further into the reasons why 87% of Jewish people in the UK support that view.” That’s in response to “You are supporting the views that made Labour appear anti-Semitic. That isn’t determined by Corbyn or Abbot’s denials but 87% of Uk Jews perception” So it’s actually the fault of Jewish people (87% of them) that they feel that there was anti-semitism. The same party that got dragged, including Jeremy, into making more and more apologies. So, any feelings of persecution felt by Jewish people is really their own fault? I’ll just add that one to “Jewish people have done a better job with the label “antisemitic” as that, arguably, now carries more of a pejorative punch than “racist”.” And “Interesting that it has now distilled down to just an issue about Jewish people when she grouped together various other types who also face bigotry, discrimination and prejudice” And “…but there doesn’t seem to be such a backlash from the Irish, travellers or redheads.” For all the talk of people ganging up on you, I’ve seen a number of posters just flagging this sort of behaviour. It’s surprising to see someone who considers themselves a bastion of fighting oppression holding such views. It’s disappointing that you just don’t seem able to ever learn from what others are telling you. And it’s now at a stage where even the people you are trying to defend, would back away in horror from your views. Once again, please consider the impact of your words, and the implications of what you are typing. Journey to the Centre of the Earth, starring SoG, digging a deeper hole, one anti-semitic post at a time.

Constant

Landscape

Thanks for clearing that up. 🙂

All part of the window fun. Speculation of interest in press. A club sends in low offer. We reject it. Speculation that we are unrealistic. We stand firm. Other club pursue other targets. We stand firm on further press speculation. Towards end of window, other club comes back in. We stand firm on second offer. Late negotiation with them hoping we're desperate to sell and hopefully us saying we'd be quite happy to keep our stars and get the amount we were after. With variations on contract length, better players we'd like to bring in ourselves and if we consider that player to be well down the pecking order, where we've been telling them to look elsewhere.

Since we just the same reheated tactic and outcome, last season, anything would be an improvement. 🙂

Shame you feel that way, as after your "now he's given her his washing, he's a merciless bastard" line the other day, you were top. No trophy for you now. 🙂

Is baking in the championship better than cooking in it? Is igniting the championship better than both or either or none? If someone is to rip up the championship, is that better than any kind of championship combustion? Does ripping it up, stop the available combustable material left to ignite/cook/bake, making it a bad thing? I finding it difficult to rate our players or links, without having a scale to work with. 🙂

I'd have given an extra like for that post. Was he at his best at the end of that season? No, he was not. Was anyone else in the team, regardless of their age? No, they were not. But apparently, his legs had gone, and it was all over. Plus returning from injury and contract issues in the background too. A big miss for us, and chuffed to bits for him.

View

Second?! What a bunch of bottlers! Martin Out! 🙂

Windows

Word