hypochondriac

I'm almost ALMOST ready to say, he's been worth the fee we paid for him. As long as he's played with people who can score he's a useful addition to the team. He is a useless finisher though, he's a bit like a much fitter version of how I play football.

Jwp is a bit of a middle class smarmy ***** who you'd think would deserve a slap in real life. Really funny that he's on our team winding up Zaha though. Zaha doesn't seem particularly bright though, he really should just not react.

Oh that's terrible. Always seemed like a nice bloke.

Willfoxgolf great shout.

Blimey I didn't know that. He was the main mod on here for a while and a plumber. I didn't know much about him beyond that. That's sad.

Hands up. Looks like the rumours were untrue. Jess has done something vaguely sensible for once and is endorsing Nandy for leader. I do think she's the best choice really and if they don't elect her they are fools.

He posted in november so it's unlikely.

This is interesting: The relegated sides went down on 16, 26 and 34 points last season. The teams in the relegation zone this season are on 17, 23 and 23 points with 14/15 games to go.

It's pretty unprecedented for the team in 19th to be on 23 after 24 games isn't it? I'm not sure it's happened before

Yeah but the quality of the match wasn't the point. The football was pretty secondary. Amazing experience mingling with a ton of saints fans abroad with cheap lager. Arnhem was probably the best one.

Ascoli. Roger beeks. Saintlee. Redandwhitepanda. Montys turban. Maverick. Javi. Saf. Saint David. Helpmerhonda. Lifelong Saint. Good posters one and all. Will add more as I remember them.

I wouldn't. I still think it's unlikely but Prague, Milan and Amsterdam were brilliant.

I think 43 could be the mark this year.

That was superb. Jwp motm for me but a few of them could have had it.

And me. I'm glad the ref is letting the game flow.

Good start but goodness me vestergaard is shiiiiite.

That's seems like a fair comment. Like you say it's a difference of opinion and interpretation and there's nothing definitive. I'm not a fan of picking selective headlines stripped of context though. Kate got her own bad press near the start and certainly some of the lesser royals got some terrible treatment. Happy to accept though that some may look at it and think there's a racist motivation. If there is a difference I would say its more that she's different- from an alien culture in some respects, not posh enough, American accent, all into the identity politics thing etc. Not a typical royal. Impossible to say for sure though and certainly not clear and obvious like soggy has claimed.

Yep and the exact same thing was said last January. It set us up for a huge rebuilding exercise where we get the players we badly needed in. Didn't really happen did it and the same thing will happen this summer, leaving us with very obvious deficiencies once again and crossing our fingers that we don't get one long term injury or we are f*cked.

4 day epiphanys about the ability of a fullback do happen.

Wait until egg sees this post. He will be here any minute to set you straight, the club have never not been straight.

Well then that's ridiculous if you're talking about social media. I could find you hundreds of thousands of examples of abuse of figures on social media,regardless of colour, sex, ethnicity or language or even fame. That speaks more to what the likes of twitter is like and the penchant for trolls from all over the world to throw out abusive comments on it. Sadly in that respect meghan is no different from anyone else on twitter, albeit she is higher profile at the moment so is likely to get a higher volume. Fox denied that it was racism and I agree with him. There is clear evidence that meghan has been the victim of sensationalist reporting and unkobd words written about her in the media, particularly after they appeared to become lore political and lecturing whilst leaving themselves open to claims of hypocrisy. There are examples of similar behaviours employed by the press towards a whole host of royals over decades with some of them. What this speaks to is how sh*tty some of the press can be but its certainly not something that meghan has been unique in suffering. You could argue that there is "clear evidence" of racism against her in the media that has been going on for four years but be aware that many people completely disagree with your characterisation and are yet to see racist press treatment that is uniquely different from how other royals have been treated and unequivocally racist. As I said to you, the vast majority of press coverage was hugely positive initially, particularly during their wedding. The woman on question time stated for a fact that meghan received poor press due to racism. Fox challenged this assertion because he - and clearly many others including myself- have not seen evidence to support this and do not believe it to be the case. It's a difference of opinion, Fox is as entitled to his view as the woman was and given we have not thus far uncovered hoards of media coverage that is objectively racist in nature, it will remain as a difference of opinion. You said "who is he to question if a black person has been racially abused?". He's perfectly within his rights to ask for evidence of abuse rather than simply listening and believing and the colour of his skin is entirely irrelevant to that. You appeared to be suggesting that someone with white skin was unable to challenge a claim of racism or ask for any evidence and I completely disagree with that and I consider that to be a racist attitude. Fox NEVER said that racism did not exist here. He actually says it exists later on during the programme and says we need to call it out where it exists. He said we are a tolerant and lovely nation which we are. In your mind it seems he has to preface every statement he makes on race with an acknowledgement that racism does exist lest the hard of thinking make wild assumptions that he thinks it doesn't. I've already said to you, Harry and meghan may have interpreted less favourable coverage of themselves to be racist in nature but that doesn't mean that it has been or that it is substantially different from the shabby treatment that other royals have had. Fox wasn't a ****, he made reasonable comments on question time that I agree with. He should be applauded for publically voicing what I suspect a majority of the public believe.

Jussie smollett still claims he was racially abused. Who are you as a white man of privilege to tell him he wasn't?

Oh and "what gives him the right to tell someone they haven't been racially abused?" Two words: Jussie Smollett.

That's the crux of the matter. You believe that it's "clearly" racist. Those involved vehemently deny that and many do not believe it to be racist. Absolutely ridiculous to suggest you would never be subject to racial prejudice because you are white or that you would be unable to recognise racial prejudice due to your skin colour. In that same question time, a black woman was moaning about the overuse of the race card and largely agreeing with Fox. What gives you the right as a white male of privilege to dismiss her point of view?

And now voice of the common people Jess "pass the mic" Phillips will be endorsing a male millionaire for leader. What I like about Jess is she really sticks to her principles.