Lighthouse

There's nothing grim about it. Aside from a brief purple patch before his injury this season, he's been pretty average across his three years here. A good passer and physical presence but with some pretty obvious flaws.

Of all the phrases I’ve ever seen used to describe Jan Bednarek, that’s the least believable.

In an ideal world he’d be replacing Stephens, who would leave for first team football but I’d agree the Vest theory is more likely. If this rumour is true of course.

Managers mud-wrestle naked?

Extra time but both teams have to remove one player from the field every 5 minutes.

You guys remind me of this:

Yes, and I’d very much like to keep it that way. If you start controlling who uses social media, you’re eroding that protection. Every dictator in history has basically started off with controlling the media. The biggest differences between us and places like China or Russia is that we do have a free press and social media. It’s not always pretty, sometimes it’s downright disgusting, but it is free. It’s only possible IF you make it possible for somebody in authority to have access to the personal details of the user of every single account registered on social media. To say that’s easier said than done is the mother of all understatements. You can’t just apply that singularly to the U.K. either, a large amount of online abuse doesn’t even come from this country. It amounts to the same thing, it can be abused in the same way.

Actually we got rid of them because they were no where near Premier League quality and there was nothing to lose in letting them go. Clearly those who’ve analysed their performances in training and in matches decided we were no worse off with JWP, Stephens, Bednarek or Salisu filling in if needed.

Why is that a ‘lol’? Seemed like perfectly reasonable speculation to me, even if it did turn out to be spurious.

Still missing the point, it’s not about consensus. If something is a law, it’s a law for everyone and can be exploited as such. Just look at the countries and people who already want/have censorship of SM, control over who uses it and access to the personal data of those people - Trump, China, most of the Middle East, The Taliban, North Korea, Turkmenistan - are these really the people you want to emulate?

It's not whataboutery, you're missing the point. You're talking about introducing a law, which you only want to use for yourself, for what YOU think is right and wrong. People like Trump and the regime in China WILL use exactly the same arguments about 'terrorists' and 'traitors'. They will use these laws against anyone who opposes them.

Which is the problem, where are you drawing the line? You can’t just legislate for what’s on the table now. Racist/monkey stuff is obvious but what about if a Christian says homosexuality is a sin? Is that homophobic or is it true, to the letter of the law as written in the bible? This has already come up with the gay pride/cake incident a few years ago. What if somebody tweets that trans women aren’t real women, can you use the same anti hate crime legislation to persecute them? What if someone like Trump tries to claim that ‘traitors’ are a threat to National security (I say if, he’s already said it) and tries to do what China are doing, using similar legislature.

The new contract does seem a little odd for a 22 year old who's not really made any impact, even sporadically like Sims, on the first team. Perhaps we genuinely believe League 1 experience will push him along, or perhaps the plan is to sell him to a Championship club next summer if he does alright.

Twitter alone is worth $56 billion. I'm not sure your ancient proverbs are going to get it closed down. Also, your suggestion to 'change the law to make them a publisher' isn't in any way feasible either. You might as well say, 'lets change the law to make Portsmouth Football Club Ltd. illegal human traffickers and get them closed down' - you can't just do that because it's what you want to happen. First and foremost it's not true. They aren't publishers and will have an army of top lawyers to make sure it stays that way.

There’re a lot of deeply cynical, click bait headlines going around with the deliberate aim of making people jump to conclusions. It was the same with all the ‘BLM leader shot in the head’ stories and is unlikely to be the last time either. I also assumed the Rashford graffiti was racist, before I saw SKDs post a couple of pages back.

https://www.southamptonfc.com/store/training/c-1/c-510 I’m pleasantly surprised by how not hilarious those prices are if I’m honest.

£2m bought Jos Hooiveld a decade ago. These days it would barely buy a League 1 player.

I’d be careful making accusations of reading properly. This was what I said; they ARE real football fans, I haven’t disagreed with you. There’s no brushing of responsibility. I’m not saying it’s someone else’s problem to deal with, nor am I denying the existence of anything you’ve claimed. What I fundamentally disagree with is the method and what you believe you are going to achieve this way. You call it ‘calling out and educating’. I think you’re doing nothing other than feeding trolls and reinforcing negative behaviour from people who actively want to be all the things you accuse them of.

I’m not sure what you mean by that first sentence. 99% of the population deplores racism and those who practice it, that’s not really up for debate. As for saying they aren’t real football fans, well yes I agree with you, there are racist football fans. I’m not sure that’s ever actually been denied either. It’s a football stadium, Wembley could hold the entire population of Lincoln of course there were racist football fans there. There were also tax frauds, nonces, wife beaters, burglars and a handful of people who have or will commit murder at some point.

If he has told the manager he wants first team football or a transfer, I’d take that as an ultimatum. Like I said, we don’t know the circumstances around why and he may well have valid personal issues but it would appear he has forced out hand to an extent.

Yes. That would be patronising, serves no purpose and would indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

Yes, perhaps I wasn’t clear. Knowing racism is wrong is a more recent aspect of society, my point was that we’ve had millennia of punishing thieves with everything from prison and community service to public hangings or severing their hands and it is still a problem.

No, I was more than happy with the ‘Kick it Out’ slogan, for the benefit of anyone who was in any doubt as to right and wrong. The problem, whether we like it or not, is that some people are more than happy to be wrong and others actively seek it out. We need to accept that it’s a message that’s been out in various guises for decades and that simply adjusting the words and turning up the volume will achieve little to negative effect. There is a difference between putting the message out and actively publicising wrong doers.

That's the crux of the matter for me. It's undeniable that more people are calling it out more but I fundamentally don't believe that's helping the situation. As other have said, it's the same reason people troll internet forums; they want to be called out, they want to upset people, we are unintentionally, actively encouraging it. As a balance between changing attitudes and fueling some people's desire for negative attention, I think we've tipped the scales the wrong way, in favour of the latter. As a society, we know racism is wrong in the same way that we have known stealing and murder are wrong, since the days before Biblical testament. They will always be a small factor in society and, as with stealing and murder, I think we've reached the point in Britain where 'getting the message out' has achieved all it can.

They really can’t think much of Da Silva.