El Segundo

From what I've read the a significant number (perhaps the majority) of Palestinian refugees in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon are people who fled (or were expelled) from Palestine in it's various forms, and Palestine was their homeland. The original refugees being those fleeing what was defined by the British as Mandatory Palestine during the 1947-48 war, followed by those escaping further conflicts. It seems a significant number of them hoped to move back, but were not allowed to. Thus their descendants may have been born in those countries, but, it seems, not by choice. Is it those people you are referring to as being part of Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan and having those countries as their homelands? If not which people are you referring to?

Doesn't really answer my questions. Generational or not they are still refugees in another country, not partitioned off in their own country. Plus full acceptance could still be seen as acceptance that the Israelis are justified in what they are doing, and an admission that those Palestinians have no chance of ever returning to their homeland. You don't think that makes a difference?

Ok, but they are refugees in a foreign country there, not nationals in their own country. Is it possible Egypt and other Arab countries don't want to fully accept them because that would be tantamount to accepting what Israel had done to force them out of their own country?

So you're saying the neighbouring Arab countries are as guilty of apartheid policies as the Israelis are when it comes to Palestinians? What is that based on - because because they don't want to take them in and prefer them to stay in Gaza?

Just a few years ago, especially under Bruce, people would talk about the likes of City and Liverpool playing an altogether different sport or being on another planet. We're now on that planet and playing the same sport. The players did what they had to do then basically rested a bit, which can be frustrating, and maybe missed an opportunity to improve goal difference, but made sense given our fixtures and injury list. The front three of Bailey Diaby and Watkins in the second half looked a bit tasty, especially now that Bailey seems to have found some confidence and been encouraged to use his trickery a bit more. Atmosphere seemed fine to me, but as OutByEaster said, the football is now more cerebral and less up and at 'em - City have played like that for years, and it can be a bit boring for some. May explain why people say the Etihad atmosphere is poor.

You'll see in my subsequent post I acknowledge he's obviously got ability and potential, but that doesn't alter the fact that his performances so far have still been mostly poor. But he is improving. To me it's more like Bailey's early games (after his initial brilliant debut cameo) where you could see glimpses of ability but he couldn't seem to make it happen. He still can't away from home but he's been very effective in home games. The one I would compare to early Doug is Kamara who, last season at least was making the same mistakes Luiz kept making in his early days - getting caught on the ball then often giving a foul away trying to win it back. I think Kamara has improved this season and has the potential to be on a par with Doug.

Well I suppose Buendia did also look underwhelming when he first joined, and I think it's obvious Zaniolo has ability and potential and is probably not up to speed with the PL just yet. I'd also make a case for Diaby not being fully up to speed yet, and if one or both have another gear or two in hand then we could see some very good things..

I find it odd that people think Zanioloi's better than Buendia unless it's based on seeing him before he came to Villa. For me Zaniolo has somewhere between been awful and mediocre up until Saturday, when admittedly he did have a decent game. His stats for the season would seem to back that view up. Apparently Zero goal contributions despite playing in most matches, and as for being a target for high balls, only won three aerial duals all season. Just from what I've seen he's lost the ball frequently, lost most of his duels, held on to the ball too long, made poor decisions and had very little influence on games. Compare his performance to Ramsey's when the latter replaced him against Brighton - the difference was immediate and stark. Buendia is frustrating but positively influences every game he plays in.

From what I recall in the pre-season game against Newcastle in the US, Emi was unplayable first half and had them all over the place. Looked like he was really up for it this season. My brother and I have always called him the nearly man, because he sees and tries things others don't and then nearly plays a great ball but not quite - often slightly underhitting or overhitting passes. But against Newcastle he seemed to be getting it right. I think we do miss him, even though we are doing well without him. For example against Palace for most of the game, Everton in the Carabao, and Mostar we were crying out for a number 10 type like him or Coutinho to get between the lines and unlock them.

