Smirking_Saint

Im not knocking pellè his all round play is excellent. He snatches too much though, a bit more composure and he really would be excellent

Thankfully you didnt say he was excellent, we'd of had Noodles getting his 2005 FA approved player quality chart, MLG would of prayed for things to stop and brett would've made the sarnies

Thank you pap, much more errudite then I could muster Freedom of expression is vitally important, but at the same time people need to know the boundries and be responsible, IMO

The amount of chances Pellè had he should already have 15, Im pretty confident a more composed striker, of which Dzeko is, would have put many of them away.

1. If they are coming up with exclusives instead of just reporting I personally see that as a better service. 2. Everyone knows prince andrew, most news services will use the obvious name to report. This is basically you getting into a huff over the BBC isnt it ?

I agree But do you think it was adviseable ?

Good work goats

Its still an exclusive Im not entirely sure I understand your waffling here viking

I completely agree, but unfortunately it is the current world we live in

Would you say after the danish incident comicalising the prophet mohamed was adviseable ?

It depends how you look, anything can be defended behind the shield that is free speech. And dont get me wrong that is a good thing. We have to defend our rights to that. We have to ensure that we do not now break in the face of it. But there is a line within which it goes into the realms of poking for a reason. As i said before, calling the playground bully a fat idiot is free speech, but I wouldnt say it is necessarily adviseable and after the retaliation cannot be considered unlikely. THAT DOESNT mean I am in anyway being anti free speech, defending the actions of the extremists or considering that the journalist is to blame. It was an abhorant atrocity carried out by those determined to change the way we live

Is it acceptable ? No Is it surprising due to the threats and previous retaliation due to making fun of the prophet mohamed ? No Its really not dofficult to comprehend

Jesus christ, are you lot deliberately misinterpreting what I have said ?

As soon as I saw the pictures years ago I decided it was probably a bit silly considering what has happened in the past. And whelk, Im not proposing that material such as that should be banned. Its up to them as individuals to decide where the line is. All I am saying is that retaliation cant really be seen as surprising.

Then what are you argueing about ?

Again, Im not criticising the publications freedom to publish as they wish, thats up to them as an organisation and as human beings. But just as it is your right to call the biggest bully in the playground a pig ignorant ***** Id certainly say it was ill advised. You are more than welcome to say that is brave, Id say it was foolish.

Im not talking about the articles Im talking about mocking the prophet, which Brave or not was certainly ill advised. Lets not pretend Im campaigning against freedom of speech, Im not.

He hasnt had an approach yet, it would be foolish to comment on something that isnt likely to happen. Like it or not if Barca come knocking I fully expect him to take it and wouldnt blame him. He isnt going to come out and say 'Id take it if offered' before an approach is made through fear of upsetting the fan base.

Its an arguement that isnt really there, or trotted out by those that dont understand

There was no chance they would have taken free speech away with or without a mocking reference to the prophet mohamed. Some may call him brave and some would call him stupid. It wasnt needed, certainly, as I said before, after the danish comic incident.

Classic pap

Of course it wasnt deserved, but what they did was certainly ill advised, especially in the wake of the danish comics. The unfortunate side effect of free speech is the possibility of retailiation. Ill accept that you'll callme an idiot but there is a possibility if you continue to offend ill punch you in the face. The problem is CH poked a very angry bear where islamic extremism is concerned. Certainly these people are abhorant (the extremists that is) but they clearly wanted a valid target and decided CH was one. Especially after the threats from IS and Al Quaida. That doesnt of course, make things just or excused. Terrorism in its nature generally appears as small, hard to anticipate attacks that aim to change the way people live their lives. France need to resist that, but more importantly we need to resist a widespread anti islamic canpaign as in the whole that will make matters worse.

You really are something special Better go to sleep before mummy ad daddy realise your up

There is arguably an equal evil rearing its head in germany right now as was apparant with the marches in Dresden etc. Ok, its not so religiously charged as the Islamic extremists are but it is still effectively a religious group denouncing another religious group. (Stereotype alert)Personally I think its all about education, we are generally more tolerant as a society compared to many islamic societies towards other ways of life and I think its because we are more educated. There are however three things that control radicalisation; Oppression (or the belief of such) - As is apparant in Germany(past and present scarily), possibly in factions such as the EDL and in islamic factions such as IS etc. Impressionable characters - Who I suggest tend to be more mentally fragile or less educated IMO. Can be convinced that they are being oppressed. Fear - IS and factions such as the original Nazi's were good at this, effectively threatening people to see things there way.

In all honesty you cant. There is a conceivable threat that there could be a retaliative attack on mosques or worse etc from christian groups. Unfortunately its so difficult to police. Personally I think that certain immigration should be curtailed, to a degree, but thats a different situation. Effectively banning Islam will, IMO, have a greater effect of pushing practising islamists into the arms of the extremists. The only real way is to effectively brush it off and not change as a society. Removing the right to follow a religion etc will be more damaging to our rights of freedom then it will be effective at stopping extremism