Orange

Yeah, it's alright... Milan as a whole is pretty dull actually. Trams are good though. I'd prefer Schalke, Bilbao, or Florence (or Roma or Alkmaar if they drop in). Not sure about Zenit, not so keen on us maybe playing Anderlecht or Fenerbahce, and I've been to Braga - but it was decent and a mad ground, if a relatively long way from the town. Every possibility Sparta Prague or Monaco could pop up in Pot 1 (or failing that Pot 2) as well, and I quite fancy those. Steaua again would just be annoying.

Monaco would be very dull.

I've created a map with all the possible teams we could face. I've split them up at the stage at which they enter the competition so you can choose if you want to see the Champions League teams, or if you just want to only see the teams that are so far confirmed to be in the group stages with us.

 

Also, some of the teams play at different stadiums than their home venues (and some in different cities), and some play at different stadiums in different rounds (for instance, Lille are playing at a smaller stadium than their normal home stadium in the 3rd qualifying Round, and there's a stadium in Switzerland which changed because of a Bruce Springsteen concert). I don't know either what the stadium regulations are for the group stages, so some teams may change stadiums if they make it that far. Issues like that will probably become clear nearer the time.

 

Hopefully it is useful guide for people who are already looking for potential destinations and ideal teams they want us to face. And if there are any errors then let me know.

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15iJR0WBjDR4BeEx7PXTsHLnjQIA&usp=sharing

Good work that!

"Their"? You mean "your". I talked about the thick and old - it was you and mash who took that to mean working class. Careful how you go on that high horse thicky and oldy.

Well you're equating not having high levels of formal education with being 'thick'. I.e how dare some thicko not have a degree in sociology.

Do you disagree with what i thought was generally accepted, that more working class people have lower levels of education?

So, to summarise.

 

On the one hand we have the clear majority of opinion within British industry, every serious financial analysis of the situation that I am aware of and the leaders of all our main political parties - bar UKIP of course - warning of the potential dangers to the future welfare of our economy should the British people vote to leave the EU.

 

Set against all that I see little more than a emotive appeal to our sense of island independence, some (probably spurious) claims about border control coupled with vague talk of Britain doing better on its own somehow. The small matter of the very real threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom - as we now know it - has hardly even been discussed on here as yet.

 

The truth is we have to live with the EU whether we are members of that organisation or not. Those who disapprove of the way the EU currently operates would do better perhaps to concentrate their efforts on arguing for the constructive REFORM of the EU rather than our destructive RETREAT from it. Clearly the only effective way we can influence that reform process is from within rather than without.

I know you want to make this into some UKIP vs ' every Serious financial player' but if you took you head out your arse you'd see there are plenty of serious financial analysts on the Brexit side.

You're delusion sort of shines through when you say concerns over immigration are 'probably spurious'. As if it's irrational to be concerned about having an open door to over 500 million, many of whom in countries with crippling unemployment and lack of opportunities. All that while our population already explodes. It will be impossible for us to create a high wage society for working class people for as long as we've got an open door to countries doing as badly as Greece and Spain.

The whole reform thing is laughable too. We are one of 28 other states. We are outvoted every time we ever oppose anything. We have no influence over the ideological Euro federalists.

That post sums up how you, and many on the modern day left, view the working class of this country.

Everyone now and then then their contempt for traditional working class people slips out..

In their view one day everyone will be 'educated' into coming round to their world view.

Call me confused but was the idea of a United States of Europe a new one to you then? Because George Washington suggested it 200 odd years ago. I mean, this isn't new, it's always been the aim I assumed.

It's nothing new in the sense the EU has been ideologically going this way for years, but what i meant was it's going to continue that way, not stay more or less the same like the remain camp would have us believe.

As Farage calls it - 'Euro- Nationalism'

In my opinion Staying is financial lunacy. The French are still talking about further integration including things like social security. Germany and France have humongous pension defecits and I feel sick thinking about having to pay the foreign squarish of job seekers allowance for countries that have up to 20% unemployment.

 

We know that even a slight attempt at reform (which Cameron pathetically called at) is impossible so a vote to remain is a vote for further integration.

 

We are the fifth strongest economy in the world without the rest of Europe. Lets continue to flourish, not be weighted down.

