egg

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed.

A different perspective on that is they've made something relevant, sparked a necessary debate, and want to use the opportunity for wider discussion, and hopefully make necessary changes. The "condition people" part I keep hearing, and nobody seems able to credibly explain what they actually mean and how they actually feel it's happening. The cruel irony to that statement is that it overlooks that the conditioning in this context is from the influencers in vulnerable kids, and doesn't address how we address that.

I'm not sure who's pretending to be experts. Do you agree that there needs to be discussion leading to action? Assuming you do, why can't something high profile be used to kick start it? Seems a good thing to me.

What I'm not seeing is mention of who these positive role models should be. Lots of who it shouldn't be though. I had my father, football coaches, cub/scout leaders, teachers who gave it straight, neighbours who weren't afraid to pull you up when you were out of line, bosses (I started working when at school), and others. My peers had similar, so there was a degree of peer policing. We were little shits at times, in fact often but we knew where the line was and didn't cross it.

What's your objection to something prompting a discussion that's necessary? Unless you're saying that there's no discussion to be had?

It should start with their father.

Anyone can sound crap in the guildhall with those acoustics. Courteeners are brilliant live, but in there they sounded dreadful. James yoo. Moon safari though, what an album.

Suggestion - stop goading.

Or to bite, every time.

Challenge

Not ideal! Presumably decent dark chocolate is okay though?

Debbie Harry in her prime -

Cheeky prick!!

An "if I was a band or singer" thread is a good shout. I'd have to think about that one.

To be fair, SoG is guaranteed a laughing emoji on every post from Nic, and also from Hypo if it relates to innocent dead Palestinians. None of us can boast that kind of a loyal fanclub.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. Hamas are a political organisation with a military wing. They were elected to power in Gaza. They subsequently went nuts. I see that you're continuing your downgrade. Earlier Hamas supporters were terrorists apparently, then they were terrorist supporters, now it's the members who are supporters. You're getting there. I'll help you keep it simple. Terrorists are terrorists. People who support terrorists doing terrorist stuff are terrorist supporters. People who voted for a party who turned out to be terrorists are just people. People who are stuck with terrorists as their government deserve our sympathy.

I'm surprised it's as many as that.

That's nonsensical. You're suggesting that supporters of terrorist political parties must be deemed to support their policies, but not the supporters of non terrorist political parties. You can't have it but ways.

Are you seriously suggesting that all people who voted for Hamas support the October 23 acts, and it's other terrorist acts? If you are, that's like saying that all labour voters support the policies they've implemented. You need to understand the difference between a political entity and people.

You're making up terms here. Hamas are a terrorist organisation. It's members, and the supporters who get involved in planning or conducting terrorism, are terrorists. It's supporters (voters as they're a political party) cannot all be assumed to support the terrorist activity - it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Hypo seemingly wants to define anyone who supports Hamas as a terrorist. Understanding that there's a distinction between the organisation and the actions/intentions of people shouldn't be hard to comprehend. I'm also at a loss to understand how this thread has got here as well.

You're conflating organisations and individuals. Separate entities. Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation. People that support them are not necessarily terrorists. The people who abduct and kill inmo to Israeli people are. Go back to my IRC point. Would any sensible American consider an admin employee of that group as a terrorist? By your logic, they should. By logical logic, nobody would.

Perhaps read the actual words that I posted. That said, if someone was a 'member' of the IRA back in the day, but didn't get involved in terrorist activity in any way, are you saying that person would be a terrorist in your eyes? That's like saying that you're a footballer because you support or are a member of a football club.

One of those games which I wanted both teams to lose. Newcastle deserved it though.

Erwink61 put it perfectly. My take is what a stupid post. As for stats, nobody can assist when the tactics mean that there's nobody ahead of them to assist.