egg

Sure, it's possible that it was Lallana at fault, or the club, or both. What I never understood at the time though, and still don't now, is why the masses assumed that the line fed from the club was the correct one. I don't believe it was.

Absolutely. Staggering that the fans swallowed the bs as gospel.

I'm unsure whether you lean more towards a superiority or inferiority complex Whelk. You're strangely inconsistent, but plainly not as bright as you initially present as.

It seems that everything is a great argument if it aligns to your views, and a shocker if it doesn't. On your first point, have a little think what the thread is about. It's only by your metric, and a few others, that people can't express a contrary view to yours on the actual subject without aspersions being cast. Frankly, that says more about you than me. What's happening in Ukraine is appalling, but the scale on a proportionate basis isn't on a par with what's happening in Gaza. In you think otherwise, I'd be staggered. Re Ukraine, I've tried joining that thread but there's a few (you being one) who haven't got a clue (telling us ages ago that Russia were all but out of ammo and hardware, cos that's what you were hoping for) so discussion was pointless. Re the last point, your posts are littered with suggestions (the post that I'm responding to being a case point) that people who take a contrary view have an ulterior motive or similar. The ulterior motives, consciously or otherwise, emanate from you and people with your views. That bloke in the video that Whelk linked being another. The message is simple, and stupid - your views aren't valid unless you show outage against other appalling situations.

I thought you'd be horrified by their exclusive public support for an isolated cause Whelk.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj772xzl3xdo Outrageous, speaking out about and contributing to this cause without one word about any other conflict, and not one penny to another cause.

You know it.

My best guess is that Toby has carveries but that doesn't help solve the conundrum.

Vanilla

Millwall? Cheeky sods.

The video wasn't about that. It was a bloke telling women that they can't support Palestine unless they join his condemnation of Muslim practices. It was biased and a blatant attempt to oppose protest. I have no interest in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of religious practices, plus it's irrelevant to this topic.

Ok, so Jewish. Doesn't alter his biased opinion.

Nope, this is a thread about one specific subject so I'll confine my views to that subject. Daft to suggest that I shouldn't. The relevance of his being half Jewish is obvious - he's biased, and that comes through in every word he speaks. It's an attack on muslim practices - similar type of talk from a Muslim (or anyone) against Jews would quite rightly be condemned as anti Semitic.

Why do people have to post about other conflicts to have a voice on this? Ukraine is a vast country. The proportion of it, and it's infrastructure, destroyed is a fraction of that in Gaza. Yes? People suppress discussion on this topic because, and make the slurs that people like you do, because: A. They support what's happening, or B. They don't give a fuck, or C. They are anti islamic.

Ha!! You post a video of an anti islamic post from a half Jewish bloke suggesting that people can't possibly protest this cause if they don't protest against "gender apartheid" (in Muslim countries) and you call me a halfwit. You presented as half intelligent once.

The fella is a half Jewish islamaphobe. People can protest about the Israeli behaviour in Gaza without being compelled to protest against other issues.

Walls

Because it's completely different. If all the Ukrainians were herded over to Lviv, for example, all the other residential areas all but destroyed, ditto hospitals and infrastructure, then Lviv attacked, and the people herded away again, you'd have something that resembles what's happened on the ground. Throw in the lack of a Palestinian state, and everything else the Palestinians have suffered (in Gaza and West Bank), then it becomes fairly obvious why people are up in arms. Weston is speaking for himself, or talking bollox, by saying it's a religious thing why people feel like they do. It's the scale of what Israel are doing in the context of the size of Gaza that sets it apart.

Nonsense. Pre election campaigns are a sales pitch. Any party can roll out anyone they want to sell to the public, irrespective of our individual opinions of the parties, their people, or policies.

Anything that stops what's happening is great, but to be sustainable there has to be a compromise that both sides accept. Let's see where it goes.

Why can't a mouthpiece also be a commentator? Parties can put out anyone they want, and it's for them to determine whether it's overload of one person, or a wider spread. In a bigger party, clearly there are more options. Personally, I think Farage is a loathsome prick and the more I see and hear of him, the more harm I think he does for his parties cause. If his party feel otherwise, that's their call.

The Israel proposal cannot reasonably be treated as a fait accompli. Hamas cannot be expected to accept a poor deal in the same way as a 'deal' from Palestine to, for example, give over all of the west bank with the settlements in situ for the Palestinians, all of Jerusalem, etc, shouldn't be presented to Israel as a fait accompli. That's not how these things work. What we have is a statement of Israel's position with Biden's endorsement. Nothing more.

No. A deal. Not a deal including what I've mentioned. They've taken loads of 'prisoners' since 7/10 and unless they're giving them back, pulling out completely, and agreeing to a 'permanent' ceasefire, they're can't be an agreement. Ditto, Hamas must cease fire, and return hostages. If I were the Palestinians, I'd also want a commitment in principle to a 2 state solution, and if I were Israel I'd want a commitment to the recognition of Israel as a state. That aspect is probably a future stage 4, but they're the elephants in the room and plainly the launchpad for future conflict if just parked.

It was, and people bought into Adam being the scapegoat.

Why do you take Reed's word over Lallana's? I heard things at that time and given the choice of two versions, I take Adam's. I also think that it's wrong to comment without understanding the context. Many players sign extensions with a gentleman's agreement not to block a move, and I think that's a distinct probability here. Lallana wasn't the black sheep in my opinion.