DerbysLane

It has been reported that since Israel started it's bombing, a child has died in Gaza every 15 minutes. Is that a reasonable form of self-defence?
Of course it isn't.  A reasonable self-defence would be increasing troop numbers around the border, building better barriers, erecting watch towers, etc.
Self-defence is not an excuse to do what you like.  Besides, Hamas could equally claim that they killed Israeli citizens in self-defence, that guerrilla warfare is the only way they can take on Israel.
How are we to reasonably judge the aggressor?  Number of people killed?  Land occupied?  It doesn't stack up well for Israel.
If Jewish people are concerned that the actions of Israel reflects badly on Jewish people then they should call out the actions of Israel, not try and justify it.

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.
Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.
They are fundamentally the same act.
It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.
Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.
As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.
The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  
I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.
Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.
They are fundamentally the same act.
It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.
Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.
As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.
The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  
I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.
Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.
They are fundamentally the same act.
It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.
Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.
As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.
The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  
I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.
Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.
They are fundamentally the same act.
It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.
Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.
As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.
The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  
I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.
Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.
They are fundamentally the same act.
It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.
Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.
As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.
The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  
I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

In your opinion, how many children is it acceptable to kill in order to kill one member of Hamas?

When the majority of those killed and wounded are civilians it is outrageous to claim that is not on purpose.

In your opinion, how many children is it acceptable to kill in order to kill one member of Hamas?

Steve, I'd suggest you're repeating the bizarre doublethink of people who might call themselves "liberals" and think they're all lovely and caring and nice but are actually the most illiberal bunch one might come across. I call them "wokists". On the one hand there is the claim that "sex is not binary" (and "how dare anyone claim that it is"?). On the other hand they make binary statements such as "trans women are women" and don't even notice the contradiction, collapsing their spectrum onto a binary result.
No. All you can factually say is "trans women are trans women" or that "trans women are biological men".
Scientifically, human sex is binary. You are either male or female. You are either a man or a woman. Yes there is a minuscule percentage of the human population (estimated at 0.018%) born with both sex organs and labelled intersex, technically in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. But there is zero intersection between intersex people and the transgender community. 
There are those who wish they'd been born as the other sex and are labelled gender dysphoric, but the reality is that they weren't. Yes that's tough, and if those people want to live elements of their lives as the opposite sex when it doesn't impact negatively on others, no one is saying they shouldn't. But clearly it's wrong to remove the category of women's sports and allow anyone who wants (regardless of their sex) to compete in it.
 

He didn't physically stalk anyone.  It was through his YouTube channel and an avalanche of emails.  He has Vardy levels of delusion, appears to thinks he can say anything through freedom of speech.  Well he can but it's going to cost him at least 2 and a half years in jail and Jeremy Vine is also going the libel route so it'll probably cost him all his money too.
As David said in his first post "Freedom of speech does not give you freedom of consequences".  I can't think of a better example.

Game is on Sport 1, free to air German channel. You can watch online but commentary is German though obviously

David clowes - SAVIOR! 
 
His open letter makes great reading 

Reading that open letter from DC has made me cry. I am so happy.

How is Greta Thunberg (and i do find her manner a little irritating) making the world a worse place? 

I actually agree with your first point here. He comes across very well in interviews but I think managers can be a little too studious. Without having any knowledge of what he is like behind the scenes, managers do need to have that edge. X factor as you call it. Rosenior says a lot of the right things, but is he too nice? Would he hold the respect? I just have a nagging doubt he lacks some of it. I’m up for giving him a go, but would have some reservations. An experienced no.2 would be crucial. 

Hah! Yeah, we gotta fight to keep the structural violence going!
To be more serious, I would've preferred Rosenior over Rooney at the time. (Well, still do...)  Now it's a clean slate so it's Rosenior vs others. 
I'll try to find some words to describe what I mean. Types like Ferguson, Clough Sr., Wenger, and Mourinho had it. At lower level Warnock and Valakari has it. It's that positive crazyness, accompanied with stubbornness, charisma, and swagger.... also, they'd do everything for their team, so maybe it's kind of animal kingdom alpha male approach?
PS. Just to be very clear, our next manager could have green skin, if he/she/they would be best option otherwise. 

The great managers have an X factor.  I'm not sure you can learn that.
I find Rosenior incredibly boring and irritating in his interviews.  The way he talks about training to be a manager is like some caricature that I can't quite place, David Brent maybe?
Talks a good game, but has not shown that he can implement it.
Fans are awful at picking managers, and for that reason Clowes would be wise to avoid Rosenior.

Assuming Darren Wassall no longer has managerial ambitions I'd make him CEO and give him the choice of manager.  The next manager is going to have to use the academy so it makes sense to appoint somebody with the same playing style as the academy.
It's only just occured to me how many Derby managers Darren Wassell has played under: Brian Clough, Arthur Cox, Roy McFarland, Jim Smith, Nigel Clough!

I'm done with the absolutely crazy goalkicks by a defender to the keeper under pressure and passing backwards to put us under pressure as our first thought in every circumstance. Freekicks in the opposition half going back to our keeper if the opposition don't intercept them first as they know where they're headed. It's utter madness. I do not want continuity of this style and approach.

Rooney's statement doesn't help Rosenior's case, he claims that the club needs a new guide, someone, who hasn't been damaged by the last 18 months of turmoil.

Anyone bidding but not purchasing the stadium should be ignored and ruled out, looking at the revenue generated this next 12 months by DCFC it is clear and obvious that cash injections will be needed of around £1- £1.5million/month just to keep the lights on as a going concern, by the owner.
If a bidder cannot afford mortgage repayments of around £1.65million a month, then they have not got enough cash to support the club.

Mike Ashley has been the one for me throughout.
He isn't the most likeable, I'm not sure I fancy Sports Direct being plastered all over the stadium and I wonder how the academy will look under his tenure, but let's be honest, he is the best option out of the people we know of.
Kirchner hasn't got off to the best of starts andAppleby wants to buy Derby but is busy ringing people looking for backers. Steve Morgan would be good, assuming he is actually interested.
If Ashley unites the club and ground and invests in the playing squad, that's the best we can hope for.
If nothing else, Ashley creates a club that is again attractive and sellable.