egg

Ha!! You'd hope. On the face of it I don't get the selection thou. Amongst the various issues against Pompey was banging the ball long to a little lad. Playing Downs suggests we'll play the same way but with a bigger lad. On the other hand, Jander is in, presumably to feed Azaz more, and in turn play low balls into and behind the striker - that's Archer's game. Will be interesting to see which way we go - football through the middle, or 1988 edition Wimbledon.

Sounds like she got it away with it until she didn't. As much as I detest Trump and his policies, people want us to enforce our immigration rules/laws, and that's all that's happening here.

I'm really surprised Aribo isn't on the bench. 3 limited striker options, but only a poor/poorly Downes as a midfield option feels more than a bit strange.

Yep. It feels like he's playing an inferior player because he can't sort the tactics to stop us banging it long to the striker.

As harsh as it seems, her removal was ordered 20 years ago, and she lost her final appeal 13 years ago. This feels like enforcement of something previously decided rather than her being targeted.

Receipt

I'll leave it there mate. You're just a bit of a rude/ignorant prick. If you can't back up your own point with names, don't try to make a point.

Jeez. Great contribution Nic. You make a statement. Get asked, politely, to clarify who you are referring to, refuse, get asked again, then respond with that drivel. I'm not googling stuff to answer your point. It doesn't work that way. I'll ask once more. Who? Please. With sugar and candy on. Thank you very much.

@east-stand-nic An emoji isn't an answer. Who?

You said How many TV people were cancelled under the left loons of Biden and Co. Me and others have asked you to say who. Who? I'll ignore your second question as you're being offensive and I've got no idea what facts you mean. The 1st doesn't make sense.

Anyways, I'm not sure what this nonsense has to do with America. It feels more like what's wrong with Hypo.

You plainly don't understand how the law works. The police erred on the facts of that particular case. The High Court sorted it. They gave some clarity to the law, albeit got it wrong in 2 respects. The COA sorted it. Courts aren't naughty steps.

Therein lies your contradiction. The police believed, based on the complaints and the vagueness of the law, that there was something to be investigated. That the law was subsequently tested and found to have been wrongly applied is the process of the law being played out. That's given more clarity. You are interpreting a newspaper article re Miller as you wish to. The High Court clarified the law but, if you've read it all, you'll know that they got the law wrong in some respects. The COA addressed that. In doing so, they, as per the Hight Court to the police, did not rebuke the High Court, rather they further clarified a new and vague law.

The high court did not rebuke the police in the case you and I exchanged on. They clarified how the law should be interpreted. That's how it works. I think the point here is that you don't see that anything wrong has been done in the cases you've mentioned.

Indeed, and especially re new and relatively untested law.

Disagree. Where it looks like there's a case to answer, the police have a job to do. That's their function. The court's function where the law is untested is to determine and set where the boundaries lie, and then decide who's on which side. That's our legal system.

The decision is not quite what you think. The decision was that these particular tweets were not beyond the line. Thus, transphobic tweets could be a hate crime although the judgement sets the bar quite high to be fair. The summary judgement is as below (I CBA to read the full 65 page judgement) The decision "emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having". Donny could do with reading that.

A swastika made of pride flags, and Transphobic tweets are potential hate crimes. Alas, I'm not surprised that you can't see what's wrong with that, and find the latter funny. You seek to give the impression that you take a balanced view, but you really don't.

Genuine question, how many? Who? Regardless, you cannot address every issue by seeking to find an equivalence. What else may have happened previously, doesn't alter the fact that what's happening is wrong.

Ha!! When he's the answer, christ knows that the question is.

Donny definitely not trying to restrict free speech via MSM. Definitely not. Nope. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4qe0rz2zvo

That's speculation. All we know is that he says that he's unwell quite often. And has deteriorated on the pitch.

Indeed. The point still being missed is that pushing for the booting of someone prominent, after threats to the broadcaster, is as obvious an attempt to restrict speech via that platform (and clip the wings of that platform) as you could see. That other platforms are available, doesn't alter the intent to restrict the platform and control the narrative.

Jeez. You don't get this do you.

Kimmel says something contrary to the narrative. Threat then made, essentially, to pull ABC license unless he's dealt with. He's then taken off air. Of course it's a freedom of speech issue.