egg

Please explain the link between between paragraphs 2 and 3, what people think it'll achieve that's useful, and how you feel division helps a divided society.

People popping a flag on their house is altogether different than sticking them on lamp post after lamp post, painting a roundabout or a crossing. There's no credible reason to do that other than create division imo. What explanation are you supposed to give your kids or grandkids for it?

Yep, lots needs to be learnt from this. Allegations of racism mustn't be dismissed out of hand but neither must they be accepted at face value. And the carrying of any weapon in a public place must be outlawed, just no need for it.

Oh come on, that's hyperbolic, and avoids any context. Our flag is not a hate symbol, but it's being used in many contexts to create division. That's undeniable. And you're better than saying that the police would "rather" see someone die than challenge them. The copper got it wrong, and had no idea the lad was dying.

You say that, but the climate has gone a bit weird. Nearly 40c in northern Europe in May isn't right. Nowt we can do about it, although the chem trail brigade will tell us it's all weather manipulation, or some such.

Alive

This. There's all sorts of bollox posted above.

That's amongst the most stupid things I've ever seen on this forum, and there's a lot of competition. I know a Higgins victim, and that fella will never recover. I'm contrast, I'm already over us missing out on a football match and a decent chance of relegation from the PL next season.

It's not on him, but having to be pressured by the speaker for government comment isn't good enough.

My guess is that they've been taking legal advice to see if there was enough procedural irregularity to litigate. Having been told no, they had a public moan about the panel to get their thoughts out there, and followed it up with a "let's move on" message from Solak.

I genuinely don't think anyone saw it as an issue...he may have hated Boro for only giving him one game, who knows, but the point is that he had no interest in the case thus he could sit. I take your point though, this discussion was easily avoided.

Yep, spot on. Although I don't accept that Tonda wouldn't have known the rule, and that his position probably is untenable, there comes a point where you've got to pick a lane and either back your man or otherwise. Decision made. Move on.

Duplicate.

I can't agree with that. The approach to panels and arbitrations is the same as it is for the judiciary. Judges frequently hear cases involving former partners or colleagues from their firms if they were solicitors, or colleagues from chambers if they were barristers, even former trainees/pupils of theirs, their mates, etc. None of that ordinarily gives the judge a sufficient interest in the case to have to recuse themselves. Sure, I get how it looks, but this Winnie lad kicking ball for Boro a million years ago does not get close to being challengeable.

Yep. The club would have been better advised not to bother putting out that nonsense yesterday, and just left it to Solak.

I'm not sure how the lawyers advice falls on Parsons. Someone decided to swerve Paris Smith, and instead instructed the firm who represented Notts Forest in their PSR disciplinary defence. That was a solid piece of judgement. Its from there it seemed to go downhill. It's fair to assume that the solicitors recommended Counsel, and picking a criminal specialist for a sports disciplinary of this magnitude was mental. Whatever Parsons may have got wrong, he can't be blamed for the legal advice and approach.

Yep, terrible from the copper. As for the PM, take the knee for black lives, but stay silent about the murder of a white man at the hands of a Sikh for almost 6 months, and as Osvoldoramo says, only speaking out under pressure from the speaker. Shameful.

Player

That was a horrendous case, and the police were a disgrace. Life sentence, and 21 year minimum term though, so some kind of justice has been done.

Austerity, slashing the public sector, no benefits for immigrants or the mentally ill, scrap the NHS and replace with something unspecified, and magically stop brown people crossing the channel. I think that's it.

You're assuming what I'm arguing. I'm assuming you agree that a triple locked state pension is unaffordable, or is that the part of the welfare state that you'll get one day so would like to keep?

Indeed. I'm struggling to understand why anyone thinks that a bloke who wants to form a government based on borrowing is the solution to a government borrowing crisis.

It didn't help, but Major's government doubled the debt between 90 and 95 in their attempts to deal with the recession and recovery, then Brown's put 50% on between 2008 and 2010 for similar reasons. It's been downhill from there for a variety of reasons, but Christ knows why anyone would think Lowe is the answer.

So if US negotiators are negotiating, and have done a deal, but it's all subject to Donnie's approval, who's set the US terms for the negotiators? On any assesment, it feels like negotiations are happening with ever changing Trump (perhaps Israel ?) positions. Odd.