Leeds Ram

The idea that she didn't know what she was doing is a bit ridiculous once you take one look at the evidence. She volunteered, was, according to eyewitnesses, an active member in the organisation (joined the hisbah i.e., the morality police of IS and helped stitch suicide belts into fighters' clothes) and, when interviewed, remained a believer in the organisation. This was not a young girl 'trapped' in an evil organisation, but rather, she was an active and willing participant. Even in subsequent interviews, she was an apologist for them and some journalists who have interviewed her have expressed their concern over her willingness to both obfuscate her true role as well as remaining apparently sympathetic to IS ideology.
The precedent many often give is that of young Nazis; we didn't prosecute anyone under the age of 18 at Nuremberg or other criminal trials. They also, if my memory serves me well, did not have to go through the process of de-Nazification, given they were a minor. However, those children existed in a totalitarian society, not a free and open democratic society, therefore, making it completely different. Given the increasing calls to lower the vote to 16, are we really saying someone at 16 is mature enough to vote, yet someone at 15 is liable to be 'groomed' into believing IS was 'paradise on earth'? For me, it's hard to say at 15 that she wasn't cognisant of what she was doing, and the 'human trafficking' charge would only relate to the Turkish and Syrian border, which she needed help crossing. She made her own way to Turkey after all. 
So, I don't have any sympathy for her or 'what she's been through'. She was an active and willing member of a genocidal organisation that practised public crucifixion, slavery, beheadings, and was too extreme even for Al-Qaeda, an organisation which, even after its almost total collapse, she kept apologising for. The question of whether she should be let back into the country is tough. We are in all but name, making her stateless as Bangladesh won't take her. It's also generally a bad idea to take away people's citizenship, and there is a strong case that she should face at least numerous anti-terror charges and possibly even a treason charge (I'm a political theorist, not a lawyer, though, so may be wrong).
However, people pretending she doesn't remain a threat are naive in the extreme. She could not be trusted with her liberty for years, if ever, precisely because of the lone wolf threat that terrorist organisations pose. The same is true of all IS members who have been allowed back into the country for that matter. It's a horrible mess and one the government can't extricate itself from easily. But, whilst Begum is on the Times front cover, begging to be let back in, I cannot sympathise with her. My sympathies lie with those who were butchered, enslaved, and raped by this organisation. 
 

Yep , as a season ticket holder I don’t expect priority away ( would be nice though) we get and deserve in my view stuff like Wembley tickets if we get there ??‍♂️

It's not a mess of the club's making- it's a mess because there are currently far more fans wanting tickets than there are tickets available. Nothing the club can do can change the basic arithmetic. Personally, I think we've got a reasonable system. I remain unconvinced that ST's should get priority away; they pay for their desired seat at home at a reduced rate, and that's the reward for loyalty. Using the amount of games attended away from home as a signifier is a fair way to analyse who deserves priority now. There is no other reasonable way. 

It's not a mess of the club's making- it's a mess because there are currently far more fans wanting tickets than there are tickets available. Nothing the club can do can change the basic arithmetic. Personally, I think we've got a reasonable system. I remain unconvinced that ST's should get priority away; they pay for their desired seat at home at a reduced rate, and that's the reward for loyalty. Using the amount of games attended away from home as a signifier is a fair way to analyse who deserves priority now. There is no other reasonable way. 

It's not a mess of the club's making- it's a mess because there are currently far more fans wanting tickets than there are tickets available. Nothing the club can do can change the basic arithmetic. Personally, I think we've got a reasonable system. I remain unconvinced that ST's should get priority away; they pay for their desired seat at home at a reduced rate, and that's the reward for loyalty. Using the amount of games attended away from home as a signifier is a fair way to analyse who deserves priority now. There is no other reasonable way. 

It's not a mess of the club's making- it's a mess because there are currently far more fans wanting tickets than there are tickets available. Nothing the club can do can change the basic arithmetic. Personally, I think we've got a reasonable system. I remain unconvinced that ST's should get priority away; they pay for their desired seat at home at a reduced rate, and that's the reward for loyalty. Using the amount of games attended away from home as a signifier is a fair way to analyse who deserves priority now. There is no other reasonable way. 

It's not a mess of the club's making- it's a mess because there are currently far more fans wanting tickets than there are tickets available. Nothing the club can do can change the basic arithmetic. Personally, I think we've got a reasonable system. I remain unconvinced that ST's should get priority away; they pay for their desired seat at home at a reduced rate, and that's the reward for loyalty. Using the amount of games attended away from home as a signifier is a fair way to analyse who deserves priority now. There is no other reasonable way. 

think we are heading to the Old No 7 bar which is on Market Hill Barnsley

Dove Inn, Doncaster Road, just 10-15 mins walk to Oakwell. Good beer, home and away fans and very accommodating staff unless you step out of line of course.

