egg

I get that, but it doesn't address the point you made. You asked why these perpetrators (this one I assume is what you mean) are here. If they were born here, there's your answer. If they weren't, and are here legally, there's your answer. If they're here illegally, your question is valid. Your "get them out" line only makes sense if you've assumed this was an illegal immigrant who could potentially be removed. That's a pretty wild assumption.

We don't know whether he was born here or elsewhere. I'm not sure that his origins make any difference, it was an evil act of terrorism regardless of his place if birth.

Ear

He's been playing as a RWB in a back 3, so not really an advanced role. I've always liked the lad. Solid defensively and pretty decent technically as you say. I'm not sure that the new lads give us much if any more.

Point 19 covers it, but, it's that there 'may' be pathway in the future. Yep, it's a flawed plan, but, this has to end and there's no other way on the table, and Israel won't stop, and nobody is helping the people of Gaza. Sometimes the only deal is a bad one, but the only one, thus the best deal.

I don't dispute that, but, I'd hazard a guess that there's leaders in the group. People are just assuming that there's no leaders amongst our squad of players which is a strange assumption.

Yep. I don't buy this "we have no leaders nonsense". It's an excuse for management shortcomings. Coaching ain't managing.

Stephens, Manning, Downes, McCarthy, Stewart, and others, are all seasoned pros. Leadership and confidence comes from the management, then to the players.

They've looked a bag of nerves all season. Pompey was a case in point. The players looked full of fear, couldn't handle the stage or pressure, kept giving the ball away, etc. Last night they looked shot to pieces, when leading. I agree that it shouldn't be a hangover from last season, but the players shouldn't be such a bag of nerves this season. Good management teams instill confidence. Hopefully the win will be a turning point.

The detail of the 20 point plan: Lots of sensible stuff in there, but 16 and 19 will be big issues...no Israel occupation, but Israel to stay until it agrees that it's ok for it to move out...and 'may' be a pathway to the statehood that Netanyahu has already dismissed. What's ridiculous is the process to get here. A carve up between Netanyahu and Trump, then presented as a take it or annihilation ultimatum. Hopefully the contentious areas can be ironed out and this situation ends.

I get that the confidence was drained from the players who were hear last year, but it's surprising that it's still an issue this long after Still's appointment, and with so many of last years players moved on and the sheer number of new lads. The management team isn't just there to pick the team and coach tactics, it's job is also to manage the players. I'm staggered that these players are such a bag of nerves - they shouldn't be.

Unchanged. Nice. Stephens out completely.

That's a peculiar take on history. The 1947 UN pre Israel proposal was an Arab State and a Jewish state. 2 states. The 1949 Armistice lines included Gaza and the West Bank, plus Israel. Essentially an Arab state under occupation from 2 established sovereign Arab countries, plus Israel. 2 states. At no point from 1947 was the intention to have a homegenised Israeli/Arab state and/or for Gaza or West Bank (or the 1947 proposed Arab state if you prefer) to be occupied or blockaded by Israel.

I suspect they are SoG. Regardless, not our circus etc.

Intellectual

He played RWB in a 352.

This is bloody tight.

Not me, but like you, it's something I'm thinking about getting into.

Aberg 1 up. We won't smash them like I was hoping, sadly.

Editor

Yeah. We'll be fine. Hojgaard and Rahm looking good, and Fitzpatrick should hold on.

Indeed. We live in an era where online polls can be done daily. Back then, mori or whoever had to send teams of people out onto the streets all around the country to take polls. They didn't do that daily, and not every time a politician did something that would spike the polls one way or the other. The graph is bollox.

I understand fully. Those are polls that show the highest unpopularity rating at the time of asking. That's different to the highest unpopularity of the leadership. Regardless, you've got to be pretty daft to think that at his peak of unpopularity, Major was more unpopular than many if that lot, your mate Thatcher especially.

Again, it's completely meaningless without the context of whether those figures were at a snapshot in time, or at peak unpopularity. None of that ^^^ waffle addresses that.

People have to convince themselves sometimes. Any poll which suggests that peak Major or Sunak was more unpopular than peak Thatcher is bollox. Only a Thatcher fanboy would buy that. Oh.