This is it. The remain camp are clinging onto their 'leap into the dark' rhetoric as their last remaining joker in the pack, but it's such a short sighted view. OK, maybe in the very near future it is more 'predictable' to stay, but in the long run its going to change drastically too. You only have to watch Guy Verhofstadt being applauded in the EU parliament as he effectively calls for a united states of Europe, to understand which direction this is all heading in. The 5 presidents report blatantly sets it out too, they are steering the EU into tighter fiscal and social union in a desperate attempt to save the Euro project. Thankfully we didn't join, despite what much of the remain camp tried to tell us, so we have a life boat which we wouldn't have had if the likes of Clegg and co had had their way. It's a terrifying thought if we vote to stay, the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg will be ecstatic knowing they finally have us locked in and can throw away the key for good.

Me too. Personally addressed in an envelope and paid for postage, no cheapo flyer through the door. Wonder who is funding them.

Arron Banks has been the main financial backer in Leave.EU. Multi millionaire, made a lot in insurance.

According to the little propaganda leaflet dropping onto peoples' doorsteps currently, there are several mentions that we will be leaving Europe.

 

Just to put the record straight, we will not be leaving Europe, only the EU. I suspect that some psycho-babble expert has suggested that Europe has positive connotations to many, whereas the EU is increasingly loathed by a significant portion of the electorate, so that suggesting that we will be leaving Europe will be rejected by the sub-conscious mind of many.

 

The remain lot must have been upset to have lost the opportunity to have a simple yes or no vote, where again the yes position has a stronger psychological pull, therefore they are having to explore other options which might gain them a vital percentage point or two. I trust that when it comes to the televised debates, somebody will pull them up on this, as to claim that we might be voting to alter our very geographical place in the World is really swivel-eyed garbage.

Exactly. They know that making arguments for the institutions of Brussels/Strasbourg, increasing centralisation, the commission, TTIP etc (whatever we're actually voting on) has become increasingly toxic amoungst much of the population so they try and manipulate people by conjuring up positive feelings about Europe itself which of course most people have. Sad thing is i think it is working to an extent- whenever i speak to someone why they want to stay in, a good chunk of the time they'll talk about 'loving Europe' as opposed to the EU.

Theres not a substantial risk though. Around 26,000 people will die in road crashes in the EU this year, some 70 a day, double the Brussels tragedy every day. Awful though it is, people blow things out of proportion.

They've been many other plots though, thankfully they've just been stopped. There is a Jihadi network across Europe now, many of whom have been out fighting in war zones and have now come back to live in European communities wanting to wage a war here. I don't think it's irrational for people to be fearful of the future. As for the Euros, there is clearly an element of risk at England v Russia in Marseille, two countries which have been involved in bombing campaigns, playing in Marseille a city with a massive muslim population. All in today's current climate. Let's hope not though anyway.

I think I'll watch the Euros in the summer on tele.

Can't let the Islamists dictate where we can and can't go.Even if there is an obvious risk.

Surely the most prominent advocates of our continued membership of the EU today are not old "has beens" (such as Micheal Hesletine for example) but rather the current the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer - neither of whom would appear to be on the record as keen enthusiasts for this nation joining the European Single Currency. So it seems to me that the somewhat selective nature of the examples you cite is indeed rather telling.

 

But clearly some EU supporters were - back in the day - in favour of our joining the single currancy and some were not. That matter is a long settled one now and of dubious relevance to this referendum decision methinks.

If you can't accept at all there's a clear link between many, not all, of the most vocal voices in the IN camp, and their previous support for chaining us to the disastrous Euro project, without so much as a referendum on it, then we'll agree to disagree.

Immigration from outside the EU is higher.

Only very narrowly, and Europe is one continent of many. EU migration has been the driving force behind unprecedented levels of net migration, that's the fact.

Let's hear the IN camp make the positive case for these levels of immigration for the next how ever many decades, instead of denial.

Gordon Brown - for example - was vehemently oppossed to our joining the single currency but nevertheless supports our continuing membership of the EU. For that matter the Prime Minister has publicy stated that the UK would NEVER join the Euro while he was PM. So your linking of prominent Britex opponents with the old Euro question seems rater selective, if not misleading.

