England are the highest ranked team still in the tournament. In the current FIFA world rankings to 27th May, England are ranked 4, Spain are 6, Italy 7 and Denmark 10. Also, England''s semi-final is at Wembley, as is the final. None of that means England will win but it is not surprising they are favourites.
Italy should be higher than 7, probably top 3 with France and Brazil, the rest about right. Home advantage should make England favourites if they get to the final even vs a better Italian team.
Brazil? I couldn’t sleep the other night and put on the Copa America. It was Brazil v Chile and the standard was terrible. Europe had all four semi finalists in 2018, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens again next year.
I'm sorry that's rubbish.
The Brazil v. Chile match produced the greatest moment of football I've seen in a long time, I don't think the piece of skill by Gabriel Jesus will ever be topped by England or by anyone else in Euro 2020.
On topic I have backed both bets for a while and the nomination since the Biden inauguration. I was originally a layer of Trump presidency as dont think he can win, but switched position as it has become clear he does not need to win. If the Republicans win enough office holders in the mid terms, they will just lie about the winner, and it will be more effective next time with moderates purged and the pathway of what needs to happen clearer.
Still I must disagree with the last four words, the nomination is by far the better bet. I think he is between 2.5-3 for the nomination and 7-10 for the presidency (harder to judge).
The number of times he talks about how well he has done in cognitative tests suggests to me that somebody within his close circle has convinced him to do them quite regularly - and that can only because they think he is right on the brink of dementia... (and somehow they have convinced him that doing well in them is something to boast about)
Or it's an effort to focus attention on Biden's slower speech.
On topic I have backed both bets for a while and the nomination since the Biden inauguration. I was originally a layer of Trump presidency as dont think he can win, but switched position as it has become clear he does not need to win. If the Republicans win enough office holders in the mid terms, they will just lie about the winner, and it will be more effective next time with moderates purged and the pathway of what needs to happen clearer.
Still I must disagree with the last four words, the nomination is by far the better bet. I think he is between 2.5-3 for the nomination and 7-10 for the presidency (harder to judge).
The number of times he talks about how well he has done in cognitative tests suggests to me that somebody within his close circle has convinced him to do them quite regularly - and that can only because they think he is right on the brink of dementia... (and somehow they have convinced him that doing well in them is something to boast about)
It would not surprise me at all, but not sure it makes any difference. He was quite mad already by 2016, and his supporters don't care if what he says makes sense or aligns with any facts, as he long as he gets the tone right.
I feel it’s a deeply naive view to act as if politics and sport haven’t been entwined with one another for decades. Sport does not exist in a vacuum that you can separate from the rest of society. A lot of it comes across as some people who have more right leaning or Conservative views being uncomfortable whenever a public figures expresses what they deem to be liberal or left leaning views.
This then leads to the idea that sportspeople, or even public figures outside of politics more generally should have to be neutral actors just to not make some people uncomfortable. Interestingly, many of these same people who want this are often accusing others of being ‘over sensitive’ and ‘snowflakes.’
Frank Lampard is known for his conservative political persuasion, I’ve never felt that he shouldn’t have a right to express his views just because he’s a footballer. Or that he shouldn’t express them because it’s ‘divisive’ or whatever. I don’t agree with him, but I don’t feel victimised everytime a public figure says something I don’t like.
As for taking the knee and BLM, BLM the movement predates the organisation. I find it odd the idea everyone who supported or sympathised with the movement should now completely detach themselves from it because some people decided to set up a political party in its name, years after the movement began. Or why the organisation BLM should suddenly represent BLM more so than the many people who were supportive of the movement.
Very well said!
Part of the problem is influential sports and media stars tend to be younger so probably are naturally more socially liberal than those who moan about them. It is also why the right may win the short term electoral spoils from the culture war as the voters skew older, but they will lose the long term war as todays kids will listed to the younger influencers more than the moaners.
My thoughts as well. There is already a generational divide in politics at the moment, so it’s natural for that to be reflected amongst footballers.
I see new cases per day is rising again in Bolton and Blackburn. I was assured it was mathematically impossible for that to happen.
Possible if there are unvaccinated cohorts living in close proximity.
I wonder if there is a bit of bravado in the current Government position on coronavirus and underneath the surface there is enormous nervousness. They've firmly hitched themselves to the "cases doesn't matter" line - which even if it does prove largely justified, could still leave them with some serious political difficulties. It is not difficult to foresee circumstances within a few weeks where we have put most European countries on the "greenlist" for travel, but case numbers are so high that Europe concludes that they have no option but to firmly shut the door.
The school holidays and hoped for significant decline in testing and therefore cases probably can't come soon enough...
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
I feel it’s a deeply naive view to act as if politics and sport haven’t been entwined with one another for decades. Sport does not exist in a vacuum that you can separate from the rest of society. A lot of it comes across as some people who have more right leaning or Conservative views being uncomfortable whenever a public figures expresses what they deem to be liberal or left leaning views.
