egg

Why do people have to post about other conflicts to have a voice on this? Ukraine is a vast country. The proportion of it, and it's infrastructure, destroyed is a fraction of that in Gaza. Yes? People suppress discussion on this topic because, and make the slurs that people like you do, because: A. They support what's happening, or B. They don't give a fuck, or C. They are anti islamic.

Ha!! You post a video of an anti islamic post from a half Jewish bloke suggesting that people can't possibly protest this cause if they don't protest against "gender apartheid" (in Muslim countries) and you call me a halfwit. You presented as half intelligent once.

The fella is a half Jewish islamaphobe. People can protest about the Israeli behaviour in Gaza without being compelled to protest against other issues.

Walls

Because it's completely different. If all the Ukrainians were herded over to Lviv, for example, all the other residential areas all but destroyed, ditto hospitals and infrastructure, then Lviv attacked, and the people herded away again, you'd have something that resembles what's happened on the ground. Throw in the lack of a Palestinian state, and everything else the Palestinians have suffered (in Gaza and West Bank), then it becomes fairly obvious why people are up in arms. Weston is speaking for himself, or talking bollox, by saying it's a religious thing why people feel like they do. It's the scale of what Israel are doing in the context of the size of Gaza that sets it apart.

Nonsense. Pre election campaigns are a sales pitch. Any party can roll out anyone they want to sell to the public, irrespective of our individual opinions of the parties, their people, or policies.

Anything that stops what's happening is great, but to be sustainable there has to be a compromise that both sides accept. Let's see where it goes.

Why can't a mouthpiece also be a commentator? Parties can put out anyone they want, and it's for them to determine whether it's overload of one person, or a wider spread. In a bigger party, clearly there are more options. Personally, I think Farage is a loathsome prick and the more I see and hear of him, the more harm I think he does for his parties cause. If his party feel otherwise, that's their call.

The Israel proposal cannot reasonably be treated as a fait accompli. Hamas cannot be expected to accept a poor deal in the same way as a 'deal' from Palestine to, for example, give over all of the west bank with the settlements in situ for the Palestinians, all of Jerusalem, etc, shouldn't be presented to Israel as a fait accompli. That's not how these things work. What we have is a statement of Israel's position with Biden's endorsement. Nothing more.

No. A deal. Not a deal including what I've mentioned. They've taken loads of 'prisoners' since 7/10 and unless they're giving them back, pulling out completely, and agreeing to a 'permanent' ceasefire, they're can't be an agreement. Ditto, Hamas must cease fire, and return hostages. If I were the Palestinians, I'd also want a commitment in principle to a 2 state solution, and if I were Israel I'd want a commitment to the recognition of Israel as a state. That aspect is probably a future stage 4, but they're the elephants in the room and plainly the launchpad for future conflict if just parked.

It was, and people bought into Adam being the scapegoat.

Why do you take Reed's word over Lallana's? I heard things at that time and given the choice of two versions, I take Adam's. I also think that it's wrong to comment without understanding the context. Many players sign extensions with a gentleman's agreement not to block a move, and I think that's a distinct probability here. Lallana wasn't the black sheep in my opinion.

Yep. Peoples objections to people from the left or right having a platform probably align with their political allegiances. Reform can shove anyone forward for all I care, ditto the others. It's about getting their principles out there, who the personality is giving the message is irrelevant imo.

Whether Israel can accept a deal which essentially sees Hamas remain in some form is doubtful. Hamas can't accept a deal without an agreement to a full and permanent ceasefire, full withdrawal from Gaza, and an exchange of all the Palestinian 'prisoners' taken since 7/20 for all the remaining hostages taken on 7/10. Ideally you'd have a proper plan for a 2 state solution too. Hopefully this is a platform for a deal though.

I never understood the lurch from "forced the issue" to him striking. The lad stuck with us when we went down, and in a short career, he had to take the big move when it was on offer. The big contract was as much for our benefit as it was his - without it, we'd have got a much lower fee. Personally, I think there's at least as much chance as it being sour grapes from the saints side as anything else. I certainly wouldn't take Les Reed's word over Lallana's.

What's the authority for this allegation? I've heard the allegation loads, but never one link to back it.

Elaborate please.

It's the 5 years after that which worry me. I think he'll do it though. He'll dine out on this "injustice" and the dopey yanks will lap it up.

James is perpetually injured though, and will probably slide Infield as a CB or midfielder. KWP going there wouldn't surprise me.

They sure did. Hopefully that's Baz and Manning getting their dream moves 🤞🙏🤞

We'll be paying for it for the bulk of our lifetime. I'd love to know how many people/businesses who took the help actually needed it.

I agree, but I don't agree with your point that Maresca wouldn't buy from us just because Leicester spanked us last season.

I didn't read it as right only criticism. I'll change my view if it was.

Yes. He's not buying the whole team.

The former by a mile. It's a sad state of affairs when politicians so willingly lie, and we the public almost need to start with the presumption that we're being lied to.