El Segundo

I think we are, to an extent, already in a downturn in form.  I'd say the only games we've looked anywhere near convincing so far this season are Hibernian, Everton league game and Burnley.  Of those Hibs and Everton were strolls due to the awfulness of the opposition on the days.  Yet we are 6th in the league with positive goal difference.  That may be partly down to some luck but considering who we have played and where, could also down to us now being the kind of team that can pick up enough results and points even when not playing well.  Sure if luck starts to go against us we could hit a bad run of results but we've already had more than our fair share of bad luck with injuries.  I think the upside with our form is there is plenty of scope for us to improve and play much better - if new players bed in and start to implement Emery's instructions better, injured players return, others return to form, and we start to gel as a team.  If some or all of that happens we could be a real force to be reckoned with.           

54 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I don't think we can put the game exclusively on playing a weakened side - in the second half, we were only one outfield player short of our best team.

 

Very valid point.  We just don't seem to have the urgency or tempo we had last season and it's been more evident in the cup games where there almost seems an air of complacency or not taking it seriously enough.  I do wonder if this air of "it doesn't really matter" is encouraged by Emery doing things like starting with McGinn at left back. 

A dreadful performance from too many.  Took us until 6 minutes from the end to wake up and increase the tempo a bit. We look slow and lethargic compared to last season.

Tielemans, Dendoncker and I'm afraid Diaby were especially awful, although the latter was making runs first half that no-one seemed to want to try and pick out.  Duran was outmuscled and dominated by Keane and didn't make enough runs.   Bailey started brightly but got injured.  Zaniolo started brightly then disappeared.  McGinn is not a left back.  

I thought Konsa did really well a few times tonight, Watkins made a difference by adding some movement and runs up front, Luiz did some good things but should have set the tempo faster. 

We got what we deserved.

17 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Given that the FCA have judged that that is no evidence of accounts being closed as a result of someone's political beliefs, it's probably not a very good case. 

OK - I thought the Bank had said it was because of his views and associated reputational damage.  If so I stand corrected.  Did they give an alternative reason for closing his accounts then?

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

We’re probably better moving discussion of religion to the religion thread. In terms of the rights of GB News or UKIP or whoever having the right to criticise such views. Absolutely they/ we do and we do. Same goes for criticising some bikers sect or Wahabism for example. Stone Age and vile.

Fair enough - I think your points are well argued and well made and are food for thought.  However, (and I think you said it yourself earlier) it's the slippery slope/thin end of the wedge element I am wary of.  Where do you draw the line in saying someone is fair game for cancellation for having a certain world view and where do you draw the line on saying whether it's discrimination or not. I doubt there are simple answers.  

8 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

No it isn't. All religions are interpreted in wildly differing ways by their followers. There is a difference between broadly espousing a religion, and endorsing specific views which are in breach of hate speech laws. 

The Christian/Jewish old testament contains all sorts of hateful nonsense, but standing on a soapbox and saying: "I am a Christian, and I believe in the Bible" is not the same thing as standing on said soapbox and saying: "All homosexuals should be stoned to death". One is a legal offence, the other is not. 

You could say the same about all ideologies.  But it seems to me some "broad espousers" of ideologies are fair game to be cancelled, condemned or even legally charged, but others aren't. 

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Such as? I assume you are talking about some religious views? not religion itself, but the interpretation within some sects or strains of some religions that hold a particular "view" on the morality or whatever of (say) being gay. If someone (say) a right winger from GB news, or a Muslim or a Christian from (say) parts of Africa espouses anti gay discrimination they can be prosecuted in the UK for that. Banks or whoever can decline their custom because of that - but it's not for their atheism or Christian or Muslim religious status it's for their words or actions.

There are certain religions or sub-sects of religions that espouse things like death to non-believers and homosexuals, stoning of adulterous women, general subjugation of women.  Are people free to publicly criticise them for such views, or ban followers of said religions? Or would they fall victim to discrimination laws if they did?           

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

You're not really asking that are you? You're validating my point. People who didn't have rights wanted to be granted those absent (to that point) right(s). They did not have the right to [vote, or whatever].

