El Segundo

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Which dictionary and which definition?

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?

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.

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.

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.