Duran is nowhere near as effective as Watkins. The difference when Watkins replaced Duran at half time against Mostar was huge. There was little or no movement and dynamism up front first half. Watkins and Luiz coming on changed everything. Duran might get the odd goal but the drop off in overall quality and team effectiveness if Watkins gets injured or suspended would be huge.

Absolutely - dally on the ball, think about going down the flank turn and pass it inside or back or both. Almost every time, utterly predictable. It's like he's had the flair programmed out of him.

Agree, in this case it seems very unlikely, unless they're incredibly callous about the risk to their own , or had badly underestimated how vicious and merciless things would get.

In John Le Carre's "The Tailor of Panama" there is a scenario wherein a situation is deliberately tolerated, escalated and provoked so that the US has an excuse to go in and bomb the bejaysus out of the "bad guys" along with plenty of "collateral damage". If I recall it correctly it was described as them needing a "hook" to hang the attack on. Ok it's fiction and maybe not that relevant - but Le Carrre was a former diplomat (and spy) and who knows how much of that may have been him writing from experience. Some might say the that the West going into Iraq in 2003 supposedly on the basis of them producing WMDs, which, as far I know were never found, was just such a "hook". Or just such a conspiracy theory.

There are good and bad pundits and commentators of backgrounds. What I find a little strange though is where they employ female ex-players to comment on the men's game as if they have more insight into that than the average punter or journalists and broadcasters who are not ex-pros. I'd question whether they actually have more basis to comment on the top level men's game than someone who has played at level 4, or 8 or 10 of the men's game. It's bad enough having male ex-pros who are incapable of forming proper opinions and sentences and just churn out cliches and truisms. But at least they can say they have had first hand insight into how it is.

Thanks for the clarification. I've just checked though and it seems Hamas was democratically elected on a manifesto to end the occupation using armed resistance. So is it fair to say that the Gaza Palestinians (or an electoral majority at least) are not victims of Hamas but rather proponents of them?

Ok how is the West Bank treated compared to Gaza and why? Is it because Hamaz don't operate in/control the West Bank? And are the Palestinian people there freer and not subject to military checkpoints and (alleged) attacks from Israeli settlers? Not being an arse, genuinely don't know and interested.

Has any real progress been achieved by trying to solve this diplomatically? I don't mean being recognised by the UN as an observer state, I mean tangible progress for the Palestinians who consider themselves to be living under occupation and apartheid?

From what I've seen of them Wolves are much better than their league position would suggest. They battered Liverpool for 45 minutes before everntually losing, beat Man City, were robbed at Man Utd and unlucky at Palace. A draw isn't a bad result there.

I can't understand why the club are going through the same process of selection that produced the two variants they are not happy with. Why not have a design competition that fans can enter - there are some very nice ones on here for a start. I know Blues did that in the 70s and ended up with the testicles but many observers seem to consider it unique and easily identifiable as "them". Kind of like a footballing chemical hazard sign.

I understand why the club are doing this kind of thing and it is necessary if we want to compete at the very top. If we get some success it will also mean, inevitably, an increase in tourist half and half scarf glory hunting types. What I've found annoying though is the disingenuous way the club has gone about it. Looking at the blurb for the Terrace View and it goes on about the "enhanced experience" that fans asked for in the survey, which includes enhanced wifi, quicker drinks service etc. Now I remember the survey asking if I would want an enhanced experience at the Holte End, I remember being asked if I wanted improved wifi, better toilets, better food choice, and faster drinks service. Of course I said yes to these, assuming it would lead to improvements for everyone in the Holte. I don't recall being asked if I wanted these things as part of a paid for package. If I was asked, I'm pretty sure I would have answered no and so would most other Holter Enders. I just think the survey may have been worded ambiguously, and that it was maybe no accident. Then the Holte Suite was meant to just be closing for refurb and that's what they led us to believe - obviously didn't want to risk hitting season ticket sales by pissing off STHs even more before the season started. Get your captive audience money first, then hit them with the reduction in benefits. It just smacks of underhand tactics, deceit and manipulation.

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.

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.

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?

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.