hypochondriac

I don't disagree. I do think you are going to have to make wholesale changes to the ECHR or ultimately leave it if you're serious about removing these people. It's genuinely outrageous that someone can cite articles from it and then we are forced to support and unable to remove genuinely evil people. Every country in the world should have the right to remove people who aren't citizens and who have committed criminal acts. Personally I think it's mad that the general public have voted to reduce immigration for decades and have basically been ignored and then you wonder why you end up with parties like reform. Maybe the mainstream parties should have done something more substantial earlier.

I didn't say they would. What I was saying is that if you want action on that sort of thing then you're not going to vote for the two parties that have failed or the party that hasn't said they will deal with it. Reform may well fail like the other two but as yet that is unproven.

I still haven't seen anything definitive. Have they been banned because they are hooligans and they have potential to cause disorder (fair enough but then we've had fans with similar reputations in the past that haven't been banned) or is it because the police don't believe they can keep a load of Israelis safe going through Birmingham? Genuine question by the way. I've seen the usual antisemitic accounts celebrating because they believe they successfully got the away fans banned.

Have the safety concerns been articulated? Nothing to do with the potential for loads of Israelis entering an area with a very high Muslim population in the current climate?

I haven't seen much from the Greens about it. Both Labour and Conservative have a history of failure in that regard.

Were Maccabi fans banned because of their hooligan behaviour then? Because I thought the reason was because they were Jewish.

I can see why loads of people want to vote for the party that says they are going to get rid of people like this.

Interesting. Yet a neutral analysis of your posts on this thread show you to be rather biased against Israel: What suggests bias or an inclination toward a certain side 1. Framing criticism of Israel as silenced He repeatedly claims that criticisms of Israel are suppressed by accusations of antisemitism: > “The term is weaponised and is used to shut down criticism of Israeli actions all of the time.” That framing is common in debates, but it also shows a narrative that Israel (or its supporters) are unfairly defensive. That can tilt his tone. 2. Strong moral equivalences There are moments where he draws parallels in a way that is provocative or extreme. For example: > “I don’t think that deliberately blowing up a hospital full of injured people … is any different morally. Both are equally abhorrent.” While morally one might argue that all civilian deaths are abhorrent, equating different modes of violence may reflect a rhetorical strategy rather than a neutral weighing of facts. 3. Emotive, confrontational language His exchanges sometimes use personal attacks or heated tone (“idiot”, “tell me … if you are ok … I conclude … you are something more than an idiot”). That suggests he’s quite invested in his viewpoint, which can sometimes hinder pure balanced discussion. 4. Frequent emphasis on Israeli wrongdoing Over many posts, his criticism of Israel is persistent and detailed (targeting hospitals, aid denial, displacement). In contrast, while he does occasionally criticise Hamas, his criticisms of non-Israeli actors are more sparing. That imbalance in frequency is a kind of bias (emphasis bias). 5. Attribution of motive He often asserts intent behind Israeli actions (e.g. “deliberately withheld,” “deliberate targeting,” “shut down any form of criticism”). While those claims might have support, in a balanced stance one would usually hedge more (“alleged,” “accused of,” rather than assertive). Some of his tone leans toward attributing negative motive definitely.

Anyway, I've had enough of Manning. My team would be McCarthy Edwards Wood Quarshie Jelert Jander Charles Fellows Scienza Aribo Armstrong But we will probably play Azaz.

TBF I think there are some players who have been ruined at least temporarily by last year. Chiefly: THB Stephens Archer arguably But most of the others have already left.

I'm not sure blaming it on last season is going to hold for much longer. McCarthy Mads Edwards Quarshie Jelert Charles Jander Fellows Robinson Azaz Downs Is a team we could put out that would have almost nothing to do with last season. Even the team we do play if it contains Manning, Armstrong and Archer will have very little to do with last year. I think it's a crap excuse.

Seriously what are these people doing here? Every day we are getting stories like this. This is madness.

I think it's more likely we fail to beat Swansea and then I feel the pressure is really going to ramp up on Still. 4 points minimum required from these two unless we will really start looking at another managerial change.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

I'm still subscribing to the theory that nic is a far left plant parachuted onto the forum to discredit people 'on his side' by playing up to the worst stereotypes.

The Farage years - Can the new broom sweep clean?

Remarkable decline of young people in America identifying as trans with the number halving in two years. It's almost like it was all a trend and a social contagion after all for the vast majority. Anyone pushing drugs and surgeries on these people need locking up.

Trump and his team have done a tremendous job driving through the hostage release. Agreed?

Say what you like about trump but he's very amusing if nothing else.

Good post that. I agree.

That's correct but it actually starts at nursery where parents routinely take the word of a 2 year old over the adults looking after them. I don't know if it's a general distrust of authority but it's miles worse than it was even a decade ago.

Any president could have ended things at any time apparently.

Thanks for the response which is a better one than "I don't know." I think you’re mixing a few different things there. Yes, Netanyahu’s handling of the war has been heavily criticised — even by many Israelis — and it’s clear that the campaign has caused immense suffering in Gaza. But that doesn’t mean there was an obvious, workable alternative that would have achieved the goals of eliminating or weakening Hamas, rescuing the hostages and making Israel safer in the short to medium term at least. Saying “they should have gone after Hamas and protected civilians” is easy in theory, but Hamas deliberately embedded itself among civilians, used hospitals and schools, and operated from tunnels under residential areas. Any military response was always going to risk civilian casualties — tragic but that’s the brutal reality of asymmetric warfare, not necessarily evidence of genocidal intent. As for the claim about “US mercenaries” and “shooting starving Palestinians dead for sport”, as far as I am aware those reports are disputed. Quoting one doctor’s emotional account doesn’t make it an established fact. I’m not defending Netanyahu personally — he’s been divisive inside Israel and may well face accountability for his leadership. But my point still stands: critics often describe what Israel shouldn’t have done, yet when pressed for a realistic plan that would have dismantled Hamas, rescued the hostages, and prevented another October 7th without significant force, I haven't seen much.

That's your opinion not fact. Vetted Palestinian police already exist, UN deconfliction already runs, Egypt/Jordan liaisons are a phone call away. The only new piece is the Arab peacekeeping force, which is why it’s a month or so away.

It's a familiar refrain from many people I have come across that are very critical of Israel. They are quite happy to say what Israel shouldn't be doing but haven't been able to articulate a realistic alternative for what they should have done instead that would have made them safer. Nowhere have I said that you can't criticise Israel or its actions.