 

As for the second point, any post Britex trading arrangment we may reach with the EU is a matter of speculation rather that fact and I don't think anyone is arguing that our membership of the EU is a prerequisite of cross channel trading relations in any case - that would be silly. No, the real issue here is surely whether our current unhindered access to the EU single market area, and our influence over the rules that govern it, is significantly beneficial to UK trade or not?

 

It would seem that the clear majority opinion within British industry is that it is.

Not really that selective though is it, i named, and could name many more, of the prominent figures on the IN side who were cheerleaders for the Euro. Who wanted to take away one of the most basic powers of a nation state democracy, and hand it to the European central bank, without so much as a vote on it. It's head in the sand stuff to deny there's any link. And it's perfectly logical for people to bare that in mind when making this decision.

Now this is just another example of what I mean with the 'kippers on here. Your post makes absolutely no sense unless interpreted as some weird conspiracy theory, and I suggest you go and read my quoted post again. It's a 'kipper meme on here to jump to some bizarre conclusion not supported by facts or anything anyone else actually says.

 

Let me try again to help you out: I was saying that the vote is much more complex than that people who vote to remain are all happy with how EU institutions work. It's part of an epically stupid argument, over-reached by 'kippers, who say that anyone who's thinking of voting to remain must in some way be barnstorming enthusiasts for the way the EU is presently constituted. Very few, if any, are - actually I've not encountered a single one.

 

So with that in mind, I ask for the umpteenth time on this thread, would someone please articulate a coherent, well-evidenced case for Brexit without resorting to knee-jerk 'kipper garbage? That means offering up some economic analysis from independent or even committed experts that actually models the effect of leaving the EU. Is it really beyond the far-right clan on here to find and articulate such arguments?

 

Think of the prize: there are plenty of people in the remain camp, including me, who would consider voting to leave if there were some credible economic expertise offered by the Brexit campaign. But as things stand, all we get - certainly on here - are the banalities of a narrow set of 'kipper prejudices.

 

Try harder.

I know you're on a wind up but i'll try again anyway.

You made out in your post that many people on the IN side are 'reluctantly' backing staying, and far from being enthusiastic about the project are backing staying because its the 'responsible, stable' choice blah blah.

That's simply a laughable claim when you look at the majority of the main cheerleaders for staying in Blair/A Johnson/Clegg/Ken Clarke/Heseltine/Branson/Madelson/CBI/Goldmansachs etc etc the list goes on, they all wanted us to join this disastrous currency. My point is though, they wanted us to give away such a huge part of our sovereignty and power (without ever asking the people i might add), and hand it to the institutions of Brussels and the European Central Bank. They have always been fanatical about the project, they love the idea of a centralised European state, NOTHING has changed, its not some 'wild conspiracy' as you say, it's simply the truth and you only have to look at their support for the Euro to understand that. So you painting this image that they're 'reluctantly backing what's safer for jobs and the economy' is ridiculous.

The foundation of the economic argument is a pretty simple one. You don't have to be in political union to trade and co-operate with other countries. They'd be a 2 year period where nothing would change, whilst we negotiated a deal where both parties benefit, including the swathes of European industry who want access to our 60+ million market of consumers.

Completely wrong. There are plenty of people presently in the 'remain' camp who are sceptical of how well EU institutions work but are likely to vote to remain so long as the Brexit campaign lacks either credible leadership or, even more astonishingly, a credible argument. If either turns up, you may see opinion moving more decisively in favour of Brexit.

 

Similarly, there are plenty of people who'd situate themselves naturally in the leave camp but who may vote to remain because they are voting for their jobs rather than what for many is the ephemeral concept of Westminster's sovereignty. (Ask a Brexiter who they've been directly affected by the EU having stolen this sovereignty from central London and they stare at their shoes).

 

That the Brexiters repeatedly overplay their hand was well illustrated this week. The EU has apparently robbed Parliament of all powers, say the leading halfwits of Brexit - we're now led by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Yet there was Osborne on Tuesday giving a very long speech about all the decisions he and the Tory government had made all on their lonesomes.

 

How can that be possible, 'kippers? Did we all just dream it?

So 'sceptical' they all wanted us to join the Euro?