This then leads to the idea that sportspeople, or even public figures outside of politics more generally should have to be neutral actors just to not make some people uncomfortable. Interestingly, many of these same people who want this are often accusing others of being ‘over sensitive’ and ‘snowflakes.’
Frank Lampard is known for his conservative political persuasion, I’ve never felt that he shouldn’t have a right to express his views just because he’s a footballer. Or that he shouldn’t express them because it’s ‘divisive’ or whatever. I don’t agree with him, but I don’t feel victimised everytime a public figure says something I don’t like.
As for taking the knee and BLM, BLM the movement predates the organisation. I find it odd the idea everyone who supported or sympathised with the movement should now completely detach themselves from it because some people decided to set up a political party in its name, years after the movement began. Or why the organisation BLM should suddenly represent BLM more so than the many people who were supportive of the movement.
Very well said!
Part of the problem is influential sports and media stars tend to be younger so probably are naturally more socially liberal than those who moan about them. It is also why the right may win the short term electoral spoils from the culture war as the voters skew older, but they will lose the long term war as todays kids will listed to the younger influencers more than the moaners.
My thoughts as well. There is already a generational divide in politics at the moment, so it’s natural for that to be reflected amongst footballers.
Don't worry, the moaners will legislate the woke out of the younger generation
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
They should consider Newcastle United. At the point Mike Ashley bought the club, we were on the same level financially as Spurs.
I see new cases per day is rising again in Bolton and Blackburn. I was assured it was mathematically impossible for that to happen.
Perhaps you can provide a link to back up your claim.
I doubt anybody claimed that cases would fall day after day in a smooth pattern but current cases are well below the peak and still trending down.
A look at the graphs show that its very much a football boosted blip upwards -notice how infection rates fall for the 60+ while they increase for those under 60:
And maybe you'll give us an update on the Blackburn and Bolton cases after 4pm when Blackburn's will show a significant fall while Bolton's flatline. As they will do again tomorrow.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
I live in and support Darlington - no matter how much pain you think you suffer with your football club, you really haven't
England are the highest ranked team still in the tournament. In the current FIFA world rankings to 27th May, England are ranked 4, Spain are 6, Italy 7 and Denmark 10. Also, England''s semi-final is at Wembley, as is the final. None of that means England will win but it is not surprising they are favourites.
Italy should be higher than 7, probably top 3 with France and Brazil, the rest about right. Home advantage should make England favourites if they get to the final even vs a better Italian team.
Brazil? I couldn’t sleep the other night and put on the Copa America. It was Brazil v Chile and the standard was terrible. Europe had all four semi finalists in 2018, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens again next year.
I'm sorry that's rubbish.
The Brazil v. Chile match produced the greatest moment of football I've seen in a long time, I don't think the piece of skill by Gabriel Jesus will ever be topped by England or by anyone else in Euro 2020.
That reminds of me Schumacher 82! Also noteworthy from the Copa is England now exporting players to Chile's national team as the queue for England places is so long.
FPT - I tried to recommend Clarkson's Farm to a couple we were renting our self-catering place from last week in Devon. They'd moved down from Oxfordshire 5 years ago. She was an ex primary school teacher and he an ex estate agent.
As soon as I got the word "Clarkson" out of my mouth she said 'oh' and looked uncomfortably at the ground, and he grunted and said he was a 'wanker'. That told me so much about them and their politics.
His name is still a swear word amongst bien-pensant Guardianista circles, and they really struggle to get past it.
His a wanker though, only gammons like him.
I like him
Given his attitude to Americans, one would expect the Guardian to be a little more tolerant as they share the same faux-contempt.
Certainly the US polling shows that the GOP is still very much Trump's party.
If Trump wants to run again in 2024 he is therefore highly likely to win the GOP nomination for a third time, a feat only previously achieved by Nixon.
However with President Biden still governing as a relative moderate and with solid approval ratings he is unlikely to defeat the incumbent if he runs again, in which case I think Trump would likely sit it out and let a fellow Trumpite like DeSantis get the nod.
However if Biden steps down and VP Harris ends up the 2024 Democratic nominee then Trump would fancy his chances as she would allow him to run the divisive, culture war campaign he wants far more than Biden would
Recently the Dems have been feeding Trump's narrative.
For example, it looks like the vote for the Democratic nomination as NY Mayor has essentially collapsed amid a pretty big error on ballots.
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My dad and my grandad were (soft) Manchester United fans. Told me the used to go to The Cliffe (when Salford scallies could just wander in) to see George Best training. But my dad not that bothered and my grandad more a rugby fan. So as a kid I became a Liverpool fan because winning. Reverted back to United when I left high school (Changing teams? Outrageous!).
Sajid Javid's arrival seems to have coincided with a policy shift. It makes me think that Matt Hancock and his coterie of white coats held huge sway over Gov't policy. Javid and Sunak appear now to have shifted the weight towards 'learning to live with it' which is, frankly, brilliant news. The link between cases and deaths has been broken by the vaccines and we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with life. Banish fear. Live.
It does also show how incredibly weak Boris Johnson is. He gets pushed and pulled around, almost certainly in large part because he's lazy and doesn't have a grasp of the facts. I don't think he's as bright as he seems to think he is.
