KennyPowers

Yeah, lets not get into the Middle East There's a twin problem of the relative anonymity of the internet and the speed of social media promoting reactionary, hysteric responses. It can apply to any story but I do think if I'm being honest it's worse from people who are nominally but not intellectually left-wing. This is probably mostly due to the tendency for social media to be used by young people and young people to generally be more left-wing. There's a lot of smug people out there who think it's okay to be abusive to certain sections of society and the herd mentality on social media is really enabling and emboldening a lot of people, Jews are a good example and whether it's mainly down to Israel I don't know. I do think on twitter especially it's getting out of hand, the amount of abuse on there every day is astonishing, things that people would never have the balls to say in real life. This idea that being openly abusive, being openly intolerant and dismissive of other people's views is okay if it ultimately is in the name of tolerance is misguided though. Not only misguided, but plain wrong and as I said earlier divisive.

I have no desire to be a defender of the Daily Mail. I've never bought it. My parents don't buy it. Sure I look at it on-line occasionally but I do all newspapers. Surely you've heard the famous line though, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Either they can say within the law, what they want or they can't. This seems to have been lost in the recent fervour about the right-wing press, the mail specifically. By all means criticise, point out their errors and mistakes and weak intellectual underpinning, I do myself. I maintain that the quote below is just outright abuse. An abusive post generalising what, millions of people. That has been my main objection "generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad." I'll be honest I've become increasingly disturbed by the hysteric responses on social media to certain items. It certainly appears to me, that it's okay to openly abuse certain groups and not others. Take for example, Jews, vitriolic abuse towards Jews is routinely tolerated when it wouldn't be for other religious groups and no, I'm not Jewish. Do you remember the Boston marathon bombings? They managed to identify and slander some random person who had gone missing before the real culprits were identified. I do think it's time people were held more accountable for their comments on social media and more than that we seem to heading down a slippery slop of hypocrisy in terms of the abuse that is posted online.

There we have it, the oracle has spoken. People are fair game for abuse for buying the 'wrong' newspaper. What a vision for a tolerant society you have.

Yes. Your opening gambit was Just how left wing is this forum?. I struggle to read that in any way other than being critically prejudiced (reinforced by the last para in that post where you speak about the hysterics of you hardline left-wingers). For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not criticizing you for having a prejudice - we all do (and we're not always consistent in those prejudices). Well I agree, how can someone live in this world without developing prejudices. My initial comment was really geared towards how could people have not only failed to challenge Kingfisher's abusive post but liked it. Just because you tolerate abuse of people you don't like? Just because it's so widespread on the internet doesn't mean it should be tolerated. I hate tribalism, I hate tasking sides without serious thought, I hate it in politics and I hate it in life, it is akin to bullying and encouraging bullies is not a good thing. I don't want to go out of my way to point it out and challenge it but on this occasion I had to.

Jags. Jags. Jags. Soon to be the London Jaguars. They even have their own UK 'fan club'

I wonder whether you can even comprehend the hypocrisy of attacking people for holding prejudices whilst so blatantly exposing your own prejudices. Are you serious? I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my first post. Then he comes back with and hence the second post: "I think my description of the mail was spot on."

That would appear to be damning with faint praise. The point was it wan't entirely supposition and it's rare to find a columnist in a national newspaper that writes something that isn't entirely supposition.

Just how left wing is this forum? You really think these gross, insulting generalisations are okay? You really think you are pursuing tolerance and progressiveness by smearing millions of people? Now I'm going to assume your post is deliberately provocative and slightly tongue-in-cheek but I'll be honest with you, I have respect for anyone who tries to influence the opinions of ignorant people through intelligent debate, through facts, statistics and thorough analysis. This new internet generation who don't have the time, patience or intelligence for this and jump straight to insults really aren't helping matters at all. And no, I don't buy the Daily Mail and never have. Interesting article I stumbled across in the Guardian today by Paul Dacre: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre He sums up the hysterics of you hardline left-wingers pretty well. This campaign of the last few weeks is all because of the headline of the Ralph Milliband article. Now I read the article and even if you disagree with all or most of it, it was sourced pretty well. The headline was pretty objectionable but the hysterical response has been pretty unprecedented. I think my description of the mail was spot on - gross, insulting, intolerant and smearing millions? Well, like many of their articles then. Except the difference between us is that I'm bashing a newspaper that makes millions doing that very thing to the poor and the vulnerable, so leave it off with the faux Mailesque hysterics! I read the article you linked too, and non of the conclusions in it can be attributed to me, I'm not obsessed with the Mail, and neither was I obsessed with the Milliband story. But I stand by my description of it and its readers. You want evidence, I'd say go on their website and read their editorials, amongst the odd good bit there is piles and piles of inaccurate drivel aimed at promoting an ideological political narrative, ok standard fare for rags of all sides, but it's the sheer tone and odiousness of it that stands them out. I wonder whether you can even comprehend the hypocrisy of attacking people for holding prejudices whilst so blatantly exposing your own prejudices. The sad thing with news consumption is that people hate to be intellectually challenged, that's why they tend to consume news that they know beforehand conforms to their views, it makes them feel good to be right. We would all be better off if more people read a newspaper like the Economist that is intellectually challenging. To write the passage below is not intelligent comment, it's simply intolerant and abusive. I wonder how many parents and grandparents of the people on this forum read the Mail and so what if they're a bit more traditional and conservative, it doesn't make them bad people and they are not responsible for the editorial decisions of the Mail. I dislike getting embroiled in political discussions and the only thing that's drawn me in here is your intolerance, not just that but your unshakeable belief that you are being intolerant in the name of tolerance. You aren't. If you want to influence the views of ignorant people do it the admirable way, through painstaking intelligent debate, not through abuse. That's how to improve society, this kind of abuse is just divisive. "generally read and loved my mindless, scared, sad and pathetic little selfish morons who think Christmas has been banned and political correctness has gone mad."