Unfortunately for the Britex cause it is not a simple matter of weighing trade balances because Norwegian and Swiss experience shows that developed European states that seek to gain full tariff-free access to the vital and hugely lucrative EU Single Market must also accept the principle of the free movement of people too as this is considered by member states to be a core principle that cannot be compromised. Think of it as akin to applying to join an exclusive members club - i.e you either accept the club rules or forget it. A pretty stark ''take it or leave it'' or even ''Hobson's Choice'' situation in other words.

 

Some facts for your information:

 

1 > The record shows that the UK elects to accept more immigrants from outside the EU than from within.

 

2 > In 2013 Norway - despite not being in the EU - accepted TWICE as many EU immigrants (per head) as the UK then did.

 

3 > Despite the fact that Germany (supposedly all-powerful in the EU) runs a substantial trade surplus with Switzerland the Swiss have nevertheless been informed that their recent referendum decision to curtail immigration is incompatible with their access to the EU Single Market.

 

You talk of all the ''well respected'' politicians who support the Britex cause. Well I can only reply to that by stating that all those currently holding the ''great offices of state'' in this country, i.e. the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, along with the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition ALL the main party leaders (with the obvious exception of UKIP) and the majority of our MP's have concluded that our continued membership of the EU is in the national interest. Even the governor of the Bank of England seemed pretty unenthusiastic I thought yesterday, so the ''stay'' camp would seem to be rather more respectable - in that sense - than the ''leave'' side.

 

Yes although the PM has secured a opt-out from any UK commitment to a ''ever closer union'' I do agree that our soverengthy is indeed compromised by our EU membership - to some extent at least. However, don't you think that the soverengthy of the UK would be severely compromised were England to vote to leave and the rest of the UK opted to remain perhaps? It seems to me that anyone who knows the first thing about this nation and its long history really should know that he concept of ''soverengthy'' itself is always a relative and flexible term, rather than absolute and immutable one. The world is a complicated and difficult place - we can't simply ''pull up the drawbridge'' and excuse ourselves from it.

But Europe is one continent out of the whole world? Fact is EU migration to the UK keeps going up and up, and will continue to as we raise to the living wage and the Eurozone continues to be a disaster. For example last year alone 46 odd thousand came from Bulgaria and Romania (despite everyone calling Farage a scaremonger at the time for saying large numbers would come). It's generally accepted knowledge that the government is now penalising greatly against non EU migrants (i know several myself) to make up for rising EU migration. End of the day- if you vote to remain in the EU you are accepting a) Levels of 300k+ plus net migration year on year. b)open doors to 500+ million people c) a system were we discriminate against those from other parts of the world because they happened to be born on a different continent.

It's not surprising that the Cameron loyalists will tow the line. Many of the key figures on the YES side too, have always loved the EU and the idea of a federal Europe, nothing has changed on that obviously. Blair, Alan Johnson, Branson, Mandelson, Clegg, Ken Clarke, Tim Farron and so on, all wanted us to join the Euro- they love the idea of a big centralised European state.We should remember that. It's the same when we see Goldman Sachs bank rolling the IN camp, we should also look at their record when it comes to the Eurozone. Fact is their are many experienced/respected figures backing Brexit. Over half of Tory MPs (?) i think. You've got people like Micheal Howard, Liam Fox, David Davis, Micheal Portilo, Nigel Lawson etc etc, as well as plenty of respected business figures. So you can paint it as some Farage-Galloway thing but it's not the case.

On the UK/England thing. I would accept questions will be raised as Scotland will almost certainly vote to stay i imagine- but Northern Island/Wales i think will be closer.

1. You've got this the wrong way round. We are not the EU's biggest export market - not by a mile. However, 55% of what the UK earns in goods and services came from other EU member countries. This is why the Brexiters' Project Clueless is so far off-beam. While they prattle on about all the treaties they can sign to repair the damage, they ignore the politics of negotiating those treaties. The EU member-states will have the upper hand in those negotiations - and some, like Germany, will feel more able and ready to compete more aggressively, particularly with the City, for the services we export. That's not 'fear' but reality.

 

2. You falsely assume that those who support 'remain' do so uncritically. The EU has a democratic deficit, a political inertia when it comes to fast-moving events (like the refugee crisis and the migrant problems that have been piggy-backed onto it), and longstanding structural problems integrating such disparate economies into a single currency. However, the EU's economy is also by far the largest in the world, dwarfing China and the US.