I've wondered if the opposite is true. If Boris had had enough of Hancock's loony lockdownism, but didn't want to have open war with the zero covidians by sacking him to change policy, what could be better than pushing him out over a scandal, and installing a less insane health secretary. It wouldn't shock me if Boris's people were behind that video ending up in the public domain, to give Boris some cover to bin him.
Boris could have fired him on the Friday - the fact he didn't destroys your argument
That’s the clever bit
Boris preserved his reputation of standing up for his team before bowing to his backbenchers wishes. Party democracy ain’t it. Or something 😂
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
England are the highest ranked team still in the tournament. In the current FIFA world rankings to 27th May, England are ranked 4, Spain are 6, Italy 7 and Denmark 10. Also, England''s semi-final is at Wembley, as is the final. None of that means England will win but it is not surprising they are favourites.
Italy should be higher than 7, probably top 3 with France and Brazil, the rest about right. Home advantage should make England favourites if they get to the final even vs a better Italian team.
Brazil? I couldn’t sleep the other night and put on the Copa America. It was Brazil v Chile and the standard was terrible. Europe had all four semi finalists in 2018, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens again next year.
I'm sorry that's rubbish.
The Brazil v. Chile match produced the greatest moment of football I've seen in a long time, I don't think the piece of skill by Gabriel Jesus will ever be topped by England or by anyone else in Euro 2020.
FPT - I tried to recommend Clarkson's Farm to a couple we were renting our self-catering place from last week in Devon. They'd moved down from Oxfordshire 5 years ago. She was an ex primary school teacher and he an ex estate agent.
As soon as I got the word "Clarkson" out of my mouth she said 'oh' and looked uncomfortably at the ground, and he grunted and said he was a 'wanker'. That told me so much about them and their politics.
His name is still a swear word amongst bien-pensant Guardianista circles, and they really struggle to get past it.
His a wanker though, only gammons like him.
I like him
Given his attitude to Americans, one would expect the Guardian to be a little more tolerant as they share the same faux-contempt.
Also Clarkson pretends not to be "woke" but really he occupies the middle ground that most Britons occupy. Sympathetic to "woke" issues without being OTT.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
I see not liking Clarkson is a sign of people’s ghastly, woke proclivities. Thankfully his fanbois’ political allegiances remain totes unpredictable.
Personally it’s his 'haw haw, I'm a mechanical Luddite me!' attitude that irks me, it’s like learning Kenneth Clark produced this sort of thing in his spare time:
Isn’t that the Spanish restoration by a local churchgoer and nothing to do with Kenneth Clark of Civilisation
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
They never had the joys of watching Kevin Francis though!
FPT - I tried to recommend Clarkson's Farm to a couple we were renting our self-catering place from last week in Devon. They'd moved down from Oxfordshire 5 years ago. She was an ex primary school teacher and he an ex estate agent.
As soon as I got the word "Clarkson" out of my mouth she said 'oh' and looked uncomfortably at the ground, and he grunted and said he was a 'wanker'. That told me so much about them and their politics.
His name is still a swear word amongst bien-pensant Guardianista circles, and they really struggle to get past it.
His a wanker though, only gammons like him.
I like him
Given his attitude to Americans, one would expect the Guardian to be a little more tolerant as they share the same faux-contempt.
Also Clarkson pretends not to be "woke" but really he occupies the middle ground that most Britons occupy. Sympathetic to "woke" issues without being OTT.
It's probably why he's so popular.
Who hasn't punched an underling cos yer dinner's late or made jokes about slopes?
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
FPT - I tried to recommend Clarkson's Farm to a couple we were renting our self-catering place from last week in Devon. They'd moved down from Oxfordshire 5 years ago. She was an ex primary school teacher and he an ex estate agent.
As soon as I got the word "Clarkson" out of my mouth she said 'oh' and looked uncomfortably at the ground, and he grunted and said he was a 'wanker'. That told me so much about them and their politics.
His name is still a swear word amongst bien-pensant Guardianista circles, and they really struggle to get past it.
His a wanker though, only gammons like him.
I like him
Given his attitude to Americans, one would expect the Guardian to be a little more tolerant as they share the same faux-contempt.
Also Clarkson pretends not to be "woke" but really he occupies the middle ground that most Britons occupy. Sympathetic to "woke" issues without being OTT.
It's probably why he's so popular.
Who hasn't punched an underling cos yer dinner's late or made jokes about slopes?
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I'd endorse Dr Foxy's comments about football and father-son bonding. Younger Son wanted to go and watch Southend (yes, really!) when he was about 9, but we lived 10 miles away. So I took him and that ended up with a couple of season tickets for two or three years until he got to secondary school and could go on his own. Now, when he's around or we're with him, we still go to matches, although no longer Southend. Never had quite the same 'both do' with Elder Son.
The worst thing my Dad ever did to me was make me a Spurs fan. It's been the biggest source of misery in my life. And now I have done it to my own kids and the first grandson.
