hypochondriac

Where have I lapped up anything? I just think it's pretty disrespectful to the Queen to release something like this out of the blue and I don't think they should receive financial support and living off their titles if they don't want the responsibilities. Give up their titles and they can do whatever they like and it's no one elses business. I can also make my own mind up when they start lecturing others about how to live whilst jetsetting around the world. I don't need a hostile press to know that makes them look bad.

"don't see Blair and New Labour as a good thing apart from getting elected." lol.

Makes you think if it's that easy why every other Labour leader failed to do that. I also don't like the narrative that corbyn has been so unsuccessful simply plbecause some of the newspapers printed negative stuff about him. He brought most of it on himself as I said.

Abd that's fine assuming they will be giving up their titles and privileges and financial support that goes with that.

It's pretty tacky when you realise their intention is to profit off their titles but with none of the responsibilities that come with them. Kind of typifies modern society and apparently the Queen feels really let down.

You said the press didn't go after Blair because he was a watered down tory. You talk a load of old tripe.

Hold on so the press gave Blair an easy ride because he pretended to be a tory? Is that what you're saying?

Great reply.

One of the world's leading mass murderers of Muslims, killing almost entirely for political reasons and yet not a terrorist?

If the media has such a massive effect, why did Tony Blair win by a landslide not so long ago?

It's not a definition I came up with, it's the dictionary definition. Not all military foreign policies involve illegal acts of violence against usually civilian populations. If you like you can give a narrower definition- you can only be labelled a terrorist if you instruct groups of armed men to shoot and kill unarmed civilians in cold blood. Does that make someone a terrorist? It's not whole units, it's the person almost solely in charge of various militia and armed groups commiting murders under his instruction. No man in the world involved in more death in more countries and yet you don't consider him a terrorist?

Interesting isn't it. Its not often you find a player that goes downhill at such a young age as 28. It's an affliction which I've seen from some other East African players too. They also tend to be unbelievable for the youth teams too. Curious.

What's that got to do with anything? I asked how Solemani was not a terrorist considering he clearly meets the definition. Your response was something irrelevant about being high up in the Iranian regime. Victims of Solemani are incredibly thankful and definitely consider him to be a terrorist, I reckon they'd be in a good position to know.

Threatening to destroy something isn't the same as doing it. If trump deliberately destroys cultural sights then fair enough but he hasn't. You're now changing the parameters, he very clearly meets the definition of a terrorist and to pretend otherwise simply because he was an important figure in Iran is bizarre. Many experts on the matter don't believe its weakened the US position, many are suggesting it has badly weakened Iran and they have few options because they aren't mad enough to start a war. My main worry is that Trump doesn't really have a wider plan, but I'm certainly not upset that this terrorist has been dealt with, and the thousands of families who have been victimised by him are currently celebrating.

"A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." He fits the definition exactly.

Corbyn deserved everything he got. Almost all the criticism he got for things like supporting terrorists or inaction with regards to antisemitism is of his own making.

How was Solemani not a terrorist?

"28"

Superb posts Gordon. Of course it will be dismissed because they weren't official club sources but anyone with half a brain knows exactly what is going on and as you say, it stinks and has done for a good few years now.

That may well be true but that's still the image he has to sell well because that isn't how he currently comes accross.

No it didn't. The tactic worked perfectly at the time. It placated loads of the fans who instead of being rightly angry at the pitiful transfer window efforts, either shrugged and said at least we tried or in some cases praised the club for showing ambition even if it didn't come off. Do you seriously think that had we not employed those tactics and simple stayed quiet and not signed anyone that that would have been a better pr move for the club? It's not something I like but I totally understand why they do it because it works very well. In hindsight people can talk about how poor the window was, but why would the club give two ****s about the views of a few fans about a season three years ago? It's about having the most positive mindset from the largest number of fans about the current situation.

I think it is pretty relevant when you think that one of his main jobs is to come across cross as relatable to the working class. I'm sure the team around him and Starmer himself will be considering it relevant and one obstacle he will have to overcome.

I'm not suggesting this is the reason at all, but there have been other players out with mystery viruses or other illnesses and sometimes they are serving bans for a variety of reasons. Clyne springs to mind...

A timely bump of this thread. Illustrates perfectly what many of us were saying about pr tactics and being linked to tons of players that we were never realistically going to sign. Absolutely spunked the vvd cash up the wall the following summer.

Nandy is absolutely the best out of the ones standing. She has zero chance though.