GboroRam

I hope we can still laugh at the stupid stuff. 

41 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Thanks Gboro I get that, appreciate it. You will know that often racism is not always intentional. 

 

Comparison with IRA is not really valid.. they never murdered 1,300 people in one go did they? The Hamas attacks (like those on 9/11) are a different game altogether. I do think it is a reasonable view that Israel's response is not proportionate. Any loss of civilian life is tragic. But given the history, I also get why they would not want to be restrained or tolerant. 

I hope and believe that ~Israel's action will stop once Gaza is evacuated. I do not think they are expansionist or empire building. They are just trying to secure a buffer zone for their own security. That's what I hope anyway.     

I don't think it changes anything, increasing the scale. If the IRA had killed a thousand, I'd still say wiping out catholic areas is criminal and needs publicly calling out as such. 

8 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

For me - your comments are eminently sensible, BUT the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

So by that yardstick we have technically had an anti-semitic post on the forum.

But that's just an illustration of how difficult the issue is to navigate. If the Israeli government do end up being proven to have committed genocidal war crimes against innocent civilians in retaliation for the Hamas butchery - criticising them for that becomes akin to anti-semitism. A deeply weird position to find ourselves in

No need to hide who posted it, it was me. And I will apologise, I certainly didn't know I'd posted anything antisemitic. 

I find it hard not to make a comparison with the persecution of the Jews in the 30s, and the attacks on Palestinians now. Perversely, the people who were receiving the persecution now have a state apparatus doing the persecution of Palestinians, in the name of driving out Hamas. I mean, would we have said any different if the UK state had blown up whole catholic areas of Northern Ireland, with the intention of driving out the IRA? 

Of course the actions of the Israeli state aren't the actions of all Jews and I don't think anyone is suggesting they are, but can anyone deny there's horrible echoes here, with over a million people fleeing for their lives? It feels very wrong. 

There's a lot of support in the west for Israel and it's hard to say much negative without being cast as antisemitic. I don't believe I am, but perhaps I don't quite agree with the current definition of antisemitism. Offending posts have been removed and I'll try to be mindful of the guidelines as to the definition of antisemitism. Apologies if anyone took offence. 

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

Reading this thread I can't help thinking religion is the root of many terrible evils in the world, and that's the case here. In my youth I was really thrilled that the UK was fast becoming a secular country where rationality should soon win out over religious fervour, but probably the biggest downside of immigration to the UK has been a rise in religious belief and religious fundamentalism. It's both dangerous and worrying. Of course there are good and decent religious people, but many others are effectively medieval nutters. When the media talks about radicalizing children, they conveniently overlook that this is effectively the point of much organized religion of all types.

Meaning there are some Muslims who want to wipe out all the Jews simply because they're Jews. And there are some Jews who think they're God's chosen people on Earth and can do no wrong.

When the basis for a dispute is so irrational, it's incredibly hard to find a solution. I think/hope everyone on this thread condemns all the killing, but my guess is this thread will have to be pulled soon because of how some people see the issue.

Religion is only part of it, though. You've got Jews who aren't religious, you've got Palestinians who just want their land returned. It's now more about nationalism than religion, much as the troubles in Northern Ireland are about catholic vs protestant, but very much about national identity and not really about religion. 

These lands were home for Arab Muslims and Jews for thousands of years. Colonisation is correct, but an aggressive colonisation by a hugely superior military. 

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There are people who quite genuinely deny that the Holocaust happened. And people with similar agenda who deny the Hamas terrorist attacks happened (including at least one on this forum for example). There are some who refuse to accept that anti semitism is racism (Whoopi Goldberg for one). The very idea that Israelis could possibly be the victims seems anathema to some. 

People who criticise Israel generally criticise no other country apart from Israel. Why is that? 

So no I do not accept that people who do nothing but criticise Israel are not biased and prejudiced in their views and that, especially given the root cause of that bias  is anti semitism in my view.

I don't see how it can only be antisemitism. 

Are antisemites using the situation to call for death to Israelis? Yes, of course. 

Is the deaths of thousands of civilians a suitable response to the death of thousands of civilians?

I just find it utterly unavoidable that treating a nation as third class citizens causes an angry backlash from extremists. It's stirring the hornet's nest - there was never going to be anything other than a call for extremist response. 

Whatever you believe, I can't see how killing thousands of innocent bystanders is justifiable. But Britain, the US and other western supporters of Israel are prepared to ignore international censure and still get behind it. 

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

He certainly is. I never said he is guilty. I just said that we should believe victims of abuse 

Some people would have been defending Jimmy Savile too

 

Aye, never found guilty in any court. 

I've split the above posts from the Ukraine thread. While there are some common themes I don't think it makes sense to be all in one thread. 

As always this thread will be monitored closely so, be excellent to each other (and party on, dudes). Failure to be excellent to each other will see the thread pulled. 

I saw a clip of his missus claiming to be from a working class background, and David pushing her to answer "what car did your dad drive you to school in?" "it's not that simple, Er, Er". 

It's Rolls Royce. 