Harrowing story, and all too common.
#EndTheCycle
Grew up almost equidistant between Swindon and Southampton. Dad chose to take me to Swindon. #39yearsofhurt. They fuck you up your mum and dad...
My in laws are all Spurs fans and have given Spurs to my middle daughter. I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
I live in and support Darlington - no matter how much pain you think you suffer with your football club, you really haven't
With reference to the Trump campaign this is where George Reynolds went wrong - he should have stuck his money into a run for Mayor as well as building the stadium...
I see not liking Clarkson is a sign of people’s ghastly, woke proclivities. Thankfully his fanbois’ political allegiances remain totes unpredictable.
Personally it’s his 'haw haw, I'm a mechanical Luddite me!' attitude that irks me, it’s like learning Kenneth Clark produced this sort of thing in his spare time:
Isn’t that the Spanish restoration by a local churchgoer and nothing to do with Kenneth Clark of Civilisation
Whoosh..
Don't be an over-literal fuckwit, Charles. (I believe I have a seal of approval for that type of banter)
I see new cases per day is rising again in Bolton and Blackburn. I was assured it was mathematically impossible for that to happen.
Perhaps you can provide a link to back up your claim.
I doubt anybody claimed that cases would fall day after day in a smooth pattern but current cases are well below the peak and still trending down.
A look at the graphs show that its very much a football boosted blip upwards -notice how infection rates fall for the 60+ while they increase for those under 60:
And maybe you'll give us an update on the Blackburn and Bolton cases after 4pm when Blackburn's will show a significant fall while Bolton's flatline. As they will do again tomorrow.
To be fair who could have predicted a major international football tournament breaking out.
Basically one of those black swan events.
As for the <60/60+ split that only works for Bolton, since the 22nd of June in Blackburn rates have increased 6% for under 60s and 22% for over 60s
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
The question therefore is what the FA do about the racism infesting the stands. Kick it out isn't working. Taking the knee has the racists booing. If the team cannot be seen to stand up to the racists in the stands then how do we stamp it out?
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
Was busy yesterday so wasn't here - did we get any talk of the Morrisons deal? Awful news for the company, this PE operation is going to gut them like one of the fish they will soon no longer sell from their fish counters.
Morrisons is - was - a unique retail operation in that it had true vertical integration. It owned production companies who make most of their baked and fresh products exclusively for them. It owned most of the stores. In not paying rent and not paying manufacturer profit margins it could make exactly what its customers wanted and sold them at a keen price.
No more. PE will sell off everything that moves.
No discussion and the only thing in favour of this PE deal seems to be it is not quite as bad as the previous PE deal. Maybe HMG will block it. On an even wider point, is the increasing trend of PE taking over and de-listing companies a good thing?
The theory (don't know about the practice) is that an unlisted company can take a longer term view rather than hyperventilating over the short term share price or each quarters figures.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
Of course you can, it is a free country. Not one where people need logically correct or consistent belief systems. They might be wrong on one or both of those calls but that is fine. As is people doing the opposite, or a mix.
I see not liking Clarkson is a sign of people’s ghastly, woke proclivities. Thankfully his fanbois’ political allegiances remain totes unpredictable.
Personally it’s his 'haw haw, I'm a mechanical Luddite me!' attitude that irks me, it’s like learning Kenneth Clark produced this sort of thing in his spare time:
I think the thing most people like or admire (if not like) about Clarkson is the ability to think independently and not be afraid or peer pressured out of it to go against the prevailing mood music. Doesn't really matter about his actual views or politics just that he does have those views irrespective of what the zeitgeist is . Even more impressive for him as he has done this from a fairly liberal metro entrenched view of the world from within his old employer the BBC .
Its also why a lot of people admire (and find interesting) Galloway, Ken Livingstone , Thatcher , Farage , David Icke etc . Its why a lot of people dont admire most modern MPs who rely on focus groups and on message instructions (sam e in corporate world as well)
It's funny - I find Clarkson entirely predictable and, therefore, rather dull. You just know what he is going to say. Very rich TV presenter buys farm, makes TV programme about the struggle to make it work to help pay for it has been done many times before, hasn't it?
“Been done many times before”
1 Has it? I can’t think of any examples, though I may not have been paying attention.
2 Even if it has, formula TV is not always a bad thing: someone is murdered, eccentric detective solves the case is the basic plot of hundreds of series of books and TV shows.
None of this is a comment of Clarkson’s show. I will give it a go, but having grown up on a farm I will probably have a different perspective on it to many here.
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
In general I agree, US democracy is badly designed and has worked more from luck than design as far as I can see.
On the specifics, the stop the count was a specific tactic by Republicans to mandate the counting of Republican skewed votes first and then Democratic skewed votes last, with new rules introduced for the 2020 election. So that was not a case of bad general design, but a deliberate move to create confusion and lack of trust in the counting.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
I'm with you. I don't think it is a small minority.
I see not liking Clarkson is a sign of people’s ghastly, woke proclivities. Thankfully his fanbois’ political allegiances remain totes unpredictable.