 

A good number of those who intend to vote remain may have changed their vote were the Brexit campaign not conducted so cretinously. The best the Brexiters can manage is their hero, Boris Johnson, waving his arms at a supposed conspiracy of remainers to silence the brave little voices of the leavers.

 

What's needed, instead, is some hard information, some actual evidence, on what the consequences of leaving are. Brexiters prefer to wallow in their hard-done-by puddles of grief, and are severely hampered by a campaign that's led by what must be one of the worst line-ups ever: Farage, Galloway, IDS, with Agent Boris making a complete ass of himself.

 

So in the interests of having a discussion about something with a little bit of evidential meat on it, here's an independent evaluation carried out by three economists from the London School of Economics' Centre for Economic Performance. They model an 'optimistic' impact on the UK economy (which is still damagingly negative) and a 'pessimistic' one which is frankly disastrous - an impact in the UK alone equivalent to the credit crunch, only much more long-lasting.

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA022.pdf

 

To whoever made the half-witted comment earlier about how this referendum is not about jobs but about sovereignty, I very munch doubt that British employees up and down the country will think their job is worth sacrificing for any supposed 'loss' of decision-making powers in the Palace of Westminster.

We have a goods trade deficit of over 8 billion with the EU. And i don't know about the rest of Europe, but we are Germany's biggest trading partner. Why would they not seek to come to an amicable trade deal in the long run? And again, where else in the world is it necessary to be in federalised political union to trade?

My point is, the IN campaign seem to be unwilling to robustly defend the political institutions of Brussels, their fundamental structures, and why it's the more desirable option for us to be governed by this centralised power. As you've sort of illustrated in your post, it seems their is clearly a two dimensional plan- project fear on the economic woes of leaving, and by taking pot shots at the 'personalities of the OUT camp'. For example the IN leaflet i received seemed more intent on associating Brexit with Farage, then defending Brussels itself.

And there's a huge range of very respected and experienced figures on the OUT side- so its either ignorant or cheap of you to simply paint it as a 'Johnson-Farage- Galloway' pact.

And it's interesting that you deem people concerned about the sovereignty of our country to be half-witted. Voting to stay in is not a vote for the status quo. The EU is heading further and further to closer union. That is their 'solution' to their disastrous Euro Project, they've been open about it, and we will be sure to get sucked further in with them. A YES vote will just be the green light for them. So you may not care about the U.K further handing it's democratic governance to a supranational European state, but a lot of people actually do, believe it or not.

1> The Common People.

What I try to ''recognise'' is typical human behaviour as I perceive it - i.e. most people in my experience will put practicable considerations, such as paying off mortgages and feeding their children etc, ahead more esoteric notions concerning constitutional reform or the supposed advantages of leaving the EU. You can (and probably will I suspect) continue to object to this, but do try to comprehend that not everyone thinks as you do and you may well be somewhat atypical.

 

2 > Border Control.

I must inform you yet again that even if we were to vote to leave in the coming referendum then any new free trade arrangement we could REALISTICALLY negotiate with the EU would almost certainly entail the UK continuing to accept the principle of the free movement of workers. That afterall is implicit in the ''Single Market'' concept as it applies to major industrialised nation states in Europe. I can easily understand why you personally find this to be somewhat uncomfortable, or at least inconvenient. Nevertheless, this seems to be the fact of the matter.

3 > Project Fear.

You may have swallowed whole this so called ''Project Fear'' line being peddled by the likes of Boris Johnson and his cronies in the press. However, a equally valid interpretation would be that the Prime Minister is calling the situation as he sees it and warning people of the potentially serious long term implications for this nation of a Britex victory. I for one don't see that there is very much wrong with him doing that frankly - if that is what he honestly believes. Even if I did accept that ''scare tactics'' are indeed being employed in this debate, then any suggestion that only one side of the argument here would stoop so low is nonsense of course.

4 > The Papers.

It seems to me quite evident that many of our newspapers are indeed notorious purveyors of anti-EU propaganda. ''Exhibit A'' in the case for the prosecution being virtually any edition of the Daily Mail published in the last twenty years! If you consider that this widespread and virulent Eurosceptic attitude among the editors and owners of our national press is founded on some high minded and principled objection to EU Treaty amendments (mostly agreed to by our leaders and endorsed by our Parliament by the way) then good for you I suppose. Others methinks may well suspect that the real motivation here is more connected to selling newspapers to that ''Little Englander'' segment of our population that still exhibited some degree of latent xenophobia in their attitudes.

