Search results

I just deleted my previous post - I thought your response was odd. I ignore Brighton so I hadn't seen what you were replying to.

I agree - it's a strong message with which few would disagree. My concerns are all about what you see when you dig behind the slogan.

I think that some will not. I don't know the proportions but I suspect the marches are made up of: - Revolutionary Marxists and Anarchists - Criminals and thugs. - People who agree that black lives do matter and have no idea on the beliefs of the leadership.

These are not outliers: these are essentially the only statements from the leadership we have that tell us what they want to do (their approach) rather than what they hope to achieve. I have no issues with their goals. But their approach just sounds like Marxism, which I find deeply flawed.

If you read this, then it all sounds reasonable: What We Believe - Black Lives Matter But these are aims and objectives. This is not a manifesto. This is what one of the founders wrote in 2017, which is closer to a manifesto: White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter...

You will never offend me by making rational counter-arguments. :) I completely accept the point that my skin colour; parents; education; the people I've met; genes... make a difference to my opinions on these questions. And I suspect we agree on the goal. I also understand how people can...

I agree with that. I disagree with the approach of the BLM and identity politics movement. See: Let's continue the upward trend from the 70s.

And some more opinions which are even more controversial: - All this outrage from the rioters is contrived. They are joining a bandwagon and seizing an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. - There is not even any evidence that the murder of George Floyd was racially motivated. It's not...

Another futile response... I guarantee that you won't understand the points I make here Tony and will revert with something that I consider a facile. This isn't for you but for everyone else. I know that I'm pretty much a lone voice, however I despair of identity politics: where everyone's...

I think he has changed in response to the leadership switch. He was always seen as a moderate before the Corbyn experiment and I suspect he was playing to the shadow cabinet to get a look in. Now that Starmer has control he can revert to his natural position. Just a suspicion.

I don't know him at all. If he is mediocre then I agree. The internet tells us that he has been praised for performances for QPR by fans. But whether that's just a few games or consistent high performances, I just don't know.

I agree on approach. I just wonder though if Robins sees a role for a very good elder statesman who could improve the team and younger players, albeit probably only for one or two seasons. Not all 33 year olds are knackered - just look at ow much Gordon Strachan improved a Premiership side...

It's not a secret now you've blabbed.

I did the same, around 1973ish. My teams were Blackpool, Grimsby and Workington. St. Mirren in Scotland from 1987 when they won the Scottish Cup.

Joy isn't the owner; she's the manager of the Hedge Fund. The owners are the people who have invested in the fund that holds our club.

Newspapers, yes. It's much much worse now on TV than it ever has been before.

I very much doubt that we will be signing proven Premiership and Championship players - maybe one at a push. We cannot afford their wages even if they were free. I say, stick to the policy of acquiring young players from elsewhere. I'd rather go down, knowing that we are continually building...

I do read a paper on weekends but I get most of my news on Reuters nowadays. We've stopped watching TV news too. Why can't they just give us the news without their opinions?

Also true. Good point.

That is true. But at some point, possibly next season but possibly the following, the point holds.