Personally it’s his 'haw haw, I'm a mechanical Luddite me!' attitude that irks me, it’s like learning Kenneth Clark produced this sort of thing in his spare time:
I think the thing most people like or admire (if not like) about Clarkson is the ability to think independently and not be afraid or peer pressured out of it to go against the prevailing mood music. Doesn't really matter about his actual views or politics just that he does have those views irrespective of what the zeitgeist is . Even more impressive for him as he has done this from a fairly liberal metro entrenched view of the world from within his old employer the BBC .
Its also why a lot of people admire (and find interesting) Galloway, Ken Livingstone , Thatcher , Farage , David Icke etc . Its why a lot of people dont admire most modern MPs who rely on focus groups and on message instructions (sam e in corporate world as well)
It's funny - I find Clarkson entirely predictable and, therefore, rather dull. You just know what he is going to say. Very rich TV presenter buys farm, makes TV programme about the struggle to make it work to help pay for it has been done many times before, hasn't it?
“Been done many times before”
1 Has it? I can’t think of any examples, though I may not have been paying attention.
2 Even if it has, formula TV is not always a bad thing: someone is murdered, eccentric detective solves the case is the basic plot of hundreds of series of books and TV shows.
None of this is a comment of Clarkson’s show. I will give it a go, but having grown up on a farm I will probably have a different perspective on it to many here.
Didn’t Rebecca Loos do something on a farm?
Quite possibly: I haven't been watching much TV over the last few years. Can you remember the name of the show and if it was any good?
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
There a few posts coming up on my Facebook page referring to the fact that half the squad are of immigrant stock. All positive; reminding readers that we need immigrants in all sorts of walks of life.
I'm slightly worried because the flip-side of that argument is that these players are somehow not properly British. I hope we do not follow the American route of hyphenated nationalities, of Irish-English, Jamaican-English and so on.
How’s about we concentrate more on the content of people’s character, than the colour of their skin?
The current trend is very worrying. “Anti-racism” appears to be just racism, treating people differently according to how they look.
We should. But too many people don't. These peope who boo their own team for pointing out your racism when you boo and name call the immigrants - and then claim that you are the real victim. White privilege in an absolute nutshell.
The grand projet of the right currently is to convince everyone else that open racists, Nazi saluters and white supremacists are absolutely nothing to do with them. We all know what the S in NSDAP stood for after all.
Why are they right wing though?
You’ve (and others) just assigned that label to them. They have little in common with the Tories, for example - not the free market radicals, not the Whiggish Liberal Unionists and barely with the Ditchers.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
'US democracy' reminds me of the remark about 'Western civilisation' attributed, probably wrongly, to Gandhi. 'It would be a good idea.'
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
They are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
The are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Why do you keep saying this? It is really not true.
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
They are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Taking the knee is a term of art in American Football: quarterbacks do it to stop run out the clock at the end of the game if they are winning.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
The are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Why do you keep saying this? It is really not true.
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
When do you think they are going to stop doing it?
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
They are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Taking the knee is a term of art in American Football: quarterbacks do it to stop run out the clock at the end of the game if they are winning.
That it’s an American import is something else that annoys me.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
Is it only 5 seconds? I thought it was a minute. If it’s only 5 seconds, I can’t believe people can be bothered to boo. I thought the boos were more to do with adrenaline fuelled fans not wanting to stay silent for a minute than anything else. Football fans usually boo anything that makes them be still & quiet
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
The are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Why do you keep saying this? It is really not true.
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
When do you think they are going to stop doing it?
Before stubborn people admit it is player choice, not an FA diktat or anything to do with marxism!
I do agree it has gone on too long, but the players should be free to express themselves if they collectively choose to do so. They don't have to do what I, you or others think is tactically optimal.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
If footballers taking the knee to oppose racism is political, so is them wearing shirts with poppies imprinted on them. I don't think either are.
Not at all
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
I'm sure you're right. Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford have read a lot of critical race theory. Although they're extremely rich, they want to destroy capitalism. And while they're at it, they think the nuclear family is the source of many woes. And they want to take the battle to the streets.
Or maybe they're just sick of the amount of vile racist abuse they have to suffer from a small but vociferous minority of football 'supporters'.
This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
Is it only 5 seconds? I thought it was a minute. If it’s only 5 seconds, I can’t believe people can be bothered to boo. I thought the boos were more to do with adrenaline fuelled fans not wanting to stay silent for a minute than anything else. Football fans usually boo anything that makes them be still & quiet
It was originally much longer than five seconds. It is much more tolerable now that is is only five seconds.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
Is it only 5 seconds? I thought it was a minute. If it’s only 5 seconds, I can’t believe people can be bothered to boo. I thought the boos were more to do with adrenaline fuelled fans not wanting to stay silent for a minute than anything else. Football fans usually boo anything that makes them be still & quiet
Under 10 seconds generally, perhaps more than 5, but dont recall any of a minute, perhaps the initial ones.
This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
You can't unsee it...
Hang on - someone's been monkeying with the PaS booklet:
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
I'm with you. I don't think it is a small minority.