It's really not complicated. Protection of the free press has long been a socially progressive (or liberal) ideal. To sacrifice this principle on the altar of 'I don't like the Daily Mail' is hypocritical in my view. In terms of party politics, the social progressives should be the ones opposing this new charter, indeed any charter, not endorsing it.

I'll have to read that article. I have great respect for the Economist. An extremely intelligent, thought provoking newspaper, you wouldn't like it.

That's a quite awful attempt to spell indictment. I sincerely doubt you've read the article by the way. This whole press regulation thing is quite amusing to me. It really separates the left wingers who are left wing based on their principles who I very much respect and I made this very clear in my post from the tribalists. Labour MP Tom Harris: "By supporting Parliament’s Royal Charter for press regulation, to be agreed by the Privy Council at the end of this month, my party is turning its back on a core tenet of progressive politics: that a genuinely free press, however infuriating, is an indispensable foundation stone of democracy." I mean people who think they are left-wing progressives wanting to restrict the free press is quite baffling. It can only be understood with reference to the power and reach of the right wing press which is what they actually want to restrict and they're quite happy to sacrifice their principles to do this.

Just how left wing is this forum? You really think these gross, insulting generalisations are okay? You really think you are pursuing tolerance and progressiveness by smearing millions of people? Now I'm going to assume your post is deliberately provocative and slightly tongue-in-cheek but I'll be honest with you, I have respect for anyone who tries to influence the opinions of ignorant people through intelligent debate, through facts, statistics and thorough analysis. This new internet generation who don't have the time, patience or intelligence for this and jump straight to insults really aren't helping matters at all. And no, I don't buy the Daily Mail and never have. Interesting article I stumbled across in the Guardian today by Paul Dacre: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre He sums up the hysterics of you hardline left-wingers pretty well. This campaign of the last few weeks is all because of the headline of the Ralph Milliband article. Now I read the article and even if you disagree with all or most of it, it was sourced pretty well. The headline was pretty objectionable but the hysterical response has been pretty unprecedented.

Good graphic, I still struggle to get my brain around how guys like Troy Smith and Tebow can be named the best player in College football but the NFL has no use for them. I read a book by Ron Jaworski that explained it pretty succinctly but it sill blows my mind a bit. Terrible news about Peterson.

I hope you are joking. If anything, the English empire has forced people all over the world to bend over, so to take some low paid taxi drivers, nurses back with them to service England is the least one could expect. But hell no if one of their kids grows up to become a pro footballer and wants to represent England?? Now Januzaj is a special case, and I feel it would be strange for a player like him to chose to play for England. The Brazilians everybody is referring to, are not good enough to play for Brazil, let alone England, so in their case it is just a chance to play at the World Cup. The 'British' empire is history and things have been different to those days for a long, long time. The country bends over backwards for foreigners in the modern Britain, unfortunately certain groups are keen to use that to their less than all inclusive ambitions. The idea of being secular is lovely, but really it's hippy speak and we unfortunately don't live in that fantasy peaceful world which would be the only place for secularity to work. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/Have-babies-Muslims-UK-hate-fanatic-says-warning-comes-9-11-UK.html I don't understand why you quote 'British' empire, like it never existed. So you mean that this empire is history, but forget to tell us how recent this history is. It was in 1997 that the official end of empire occured with Hong Kong going back to China, but unofficially... But of course, lets not forget all the Indian taxi drivers that drive you drunk home, all the Angolan nurses that take care of you at the hospital, all the other foreigners that came from all over the British empire. They came from countries that were looted by the British, and to be honest, you should ask yourself this question: Why the f*** would these people and their kids with non-British names, whose ancestors the British-named soldiers tortured, jailed and killed, want to represent any of the British provinces in football or any other kind of sport? I mean, first you take their wealth, now you take their most talented players, that would improve your national team, and still...you complain?? Btw, thanks for showing your true colors with that article. VillaTalk is not the place to hate Muslims. Go to EDL. Ah, yes Angola, that well-known British colony. So, every Briton is responsible for colonization, torture and murder? Thanks for letting us know. And everyone who reads the Daily Mail an islamophobic EDL supporter? But of course, these insulting gross generalisations are okay, because they're in the name of tolerance, right? Time to shut this thread for a while. It's gone massively off-topic and stands as a pretty good example of why you can't have a sensible discussion about nationality or immigration on a public forum.