For the love of god, stop being such a fun sponge. Supporting a team is not only about being serious and 'getting behind the team' with 'healthy' songs, but it's supposed to be a bit fun and irreverent. For a start the song isn't really about his nob, if it was I'd probably agree it's a bit odd, but it's about the player as a whole. It's a really catchy tune, is slightly cheeky and actually what we do know is 2 of the players do like the song. If you don't like it don't join in but not sure what your issue is. 

For the love of god, stop being such a fun sponge. Supporting a team is not only about being serious and 'getting behind the team' with 'healthy' songs, but it's supposed to be a bit fun and irreverent. For a start the song isn't really about his nob, if it was I'd probably agree it's a bit odd, but it's about the player as a whole. It's a really catchy tune, is slightly cheeky and actually what we do know is 2 of the players do like the song. If you don't like it don't join in but not sure what your issue is. 

Best post I've read on the subject ??

I don't know enough about this specific example, but changing works of fiction from their cultural context without the consent of the author is a bad idea. The whole point of art, including literature, is that it exists in its own space and time, representing not just current issues but longer-standing questions. You start messing around with the characters and language, then pretty soon you've basically changed the work itself, rendering it not something from the author but an odd bastardised version instead. As Roald Dahl isn't alive to edit his works, they should really be left untouched. This is not like Dickens, who softened the anti-semitic features of fagin up in later editions of Oliver Twist following an angry complaint by one reader. 
I see this kind of creep in political theory where some are wanting to edit out 'problematic' portions of texts. Of course, the people wanting to do this don't understand a) bad people can have good ideas and b) understanding why those portions exist is just as important as appreciating the good things from the work. Personally, I also don't buy the idea that suddenly writers like Roald Dahl will not be read unless they 'update' themselves. Literature classics remain in print and are read by people because of their timeless qualities that are generally immune to fashionable taste. 

I don't know enough about this specific example, but changing works of fiction from their cultural context without the consent of the author is a bad idea. The whole point of art, including literature, is that it exists in its own space and time, representing not just current issues but longer-standing questions. You start messing around with the characters and language, then pretty soon you've basically changed the work itself, rendering it not something from the author but an odd bastardised version instead. As Roald Dahl isn't alive to edit his works, they should really be left untouched. This is not like Dickens, who softened the anti-semitic features of fagin up in later editions of Oliver Twist following an angry complaint by one reader. 
I see this kind of creep in political theory where some are wanting to edit out 'problematic' portions of texts. Of course, the people wanting to do this don't understand a) bad people can have good ideas and b) understanding why those portions exist is just as important as appreciating the good things from the work. Personally, I also don't buy the idea that suddenly writers like Roald Dahl will not be read unless they 'update' themselves. Literature classics remain in print and are read by people because of their timeless qualities that are generally immune to fashionable taste. 

I don't know enough about this specific example, but changing works of fiction from their cultural context without the consent of the author is a bad idea. The whole point of art, including literature, is that it exists in its own space and time, representing not just current issues but longer-standing questions. You start messing around with the characters and language, then pretty soon you've basically changed the work itself, rendering it not something from the author but an odd bastardised version instead. As Roald Dahl isn't alive to edit his works, they should really be left untouched. This is not like Dickens, who softened the anti-semitic features of fagin up in later editions of Oliver Twist following an angry complaint by one reader. 
I see this kind of creep in political theory where some are wanting to edit out 'problematic' portions of texts. Of course, the people wanting to do this don't understand a) bad people can have good ideas and b) understanding why those portions exist is just as important as appreciating the good things from the work. Personally, I also don't buy the idea that suddenly writers like Roald Dahl will not be read unless they 'update' themselves. Literature classics remain in print and are read by people because of their timeless qualities that are generally immune to fashionable taste. 

The way coventry and birmingham fans acted during our crisis was beyond grim. You expect that kind of behaviour from Forest fans but the aggression and glee involved from both those lot means they have lost all sympathy with me. 

I don't know enough about this specific example, but changing works of fiction from their cultural context without the consent of the author is a bad idea. The whole point of art, including literature, is that it exists in its own space and time, representing not just current issues but longer-standing questions. You start messing around with the characters and language, then pretty soon you've basically changed the work itself, rendering it not something from the author but an odd bastardised version instead. As Roald Dahl isn't alive to edit his works, they should really be left untouched. This is not like Dickens, who softened the anti-semitic features of fagin up in later editions of Oliver Twist following an angry complaint by one reader. 
I see this kind of creep in political theory where some are wanting to edit out 'problematic' portions of texts. Of course, the people wanting to do this don't understand a) bad people can have good ideas and b) understanding why those portions exist is just as important as appreciating the good things from the work. Personally, I also don't buy the idea that suddenly writers like Roald Dahl will not be read unless they 'update' themselves. Literature classics remain in print and are read by people because of their timeless qualities that are generally immune to fashionable taste. 