The vast majority of people want to watch sport, to get away from life and politics.
If a club wants to take a minute before a match to remember a fallen hero, of the club or country, then that’s fine. What tends to annoy people is when these things are seen as compulsory, or overtly political.
The FA had a perfectly serviceable “Kick It Out” campaign, which made huge strides over the years in changing the behaviour of fans.
What grates about the current campaign, is that it’s been going on for months now, and the actions of many of those involved in “Anti-Racism” can come across as a little, err, dare I say, racist.
I can't see the Conservative Party getting anywhere complaining about others lying.
OTOH it puts those who support Labour in an awkward position if they want to make much of the PM's relaxed attitude to the truth.
Don’t care about what the Conservative party say, if they’ve said anything - how can Rachel Reeves bring herself to say that leaflet pictured Boris with Modi because he didn’t close the borders!!!! I’ve never heard such rot.
To be fair she looked as awkward as she would if she were informing on her parents to the police
Was busy yesterday so wasn't here - did we get any talk of the Morrisons deal? Awful news for the company, this PE operation is going to gut them like one of the fish they will soon no longer sell from their fish counters.
Morrisons is - was - a unique retail operation in that it had true vertical integration. It owned production companies who make most of their baked and fresh products exclusively for them. It owned most of the stores. In not paying rent and not paying manufacturer profit margins it could make exactly what its customers wanted and sold them at a keen price.
No more. PE will sell off everything that moves.
No discussion and the only thing in favour of this PE deal seems to be it is not quite as bad as the previous PE deal. Maybe HMG will block it. On an even wider point, is the increasing trend of PE taking over and de-listing companies a good thing?
PE isn’t anything special.
You have pension funds investing in public companies and pension funds investing in illiquid assets like PE
The ultimate beneficiaries are the same: the pensioners. For example, Ontario Teachers are one of the biggest PE investors around… they manage the pension fund for, errr… the teachers in Ontario
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
Is it only 5 seconds? I thought it was a minute. If it’s only 5 seconds, I can’t believe people can be bothered to boo. I thought the boos were more to do with adrenaline fuelled fans not wanting to stay silent for a minute than anything else. Football fans usually boo anything that makes them be still & quiet
It was originally much longer than five seconds. It is much more tolerable now that is is only five seconds.
If I were required to "take the knee" for five seconds getting up again afterward would take more than a minute...
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
The are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Why do you keep saying this? It is really not true.
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
When do you think they are going to stop doing it?
Before stubborn people admit it is player choice, not an FA diktat or anything to do with marxism!
I do agree it has gone on too long, but the players should be free to express themselves if they collectively choose to do so. They don't have to do what I, you or others think is tactically optimal.
You don't think players are trapped into its continuance now?
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
Is it only 5 seconds? I thought it was a minute. If it’s only 5 seconds, I can’t believe people can be bothered to boo. I thought the boos were more to do with adrenaline fuelled fans not wanting to stay silent for a minute than anything else. Football fans usually boo anything that makes them be still & quiet
Under 10 seconds generally, perhaps more than 5, but dont recall any of a minute, perhaps the initial ones.
I say let the players do what they like, but don’t make everyone watching have to sit in silence while they do it. I said before, Ozil used to pray before each match, no one cared. If everyone had to stop and watch whilst all 22 players prayed I think people would boo or jeer
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
The are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Why do you keep saying this? It is really not true.
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
When do you think they are going to stop doing it?
Before stubborn people admit it is player choice, not an FA diktat or anything to do with marxism!
I do agree it has gone on too long, but the players should be free to express themselves if they collectively choose to do so. They don't have to do what I, you or others think is tactically optimal.
You don't think players are trapped into its continuance now?
They are young successful men who think they are right and mostly united about it. The more people who push against them the longer they will continue. Human nature.
Some players, albeit not England ones, and several domestic league teams have opted out, both white and black players before we get into that nonsense again, without any issues, so they are demonstrably not trapped.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
His reason for not wearing a poppy shirt (it’s about more than just two world wars) could be viewed as being as disingenuous as linking taking the knee to the BLM organisation.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
I don't think you can boo England taking the knee and at the same time support having poppies on shirts.
I suspect I’m in a small minority of football fans opposed to both poppies and kneeling.
I'm with you. I don't think it is a small minority.
The vast majority of people want to watch sport, to get away from life and politics.
If a club wants to take a minute before a match to remember a fallen hero, of the club or country, then that’s fine. What tends to annoy people is when these things are seen as compulsory, or overtly political.
The FA had a perfectly serviceable “Kick It Out” campaign, which made huge strides over the years in changing the behaviour of fans.
What grates about the current campaign, is that it’s been going on for months now, and the actions of many of those involved in “Anti-Racism” can come across as a little, err, dare I say, racist.
We are all opposed to racism. It's little to do with being against racism, it's about projecting an image peacock-style that you are against racism. Not the same. It is a pose. The FA should focus on tackling the overt racism displayed by some of the supporters which continues to be a disgrace.