On 29/09/2023 at 09:11, Anon said:

Stop paying players so much money. This isn't a defence of the shambolic way Scunthorpe has been run, but these situations are getting more and more common and we always go straight to hand wringing about fit and proper person tests and clubs as historic institutions. They're businesses and very few businesses could survive by paying almost their entire turnover out in wages. No one ever suggests that maybe, just maybe a league 2 footballer shouldn't be getting £75,000 per annum. Maybe Scunny will go the same way as Bury, but I can guarantee if they do most people will pretend that it's because the people in charge were malicious and somehow uniquely evil rather than the fact that the cost of keeping a competitive playing squad is becoming completely untenable for small town parochial clubs.

You're not wrong, but while fans continue to demand perpetual success at any cost, the problem won't go away. 

48 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Reading all the news articles at the moment about the hunt for extra-terrestrial life, and when you think about the vastness of space and the 200 billion trillion stars in the known universe - you realise that this all has to be a cosmic joke right. It makes absolutely no sense

We are alone, because it's a simulation, and the unknowns of the universe are designed to keep us interested

 

So the stars are like the mountains at the edge of Skyrim, just for decoration and you can't actually get there?  

1 hour ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Agreed. Unless a team is genuinely terrible and they get points deducted then that record is safe for a long time yet.

A genuinely terrible team could be docked 15 points and still finish with more than 11.

It'll take 30 and a dreadful team. 

That record will not be broken in our lifetime. Quote me, screenshot me, X me. 

9 minutes ago, Archied said:

Quality post 🤷🏻‍♂️

Bleedin' hell, someone mark the calendar! 

11 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

If you want to play whataboutism: would you rather accommodate for the absolutely marginal percentage (could be entirely null) of instances of this occurring due to the mitigating factors you claim, or for rape victims themselves?

Honestly, when faced with a text message of a perpetrator admitting culpability, the fact you've jumped through hoops to try and find hypothetical excuses for that behaviour is a little bit strange... Which brings me back to the central theme, yes there will be marginal instances of false accusations etc. but they will always pale in comparison to the level of injustice currently perpetuated by the flawed judicial process.

And to use the example in question, if that guy went to prison for saying he raped someone when he didn't, but that was offset by a steep increase in conviction rates for these crimes. Then yes I think that's a fair trade off, and he'll learn his lesson for saying something so mind-numbingly stupid just to try hurt someone in an argument...

It's a difficult subject, one I've tried to not get involved. 

I fully understand why police won't prosecute on the basis of a confession alone. It's been proved unreliable before. 

I also think there's a difference between people making up their minds about the conduct of an individual and deciding they don't want to associate with them, and a criminal conviction resulting in legal outcomes. 

I also have no problem with the concept of investigative journalism. Lots of cases only come to light after journalists start to investigate. Real journalism, not the kind we're mostly left with at the moment. 

I also don't believe there's a bald guy stroking a cat in the top office of the BBC, like a bond villain. A lot of people turned a blind eye to some terrible behaviour. Did they know the full story? Perhaps not. Did they not ask too many questions, out of self preservation? I'd not be surprised. Did some people treat him like he was untouchable? I reckon so. 

Has he changed his views to garner support from a demographic possibly more relaxed with abusive behaviour? Possibly, but it does let off the hook some people who never objected while he remained under the radar. 

A lot of people have enabled his behaviour. You can't even blame "the sign of the times" like we might have if this was the 70s or 80s.

1 hour ago, NottsRam77 said:

Totally … aint lying its a rollercoaster lol

but to be brutally honest iv bought all i intend to…. Im invested but not by any stretch over committed, and always advise anyone to do research before aping in.

iv set my timeframe when i will look to start to consider taking profits (18 months ish imo) unless i decide to hang it and hold it through to the following halving.

what it does inbetween, up , down , left right im not bothered about

im not selling it now so what it does is til that point is totally irrelevant

Hypothetically, if it lost all its value, are you in trouble? 

Was looking at all the stuff we couldn't afford for me as a lad getting jealous, then I remembered I had this bad boy. 

20 hours ago, DerbysLane said:

There are a few sites questioning the evidence that was presented at trial.  It is quite convincing, albeit many of the people making the claims seem to be the conspiracy theory, climate change denying, Trump supporting type.  I have such little faith in the police or NHS hospital consultants that I'm more inclined to believe these random internet people.

For example, https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/more-remarkable-statistics-in-the-lucy-letby-case or there is a whole series of posts at https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/scepticism-in-action .  These https://www.scienceontrial.com/ are even raising money for a re-trial.

 

 

 

I think you answered your own question. If you read biased reports, and it sounds like these are, you will be potentially listening to a warped perspective. 

Don't forget, it's pronounced "tay-pass". 

What happened to the days when we wanted to win by playing better football than the other team? 

20 minutes ago, sage said:

 

At first I thought it was his greatest 100 touches. Then he scored a few nice goals. Then I thought it was the 100 worst defensive mistakes. Then I thought you can prove whatever you want with a highlights reel so stopped watching. 

3 minutes ago, Rev said:

Could've faked his own death, I suppose.

Possibly Putin faked his death. It'd explain why Prigozhin would stand down his men voluntarily, as he had to know Putin wouldn't be able to let anyone just walk away like that. 

6 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Those are all really poor - normally it's a good list. Only the podcast one raised a smile for me, the rest were just groan jokes

The nationwide one was passable. The "never apologise" was on the Simpsons yonks ago. 

52 minutes ago, Yoxoram said:

Why is there a thread on Foster and why for God's sake am I reading it?

That's a question only you can answer.