By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
That's true and gives a good cover story for Sunak to do a bit of dog whistling. I didn't mean it like that, wink wink. But do the Tory members really care about the poorest? Doesn't seem like it so far in the campaign's.
As someone living on your own, can you not form a support bubble with your parents? Seems to be what they were designed for. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52637354
I guess thats kind of the debate. It's mostly in the grey area in the middle, so you either have to give him a big benefit of the doubt, or call him out, maybe without specific justification. Depends on your view on him and the bigger picture I suppose. I fully admit it's not a smoking gun.
You can take Benters comments on the specific ethnicity and origin of the attacker as an attempt to look into the precise geo political nature of the ongoing struggles with isis or you can take them as an attempt to say the attacker wasn't a proper "onion selling" frenchman, i.e not his typical view of a Frenchman, namely white, lets be honest. As I say many people will give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe they're right. Also many will see it the other way and deem him to be bordering on racist/ xenophobic/ a bit nasty. As I said, not that this was all he was, but it can't be ignored or downplayed imo. Edit: just to add, not saying this thread was a perfect example of this behaviour, was just the one brought up.
That thread sums up the argument with benters. I read it and say he's clearly being racist etc. Whilst many others I'm sure will point out the technicalities of specific language and that he didn't specifically mention anyones skin colour so therefore isn't a racist. You could argue I'm jumping the gun and judging him harshly, I'd argue that people seem to be trying too hard to let him off the hook. Either way his views in many threads were pretty nasty, overtly or not. It's shades of nastiness and splitting hairs. Not that he was always nasty, far from it, but it can't be forgotten or downplayed either.
Alright so I was a muppet for the original quote, bought it hook line and sinker. Still plenty of similar quotes around to back up the sentiment. Like I said, random quote to make up in that he's highly respected, plus Iniesta is known to have lost a baby so in poor taste. But, yes I'm a bellend, no excuse. Real quotes here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8548999/Paul-S
Ah, got me then I guess. What a numpty! Seemed a bit of a weird fake in that there is seemingly a lot of respect for Paul Scholes anyway and Iniesta and his Mrs lost a baby. Oh well. Still a bloomin good player mind.
He's the player surely everyone wishes they were if they could've been a pro. Bangs in goals for fun, and his passing was out of this world. But never seemed too fussed or like he was breaking a sweat, and the odd naughty 'proper' tackle. Plus when he was done he'd just go home. No gobby interviews or out on the shant with idiots, earnt his money then chilled out. Spot on.
Says it all really. I know he's pretty well regarded generally, but he really wasn't appreciated enough was he? Lampard/ Gerrard/ Beckham, all that messing about, he was far better. Or am I looking back too fondly?
"not the way to encourage debate" I'm guessing you're not talking about Benters himself debating. I don't recall him ever having a debate on here. If he liked something he'd say "this", if he didn't he'd say "balls", or he'd make a confrontational statement or two then burger off. People have told him what was wrong with his blanket statements and never once that I recall did he do anything other than stick to his guns.
I think it's more getting out of the habit, and that we're in the same league we've been in the last 16 years, rather than boring football. Although it's seen as the done thing to blame the bad football. If, by some miracle, we were to get promotion you can guarantee that we'd sell a load more tickets, probably selling out most games, and again near the end of the season if we were riding high and winning games. No matter how bad the football was. It's just convenient to say it's the bad football, it might be a factor, but easier to blame 'dino' Mick than say 'I'm bored and am out of the habit'.
I'd say it's the fact that he's lying about it now that is the bigger problem. If he said that the best part of a decade ago he is ashamed to admit he looked at copious amounts of porn, and he was very sorry I think he'd be fine. More or less. But he's now trying to say that in between logging onto his accounts and sending emails someone else accessed his computer, not once but loads and loads of times, looked at porn, and then he went back on and sent more emails etc. Yeah, okay. That's more likely to get him sacked now IMO.
Yes they're definitely trying to offload a couple in Jan without saying so specifically.
Imagine if they leave it until summer and no one comes running in for their half decent players. They'd be completely shafted. Fire sale wouldn't be the phrase. 55 million in wages, with a realistic income of what, 10 million, maybe 15, plus a level one academy, they're not cheap! Something big will have to give.
I get what you're saying, and don't disagree we can be pretty bad at times. However teams get pigeon holed and it becomes the thing to say about them even if you don't know, or haven't seen them play. There's been loads of teams with that kind of message attached to their play, Bolton in the past Burnley and West Brom now. Mainly when they were doing well against the fancied teams who couldn't hack it. So just because many repeat it doesn't make it true.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