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
My first reaction is that it's stupid. If they're in the army, then they're there to do a job - mostly preparing to fight wars. A parade is to show how *good* your soldiers are, how prepared they are to fight, how well drilled they are (fnarr). This just makes them look utterly unprepared. Rather than impressing your populace and potential enemies, it'll just make them laugh. Wouldn't they also be much more likely to get injuries? (I have, it must be said, never worn heels.)
Control of the House and Senate in the midterms will be relevant to the next US election - if the GOP gets both they have a better chance to steal the election.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
The are kneeling because of a blanket diktat by the FA. Can't see how you can deny that. It is FA policy. For how long? Even the term "taking the knee" makes me cringe. Why not "going down on one knee" or, even better, "kneeling"?
Why do you keep saying this? It is really not true.
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
When do you think they are going to stop doing it?
Before stubborn people admit it is player choice, not an FA diktat or anything to do with marxism!
I do agree it has gone on too long, but the players should be free to express themselves if they collectively choose to do so. They don't have to do what I, you or others think is tactically optimal.
You don't think players are trapped into its continuance now?
They are young successful men who think they are right and mostly united about it. The more people who push against them the longer they will continue. Human nature.
Some players, albeit not England ones, and several domestic league teams have opted out, both white and black players before we get into that nonsense again, without any issues, so they are demonstrably not trapped.
They are right. No-one doubts that. So they can stop doing it.
Labour missed a trick there. That’s obviously bullshit from Reeves, but they could have had that photo in the context of not shutting the borders (Boris wants a trade deal etc.).
That would have been far more subtle than having that photo in the context of Islamaphobia in the Tory Party, which, even if you think is a valid issue, obviously has nothing to do with Boris courting Modi.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
I don’t know if I’ll boo or not - I’m too polite, really. But if I do it’ll be because I don’t want the game I love to be infected with politics.
I thought it was ridiculous that Titi got into trouble for dedicating a goal to the birth of a child. But nearly 20 years on, I can see why there was a zero tolerance to this sort of thing.
Isn't that just protecting sponsorship income? Shirt sponsorship is sold for vast amounts and they don't want anything to get in the way of that.
On taking the knee I am ambivalent. Racism needs to be protested against, but it might have been better if the English footballers hadn't chosen a gesture associated with an extremist organisation. I certainly wouldn't boo. But they are expressing an opinion and surely it is legitimate to express one back. It's not so much whether you support booing but whether it is a legitimate expression of free speech. And in the context of a football match where people boo, and sing and chant stuff you wouldn't do in polite company. So my view is probably, no I don't think booing is OK, but I wouldn't ban it either as I don't seek to ban everything I disapprove of.
Agreed. On "But they are expressing an opinion". Are they? They all have the same opinion then?
Isn't it more likely that this is an example of a gruesome corporate virtue-signal by the FA seeking to project an image? This is not the same as the kick it out initiative. I wouldn't boo wither, but I'd turn my back to the players (as a protest to the FA rather than the players themselves who are caught up in this).
The FA want to project an anti-racism image? How awful.
No. Stop it. This is part of the problem.
No, you're part of the problem. There is literally nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.
To elaborate, anyone who believes that the young England players are kneeling for 5 seconds in support of something other than anti-racism needs their head checking.
Is it only 5 seconds? I thought it was a minute. If it’s only 5 seconds, I can’t believe people can be bothered to boo. I thought the boos were more to do with adrenaline fuelled fans not wanting to stay silent for a minute than anything else. Football fans usually boo anything that makes them be still & quiet
Under 10 seconds generally, perhaps more than 5, but dont recall any of a minute, perhaps the initial ones.
I say let the players do what they like, but don’t make everyone watching have to sit in silence while they do it. I said before, Ozil used to pray before each match, no one cared. If everyone had to stop and watch whilst all 22 players prayed I think people would boo or jeer
You dont have to be in silence. Great if people dont want to boo, but if they do its up to them. Applause is requested as opposed to silence so normal conversations not an issue. There is not an expectation of silence as there is pre match after someone has died.
This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
You can't unsee it...
Hang on - someone's been monkeying with the PaS booklet:
On the whole, taking the knee has been a good thing and it has achieved something already even if there is a long way to go. Doubtless there are occasions where it's not the right thing to do. But defending the booing of players who take the knee on grounds of "legitimate free speech" is rubbish. Those who boo are the kind who would boo and make monkey noises whenever black players touched the ball - as used to be common in British football and still is in some countries - if they could get away with it. If you don't like watching players take the knee, don't buy a ticket to the match, or turn your head to the side when they do it on the telly.
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
My first reaction is that it's stupid. If they're in the army, then they're there to do a job - mostly preparing to fight wars. A parade is to show how *good* your soldiers are, how prepared they are to fight, how well drilled they are (fnarr). This just makes them look utterly unprepared. Rather than impressing your populace and potential enemies, it'll just make them laugh. Wouldn't they also be much more likely to get injuries? (I have, it must be said, never worn heels.)
But at least most of those will be able to run, unlike women in high heels ...