You're initial point was, more or less, as I read it,  was rights are only rights if they are legal rights.  On that basis Asylum Seekers don't currently enjoy certain universal, human rights, because they are not included in UK Law.  Your take implies that Women never had the right to equality, or Homosexuals the right to love freely,  until it was passed into Law.  I disagree, I think that fundamental Human Right was always there - it just hadn't been passed into Law.   Maybe it's just a different way of looking at it.

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

because authorities sometimes do not apply legal rights in the way they should

Well exactly - which is why I'd say Farage might have a case for arguing his situation comes under discrimination laws.  

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

In the instance of a whopper not being allowed to privately bank, by the bank, and the whopper's "rights" , the law is the arbiter of whether he has the "right" to bank there, or the bank does not have the right to banish him. It's not philosophical, it's factual.

Philosophically, we might ponder whether he or they should have the "right" to bank there, but he doesn't. Philosophically we might ponder whether the bank should or should not have the "right" to sack him off.

The way I read your post is you consider or claim he already has that right, but he factually does not.

I actually share at least part of your (implied) view, which is that it's a slippery slope, perhaps, and that there will likely be a lot of double standards applied to bank customers - inconsistency in grounds for accepting or not accepting customers and so on. I'm not generally in favour of banning people for their views and the actions of "cancelling" people who don't fit the mainstream, or fashionable take on things is a real negative that seems to be a growing phenomenon. Equally media pumping up of the profile of obvious whoppers is also oa bad thing - these utter tools should be ignored - neither picked upon, nor promoted.

What I'm suggesting is, since there are rights against discrimination that protect some pretty horrendous world views, then there is a case for saying he is being discriminated against because of his beliefs.       

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You decided to change the dictionary definition of ideology, so I guess it was you?

Which dictionary and which definition?

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Well, it just is. It is the law and the human rights act which defines what rights we have (in the UK). There are of course opinions on what should or shouldn't be included in the law, but it is the definition. If you think something additional should be added, until it actually is added, it isn't a "right" it's just an opinion.

If the law is always reflection of actual rights, why was there a need for Women's rights movements, Gay rights movements, or Racial Equality movements in order to change the law to recognise those rights?  Why are there still rights movements of various descriptions - e.g. for Asylum seekers - if the law already has, and has always had it all covered?  

I think there is a distinction between what might be called universal rights.  Legal rights will vary from state to state.   Who decides which state has got it right?   

For example, it is apparently a right in the UK to freely express religious views that might include the  killing of all non-believers, the subjugation of women, or the execution or damnation of homosexuals.  Is that also a universal right? Should it be?

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, to me and my understanding and based on my own personal definition, you are wrong.

So, where do we go from here if we’re making up our own rules?

Who's making up their own rules, me or Blandy, or you? Or all of us?  Fundamental component of meaningful philosophical debate - define the terms. Otherwise you're as likely as not talking at cross purposes.  

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

There is no right not to be discriminated against because of your ideology.

A private business, providing a luxury banking service to wealthy customers has the right not to provide such services to people whose "ideology" would damage their (the bank's) reputation. Vladimir Putin has an ideology around rebuilding the former Soviet empire, but no one would blink at him being turned down.

Discrimination on religious grounds, or on ethnicity or gender is not "ideology" and there are laws in place covering discrimination around those aspects.

That said, the bank is probably home to quite a number of dubious customers, and ultimately Farage wasn't (unlike them) lucrative as a customer, so the reputational damage outweighed, in their view, any profit.

 

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of Ideology. It's debateable, but to me Ideology is where people codify and organize human interpretation of events, attitudes, history, situations, beliefs etc. and teach or encourage  others to reject or accept things based on the codified ideas.   That covers a lot of religions as well as Political stances. 

And the law is, again to me, not necessarily a reflection of genuine rights.  So based on my definition of Ideology, there is a legal right not be discriminated against if your ideology takes the form of a religion, despite the fact that some religious doctrines preach horrific concepts.  

On 26/07/2023 at 16:14, bickster said:

You haven't made a point,Your  argument's fundamental premise is utterly wrong as pointed out by everybody arguing against you. YOU. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. RIGHT. TO BUSINESS. BANKING. NOR. PRIVATE. BANKING

And you keep coming back to it, it's like punching a wall hoping it'll change its mind.

