egg

Average player. No, no and never.

There'll be game. Ings may play. Or may not. I hope we win. We may do. Or not.

Spot on. It's a shame that Sky News UK are not reporting this in the same open and frank way that Sky New Australia have.

You say "At the very least we can't say for sure that stop and search isn't being misused". That's a curious statement and suggests that you feel it necessary that evidence is shown to prove that there is no misuse. That's not how it works - the police are not presumed guilty of misuse unless they can prove otherwise. As to stop and search, do you not feel reassured that someone "fitting a description" is stopped and searched? Would you prefer no action be taken? I must confess that I haven't tread the document you link to, but when I hear reports of kids being stabbed, the victims and perpetrators are usually black. If that's the case (I am happy to be corrected if I misunderstand the position) how can there be any objection to searching the kids in areas where that stuff happens? Regardless, the issue in this thread is that football has associated itself with the actions and name of Black Lives Matters (BLM) and footy players are compelled to kneel in support of that. The BLM organisation is the flip side of the EDL and nobody should be made to support it. The actions of the Millwall fans and the comments on this forum show how divisive the issue is. If footy players really are to be the public focus, do it in a way that does not oblige them to virtue signal, and do not do it in the name of an organisation that does not stand for racial equality.

Healer

If an addict doesn't address their addiction, then they will use again regardless of how easy or difficult it is to access a bookmaker / drink / drug. If the addiction is properly addressed, it doesn't matter how available the bookmaker / drink / drug is. Advertising has nothing to do with the problem.

Condone, no. Bright enough to understand why, probably.

BLM "has zero negative impact" on my life. In fact it has no impact at all, but neither do any of the pro white movements. I don't like seeing footy players feeling obliged to stand/kneel in support of BLM any more/less than I'd want them to be obliged to stand/kneel for any other fringe movement. Sure, send a message in support of social and racial equality, but anyone thinking that is what BLM stand for does not understand their ideology.

Yep. Cost his team. Possibly cost Wilder his job too, got to be a dead man walking.

That post nails it, especially the last paragraph.

Nope, but you could extend that to gambling full stop, alcohol, tobacco, or anything which some people become addicted to. We're becoming a nanny state and I don't think banning online gambling is necessary.

Yep, absolutely ridiculous statement. I believe in racial equality and social justice. BLM don't.

I've got a friend who's a recovered gambling addict. What he and his family went through was horrendous, but he's had years in Gamblers Anonymous and hasn't had a bet in a long time. What he's told about his journey has been an eye opener. He started betting harmlessly as many of us do, but he became addicted because he's an addict. Not because of the plentiful bookies, or websites, at adverts, but because of how he's wired. Now he's sorted himself out, he doesn't go into a cold sweat when he sees a bookies or an ad for an online casino on a footy shirt. I can't agree with the poster who says "it's about personal responsibility and decisions of the individual" as that misunderstands addiction. There is nothing irresponsible about having a little bet, I do as do millions of others. I can choose to stop or not bet at all , but an addict at the simplest description, loses the power of choice and will bet because his of addiction not because he's lacking in responsibility. With the above said, advertising does not make addicts, and I have no issue with it.

That is ridiculous. The situation has to be fluid with covid. Nobody could seriously have expected them to have known back then what they might have to do in the current situation.

Nicely swerved. Someone who doesn't support mandatory taking the knee in public is not racist. If you disagree, please say. Playing the tape forward, is someone who doesn't support mandatory taking the knee in public, a racist for expressing that view? I haven't said the Millwall boys are or aren't racist. I'm saying it's perfectly acceptable to think that footy players having to take the knee is bollocks.

Spot on. The club have had to come up with a system, and prioritising the fans who demonstrate the highest commitment seems obvious. I'm staggered there's an argument against that.

Are you of the opinion that someone who doesn't support mandatory taking the knee in public is racist?

No worries. It's not for me to express an opinion on the motivation of the people who booed today. My view is that the knee is virtue signalling, that it'll achieve nothing, making people do it isn't right, that not agreeing with the above is not racist, and that branding people with a contra view as racist is wrong. Whether those people today were making noise for those reasons, or because they were racist, neither of us can say.

Belief

If you want someone to explain their post, ask them, don't ask me by referring to a completely different scenario. On this point, players are obliged to take the knee. If they don't they are branded racist - indeed, Dion Dublin said this about the fans today: "They don't agree with taking the knee, which means they are racist. They don't agree with Black Lives Matter; that says they are racist to me." That's bollox. I don't agree that people should be made to take the knee. I don't agree that it will achieve anything. Don't get me wrong, booing it won't achieve anything, but branding people racist for not agreeing with the way that an issue is being tackled is pathetic.

Yep. It's obligatory virtue signalling which will achieve nothing. Thinking that is not racist.

People said it was a personal issue, not a big issue. The fact there was a press embargo in it suggests it wasn't a sore ankle or whatever. Regardless, he seems to be there or thereabouts now which is great for him, and hopefully us.

Unchained

Possibly, but my post was in response to a post about where he'd go and be a regular starter. He'd never be a regular starter for any of those. To go to one of them it'd have to be for a bit part rule, but admittedly with European footy and more cash. Regardless, if he wants out, we'll no doubt cash in over the summer.

Good point, and I can't think of one club that'd be an upgrade (or at least significant one) on us, although I could think of a few that'd probably pay him more and give first team footy...Wolves (at least whilst Jiminez is out), Villa, West Ham, Newcastle. He'd be terrific for Leeds. Bielsa's style would suit him and the fans would love him. On balance I suspect this is brinkmanship and I reckon he'll sign.