egg

I suspect its more likely that Rangers are a more attractive club for him. They're pushing to catch celtic, he'll have a transfer budget to work with, and given the inferior league, there's a better chance that players will be a success. To be fair to the bloke, he had to pull rabbits out of the hat for us and there's only so many times you can do that.

Caramel

If I interpret you correctly, are you are saying that as a result of a parents inability to reasonably communicate with or calm with his/her child, that it is acceptable for the adult to then strike the child? Of course an adult can walk away from a difficult situation and doing so often takes the heat out of a situation very quickly. Your statement is ridiculous.

Yes. Open palm (slap) or closed palm (fist) are two ways of hitting someone, but the latter is surely be a punch. In any event, I'm staggered by the suggestion above that there's a threshold beyond which it's considered acceptable to hit/smack/slap any child of any age. If someone would deal with a situation in life with another adult or the child of another without a hit/smack/slap, I need to understand on what basis they would feel the need hit/smack/slap their own child and why they would feel that necessary or justified. The "I can raise my child how I like" argument isn't an answer, just an excuse.

I'll take that response as a "yes".

What the f*ck! Are you for real or just some Internet caricature? Smacking someone is hitting them.

I don't hit colleagues, mates, family, or anyone when they don't comply / need to learn, so wouldn't dream of hitting a child in those (or any) situations. It's obvious that nobody should hit a child and I can't imagine a credible argument for doing so.

Gloom

They've behaved disgracefully. Had there been no accident they would have played him and regarded him as theirs. To say otherwise after his death is poor.

We did not loose to Bournemouth because we couldn't finish. We lost because we went 2 nil down as the manager chose to play half of his defence out of position, and the awful Vestergaard. To use your words, the manager could help that. Against Spurs, whatever happened with Cedric we don't really know, but we had Valery on the bench as a straight swap but instead he changed to a back 3/5 bringing in Vestergaard and again not playing a proper right back. Our left side was exploited time and time again by Son and Rose and were part of the reason we lost the game. Ralph has had shockers in the last two league games, I'm staggered anyone would argue to the contrary.

Dumpling

Struggling with being overlooked in favour of everyone who can have a go at RB? I'd struggle too knowing I'd do better there than JWP, Danso, Bednarek and possibly Cedric.

How about a bit of self censorship and getting off the rape subject? Your views are known, as are other people's views of them. Move on mate.

By that rationale Hoj should be crap Bayern > Saints, ditto Romeu Barca > Chelsea > Saints And by extension, that all the players that we have signed from lesser clubs, should be on upwards trajectory. In reality it doesn't work that way, each player has to be judged on his merits, not the club he cam from.

It should not be difficult to inderstand about the fact that why people choose to do something has nothing to do with you? That said, if you discover someone to actually be racist then it's your choice whether you distance yourself from them. On what basis you describe these people as xenophobic / racist I don't know, however.

So Danso gets a go in yet another position that's not his preferred? JWP gets dropped? Terrible team.

There you go again with other people's reasoning for voting leave. It has nothing to do with you or anyone else, and regardless of their reasoning it's irrelevant to where we are now because the votes have been cast and the votes counted. Sure, we can all express a view on what may happen in the future, but looking backwards is utterly futile.

Politics does impact on us all but I don't think you understand the concept that freedom of choice is exactly that and that once a vote has been cast the reasoning does not alter that the vote that has been cast. By all means debate something before teh event, but there's not one benefit of a post mortem that cannot change what went before.

I agree, but those taking offence on behalf of the non offended Mend appear to suggest that there's no place for context. My feeling is that my scenario would not be widely condemned as racist, but the opposite for the mendy case.

I was compared to the milky bar kid (a white chocolate bar advert symbolised by a white blonde haired kid) as a child. If a non white friend tweeted a pic of me as a white blind haired child next to a pic of the milky bar kid asking "guess who?" would it be deemed racist?

If I read you correctly it flows from your interpretation of their explanation for their vote. An explanation that they never should have needed to give. How others vote and why has feck all to do with you.

Why ask them (rhetorical). Their democratic choice is exactly that, nobody has to explain or justify it to you or anyone else. As hypochondriac says, I don't ask people how or why or they voted, it's got nothing to do with me. However, the subject does come up from time to time but I don't question why people voted a certain way years ago, and did not after the referendum. Simply, their decision has nothing to do with me and doesn't change where we are. More to the point, I wouldn't dream of letting someone else's choices change a friendship.

Couldn't be arsed to wade through the thread. The last page or so was painful enough. Still, the point remains that deliberate social division / exclusion based on vote / position is a very sad position to find ourselves in. As a general point, I agree with your earlier point that many leave voters were duped but won't admit it. It's a mess and I suspect that this thread is a much softer version of the societal division.

Yep in the context of you (I think) choosing to exclude leave voters from your wedding as they dared vote differently to you in the referendum.

Why does it matter why people voted? How does the reasoning impact you, or anyone? What does it change? Your post shows complete arrogance and an inability to accept / respect an individuals freedom of vote. Rightly (in their eyes) or wrongly (in yours) leave voters cast their vote. No amount of debate, comment, criticism, social apartheid etc etc will alter how they voted. No post mortem has ever lead to a resurrection - that won't change.