It's not so much about having a right to those things per se, it's about the right not to be discriminated against because of your ideology.  In this case, political ideology has been invoked.  What if the Bank had decided they won't provide services to a prominent Muslims because they disagree with Islamic ideology.  Or a prominent Jew because they don't agree with Zionist Ideology.  Or a prominent Trans person because they don't agree with Gender Ideology?   

I don't like what Heck has done so far or some of what he's planning to do but if we want to be able to match the sky 6 on the pitch we're going to have to maximise revenue.  Unfortunately that means appealing more to the hospitality market and attracting a bigger share of the "tourist" fanbase.  If we want to remain "traditional"  I doubt we'd ever be truly competitive at the top end.  It's sad but seems the only way now. 

Only saw bits as my stream kept stopping.

From what I saw we looked out of sorts again.  We don't seem to have got going properly this season, especially away from home, except for Burnley.  Passing is sloppy compared to last season, and the defence is too easily got at.  We definitely seem to be missing Ming's leadership at the back, and I also think we miss that tricky little number 10 type like Buendia/Coutinho, especially with McGinn misfiring.   Unai knows best but I still think it might be a mistake not keeping Coutinho. 

That said we still have players bedding in, or coming back from injury,  we're 6th in the table with a positive goal difference having played 4 away including three of the sky 6+1 and only 2 at home.  I think we could be quite good once we are firing on all cylinders.  

Unusual to see such heavy criticism of the ref when we've won, so he must have been bad.   Got the red right though - eventually.

4 minutes ago, KMitch said:

I don't know why the Premier League can't get the refereeing situation figured out but most of the other top leagues in the world can?  Even during the Alex Ferguson era where he was paying off/giving significant gifts to the refs it wasn't this poor.  This is the best and most profitable football league in the world, why are they not hiring the best referees from around the world to go along with it?  The PL/FA need to stop burying their heads in the sand and hoping it sorts itself out because it's getting worse year after year. 

This guy was imported form Australia because he was supposed to be one of the best around.  I've seen him have a few shockers. 

The Brighton result is relevant as context.  For teams inexperienced in Europe it shows that European games are a different ball-game and adaptation is needed, even for very good teams with very good coaches.  There aren't many "easy" games especially away from home where teams will raise their games against more illustrious opponents, crowds will be loud and hostile,  and journeys may be tiring.  After the Euro ban in the 80s it took English teams years to get back up to speed in the 90s and be able to regularly challenge.   If you are not bang on it, show any complacency, or think you can cruise past teams from lesser leagues, this is a reminder that you'll be punished. You could arguably say the same for the AZ result, albeit they are experienced in European competition.   That said you'd have expected experienced coaches like De Zerbi and Emery to prepare their teams accordingly.    

Just now, sheepyvillian said:

About the same amount of larger at VP when it's lively. 

Can they drink pitch side there though?

Emery has to carry the can for that. Strategy should be to aim to win the first three group games with strongest team, then, when qualification is more or less secure, think about rotating.

At the very least, away from home first, play your strongest defence and DM, keep it tight, quieten the crowd then maybe look to go for the kill.  I'm afraid it smacked of underestimating Legia, or overestimating his squad players.  For someone of Emery's experience that's a bit unexpected.

Legia were pressing so hard I thought they would tire, but they didn't seem to.  And fair play to them they looked well up for it, worked hard, were sharp, fast and they took their chances.

Great atmosphere but wonder how much vodka was involved.  

They are working very hard pressing.  Hopefully they will tire badly on 70-ish minutes.

Should have gone with a first choice defence and no Bailey away from home. 

Chambers is clearly not a right back, should only play DM, maybe CB  if needed. Or maybe not.

It's nice to have a couple of big fast powerful units up front but we're not getting it to them enough.

Digne!!!

Ok.  I was going to say first of all it isn't a defence of Brand. I was also going to say him not being funny has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. I was also going to say I happen to agree, he is one of the worst so-called comedians I've ever heard.  But then I noticed you are posting in black font so there's no need.

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

As a defence of Russell Brand this has huge amounts of irony

How so?

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Sorry I forgot that you can only make jokey comments in the designated joke thread. I presume one of the mods will be along to give me warning points soon. It’s like 1984 again. 

Well you say that, I assume sarcastically, but....

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

**** hell man I’m not interested in a huge debate about a throwaway joke. 

There's a joke thread you know.  Try and make them funny though eh?