I think the experience away from home varies but it has become worse this season I think. We've unfortunately got (like every club) some people who can't handle their ale or are just generally badly behaved. Travelling back on the train from Bolton was not especially pleasant with additional problems at Manchester Oxford Road station. I was called this and that by a grown man with his teenage kid in tow as I politely suggested that there was a line for queuing and it wasn't polite just to skip it for his own convenience, and when I ignored his abusive responses he got more and more agitated until he basically wanted a fight. It was embarrassing behaviour. 

At Lincoln I took my gf and the behaviour of some (trying to confront Lincoln all game and throwing stuff) has put her off a little from returning I think. Those 'fans' honestly seemed more bothered about the opposite set of supporters than what was happening on the pitch. The sad thing is, all it takes is a small minority (a few dozen) who can then wreck it for everyone else. You've got some younger lads causing trouble all day and when the police finally have had enough they act like small kids and apologise to try and worm their way out of a fine or being reported to the club. 
But I'm going to Barnsley with a mate and he's excited. I think generally it's fun but all it takes is one moment and it spoils the day a little. Sadly, if I had a kid I probably wouldn't take them to away games until they were at least 14/15 with our current following. It makes me sad as when I was that age, I used to get the roadrider with a mate from school and we'd travel the country together. Unfortunately, I can't see many doing that now. 

 

I don't know enough about this specific example, but changing works of fiction from their cultural context without the consent of the author is a bad idea. The whole point of art, including literature, is that it exists in its own space and time, representing not just current issues but longer-standing questions. You start messing around with the characters and language, then pretty soon you've basically changed the work itself, rendering it not something from the author but an odd bastardised version instead. As Roald Dahl isn't alive to edit his works, they should really be left untouched. This is not like Dickens, who softened the anti-semitic features of fagin up in later editions of Oliver Twist following an angry complaint by one reader. 
I see this kind of creep in political theory where some are wanting to edit out 'problematic' portions of texts. Of course, the people wanting to do this don't understand a) bad people can have good ideas and b) understanding why those portions exist is just as important as appreciating the good things from the work. Personally, I also don't buy the idea that suddenly writers like Roald Dahl will not be read unless they 'update' themselves. Literature classics remain in print and are read by people because of their timeless qualities that are generally immune to fashionable taste. 

I grew up watching derby in the east stand corner sitting next to a terrific fellow called Dave and on the other side was Mick from Grimsby. I'd heard all sorts of language from sitting in that area and it never did me any harm, all it takes is a reasonable explanation to the kid and everything should be fine. But, if you're in the family area people should be mindful of that i think. Not that you can't swear but that it should be a rarer occurrence than if you're in other areas. I would suggest it is less you being a prude than someone having bad manners. 

I grew up watching derby in the east stand corner sitting next to a terrific fellow called Dave and on the other side was Mick from Grimsby. I'd heard all sorts of language from sitting in that area and it never did me any harm, all it takes is a reasonable explanation to the kid and everything should be fine. But, if you're in the family area people should be mindful of that i think. Not that you can't swear but that it should be a rarer occurrence than if you're in other areas. I would suggest it is less you being a prude than someone having bad manners. 

For the love of god, stop being such a fun sponge. Supporting a team is not only about being serious and 'getting behind the team' with 'healthy' songs, but it's supposed to be a bit fun and irreverent. For a start the song isn't really about his nob, if it was I'd probably agree it's a bit odd, but it's about the player as a whole. It's a really catchy tune, is slightly cheeky and actually what we do know is 2 of the players do like the song. If you don't like it don't join in but not sure what your issue is. 

I grew up watching derby in the east stand corner sitting next to a terrific fellow called Dave and on the other side was Mick from Grimsby. I'd heard all sorts of language from sitting in that area and it never did me any harm, all it takes is a reasonable explanation to the kid and everything should be fine. But, if you're in the family area people should be mindful of that i think. Not that you can't swear but that it should be a rarer occurrence than if you're in other areas. I would suggest it is less you being a prude than someone having bad manners. 

Just because yours isn’t as big as NML’s

I tend to agree with Carl Sagan that many people act as if the NHS and those who staff it are saints. Like any other organisation, you get good practice and bad practice. It is not perfect and it is not just a matter of a lack of funding either. Capital spend is low, but day-to-day spend is high. The system lacks integration with social care leading to bed blocking for weeks or even months on end which helps clog up the system. Essentially, the system is broken and not up to the job, covid merely accelerated the problems that were always going to crop up. It needs a systematic reform to fix it which inevitably the BMA will hate. 
On patient care, it's a mixed bag. Some of the patient care with my dad was absolutely disgusting; nurses simply not doing their job in keeping him clean or aiding him in what they were trained and paid to do. When he had a strong fever (after a stroke and extensive surgery to his head), and we alerted them we were treated as an inconvenience and they didn't follow it up. A week later, he passed away at the age of 53 of sepsis, in what was, in my opinion, a totally preventable death. So safe to say I wasn't one of the people 'clapping for the NHS'