Surely all neutrals want an A's win

John Barnes Born in Jamaica. Raised in England. Played for England with distinction. As English as you and me. Whereas Adnan Januzaj could never be English. Maybe I have been living in the USA for too long but to my mind if Adnan Januzaj gets an UK passport then he is as English as you or me. You must have been living abroad too long if you don't understand this thing we have now called the European Union.

Do you all play the NFL UK fantasy game? What's the highest you've ever finished in the weekly standings? I've been playing for about 5 years and the week before last, came 17th, which was my best ever weekly finish. I usually go for a couple of left-field picks every week as differentials. when you see the winning team every week it almost always some surprise players. Never really come off for me though.

Sorry this is off topic but a thought I've had for a long time. If you were let's say a wealthy young man, huge football fan and decent footballer but not good enough to go professional wouldn't you be tempted to move to San Marino and meet the residency requirements so you could play for the national team? I think I'd be pretty tempted. You wouldn't have to live there all year round. You'd probably have to spend a fair bit of money in the country and probably set up a decent-sized business to grease the wheels a bit. To travel round Europe playing against major national teams that would be tempting though surely?

It really says a lot more about the OMG u nazi fascist twitter generation that it does Jack Wilshere that they managed to blow up a comment that only English people should play for England into a national news story. He should have stuck to Januzaj though. There are lots of examples of players in other sports where the question of nationality is complicated. The case of Januzaj isn't complicated at all. Born and raised in Belgium he should be playing for them. I can understand though if he wants to wait to play for Kosovo for various reasons. We shouldn't be actively 'recruiting' foreign players to play for England though and let's face it that's what's happened in other sports and sportsmen/women have been willing to do it for financial reasons, for better training and facilities and overall to secure better opportunities, nothing to do with patriotism. If we do go down that road and maybe it's inevitable that we will have to it's okay but let's cut out the flag waving, the national anthems, all the patriotic nonsense and accept the national teams are a loose collection of people competing for the sporting competition and not for their country. That's what makes sports like Athletics so uncomfortable, we all know they aren't competing for their country, why keep on pretending they are? Why force them to do a parade before the Olympics carrying massive national flags? Why go through a ceremony that culminates in the national anthem to give the impression they have been competing for their country rather than themselves? Especially in individual sports. It could be a bit of a crossroads for the FA is this debate continues. Either stick to the principle that we don't actively recruit foreign players even if they are eligible or close to eligibility or go down the route of actively identifying foreign players who are eligible or potentially eligible and recruiting them from an early age. The Januzaj case shows how flawed the first approach is though because we all know that if the opportunity to secure a potential star comes up the principles be thrown out very quickly.

The most objectionable thing there is the stance on Thursday night games. The games are consistently terrible even if you allow for the fact that they don't get the premium matchups. The players don't want them and I hate the ratings argument. They get good ratings because for NFL fans it's such a short season you have to cram in as much as you can. It doesn't mean the fans are enjoying them, I'd say pretty confidently that a poll would say the fans aren't in favour of them.

I love a comedy owner.

I have a feeling the Pats could get abused here. Then again my predictions have been terrible all season.

I was too exhausted after the game to post last night. - Credit to Lambert, I got the impression he really thought about how to set-up against them. Even though we created nothing in the first half we actually contained them very well. They had a 5 minute spell before half-time when they looked threatening and nicked a cheap goal but the formation worked well. - The wing-backs were very interesting to watch. It seemed to me they were under strict instructions not to get sucked in too often and I thought this was very smart because my concern at the start was that Kolarov and Zabaleta would be free all day to run riot with no defensive responsibilities. The wing-backs largely negated this. - That being said Man City played into our hands with the two out-and-out strikers. We had the three centre backs against them all day and although we needed the extra man they stopped Dzeko and Negredo very well. If they had Silva today I think he would have killed this formation with his movement between the lines. I thought their strikers weren't smart today and they just didn't have enough movement to hurt us. Both their goals were from corners remember. From open play Nasri looked occasionally threatening and Navas when he came on but largely they were pretty poor. - I thought the effort from everyone was great. Special mentions have to go to Bacuna and Luna though. Their energy was the key to this formation and this win today. Great to see Sylla back in the side as well, he makes a fair few risky passes but I love his drive and energy.

Are you kidding me Cleveland I thought you wanted to lose my god

Writing off the Browns offence is going to cost me