 

5 > R Day.

With months of arguing still ahead of us I'm not going to be so rash as to try and predict the winner now in a race as close as this one surely is. However, I reckon that the chances of you waking up on R Day+1 morning with a nasty shock to the system are at least as high as mine are right now. Time will tell.

1. Why would they hold us to ransom over free movement if we are their biggest export market? It's a bizarre notion that in order to enjoy trading without tariffs we must also open our borders to over 500 million people. Don't think that concept exists anywhere else in the world?

2. On the project fear thing. You say 'swallowed as if it's some sort of illusion. I'll stop calling it project fear when i start to hear ANY positive arguments from the In camp. Start making the positive case for an unelected legislature, the continued centralisation of power into a furthered supranational governance , the common agriculture/fisheries policy, open borders, the EU's record so far (whether that be the Euro or migrant crisis). There is no getting around the fact this is what the EU is, so let's hear the positive case for it. But it won't really be made, because the establishment know the majority of people don't really want these things. So the best way to persuade people in their eyes is to convince them not that the EU is good or has a successful record we can trust, but instead that the alternative is scary and worse.

Complete stitch up.

My views are firmly in the 'stay' camp despite what the politicians think, but I wouldn't trust the opinions of either of these two clowns on anything.

It's interesting that you dismiss Farage as 'a clown'. Are you not aware that we wouldn't even have a referendum if it wasn't for him? Farage, like him or loath him, has been the key driving force in shaping this whole debate we see today. He's no doubt done that through damn hard work and by becoming one of the best orators around. My understanding of a clown is certainly not someone who has had as much of an impact on the political landscape as he's had.

I was at the grassroots meeting on friday in London and this isn't about 'Farage & Galloway', there was a host of speakers from David Davis (ex Europe minister it's worth noting), a brilliant speech from Kate Hoey, Tory and UKIP MEPs, economists, trade unionists, business owners etc. I got a pro EU leaflet through the post recently, and of course they're trying to play the man not the ball- making this into some sort of referendum on Farage. The truth is they're having to do this because their positive arguments for the EU as an institution are running thin. But maybe their next leaflet will more clearly outline the benefits of an unelected commission, the common agricultural policy and open borders. I won't hold my breath though.

Because of reciprocity - the equal right of UK citizens to move to the EU countries - something which doesn't exist for the other countries you refer to.

How many Brits are desperate to go and live in Romania or Bulgaria?

Top 6 countries with British expats are: Australia, the U.S, Canada, Spain, NZ and South Africa. So only one European. Point is it's a stupid argument when people say we have to accept unlimited amounts from across 27 European countries 'because think of all those retired Brits in Spain'.

You seem to be implying migrants from outside the EU are specialist skilled workers the UK needs but migrants from the EU are basic education unskilled workers who depress wages. Interesting idea, you might change my mind if you can prove it rather than just assert it. Go on then post up some stats.

The point is why should we discriminate on what continent someone was born on? Why should we commit to unlimited/unrestricted immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, and then make it so difficult for someone outside the EU to gain residence even if they have much better reasons/are more qualified to move here? Makes no sense to me.

Is this actually true??? Evidence???

Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford etc?

I do live these values every day , I wouldn't go anywhere that segregated women from men. In fact your ridiculous assertion that I'm some sort of sexist is based on the fact I think women are shyte at football . Try & get the sisterhood to get a game in some Muslim countries & you would probably get stoned .It's utterly bizzare how lefties , pinkos and bra burners like you jump up and down when a white male says anything sexist , yet want us to be tolerant of people who display real misogyny . can you imagine if Alabama or Mississippi treated women like Saudi Arabia does. The Greenham common brigade would have a permanet tented village outside America's London embassy.

Because it doesn't fit their pro multicultural prejudiced agenda does it. Middle class feminists like Caroline Lucas and her band of student followers for example, spending all their time whinging about page 3 because the Sun is both owned and red by nasty white men. But you won't hear a peep from them when it comes to segregated or all male Labour meetings, grooming gangs running amok for years etc. I live in Oxford at the moment, and trust me the issue of girls being harassed by a certain section of the community has not ended.