It's a sort of weird mirror image of those parades/events where "special forces" do various things borrowed from Steven Segal movies to demonstrate how "hard" their country is.
Certainly the US polling shows that the GOP is still very much Trump's party.
If Trump wants to run again in 2024 he is therefore highly likely to win the GOP nomination for a third time, a feat only previously achieved by Nixon.
However with President Biden still governing as a relative moderate and with solid approval ratings he is unlikely to defeat the incumbent if he runs again, in which case I think Trump would likely sit it out and let a fellow Trumpite like DeSantis get the nod.
However if Biden steps down and VP Harris ends up the 2024 Democratic nominee then Trump would fancy his chances as she would allow him to run the divisive, culture war campaign he wants far more than Biden would
I think that is a really good analysis and my betting is in line with it.
70% of the GOP are pro Trump and will support his nomination or anyone he anoints. So I'm betting on Trump (or his nominee if it turns out that way) for the GOP nomination. That looks like a no-brainer.
However around 30% of the GOP and a large majority of independents do not support Trump. So a large majority will vote against Trump (or his nominee) in the 2024 GE. It will be a Democrat landslide. So I'm betting on a Democrat win. That looks very likely too against Trump or his nominee.
If Republican legislators then attempt to overturn a Democrat landslide there could literally be a civil war. But I would bet against a hot war if such a bet was available.
If it came to it, it wouldn't be guns (neighbour against neighbour where the Republicans probably have more guns) but individual economic sanctions against guilty Republican legislators and office holders who would find their funds drying up, bank accounts inoperative, blackballed in public events etc. GOP media mysteriously turned off. Asymmetric warfare.
But it won't come to that. 1.72 on a Democrat win is good value in my opinion.
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
I presume that for the actual parade they will be marching in dress uniform, probably skirts for the ladies, and will be wearing heels with them. So they are practising marching in heels. Quite reasonably. No, they aren't expected to fight the Russian occupier in them. Just as we don't expect the household cavalry to drive tanks in cuirass and riding boots
Anyway, am I to take that those absolutely not indulging in culture wars are dictating that people who said the fans could boo if they liked aren’t allowed to celebrate England winning at football?
I see the folk that took a case to court and lost should conclude that this is not a case that should be decided by courts. Sound familiar? Like Sumption, big Vern seems another who seems to have been deranged by the times.
I see new cases per day is rising again in Bolton and Blackburn. I was assured it was mathematically impossible for that to happen.
Perhaps you can provide a link to back up your claim.
I doubt anybody claimed that cases would fall day after day in a smooth pattern but current cases are well below the peak and still trending down.
A look at the graphs show that its very much a football boosted blip upwards -notice how infection rates fall for the 60+ while they increase for those under 60:
And maybe you'll give us an update on the Blackburn and Bolton cases after 4pm when Blackburn's will show a significant fall while Bolton's flatline. As they will do again tomorrow.
To be fair who could have predicted a major international football tournament breaking out.
Basically one of those black swan events.
As for the -60/60+ split that only works for Bolton, since the 22nd of June in Blackburn rates have increased 6% for under 60s and 22% for over 60s
Though if you compare Blackburn to the 20/06 then you get a 2% increase in the under 60s and a 14% fall in the over 60s so its somewhat 'statistical noise'.
There's also the issue of change in absolute numbers compared to percentages.
Also the under 60s should be reducing proportionally to the over 60s as almost all the vaccinations becoming effective for the last few weeks would have been among the under 60s.
Certainly the US polling shows that the GOP is still very much Trump's party.
If Trump wants to run again in 2024 he is therefore highly likely to win the GOP nomination for a third time, a feat only previously achieved by Nixon.
However with President Biden still governing as a relative moderate and with solid approval ratings he is unlikely to defeat the incumbent if he runs again, in which case I think Trump would likely sit it out and let a fellow Trumpite like DeSantis get the nod.
However if Biden steps down and VP Harris ends up the 2024 Democratic nominee then Trump would fancy his chances as she would allow him to run the divisive, culture war campaign he wants far more than Biden would
I think that is a really good analysis and my betting is in line with it.
70% of the GOP are pro Trump and will support his nomination or anyone he anoints. So I'm betting on Trump (or his nominee if it turns out that way) for the GOP nomination. That looks like a no-brainer.
However around 30% of the GOP and a large majority of independents do not support Trump. So a large majority will vote against Trump (or his nominee) in the 2024 GE. It will be a Democrat landslide. So I'm betting on a Democrat win. That looks very likely too against Trump or his nominee.
If Republican legislators then attempt to overturn a Democrat landslide there could literally be a civil war. But I would bet against a hot war if such a bet was available.
If it came to it, it wouldn't be guns (neighbour against neighbour where the Republicans probably have more guns) but individual economic sanctions against guilty Republican legislators and office holders who would find their funds drying up, bank accounts inoperative, blackballed in public events etc. GOP media mysteriously turned off. Asymmetric warfare.
But it won't come to that. 1.72 on a Democrat win is good value in my opinion.
I'd say 1.72 is about right. But tying money for that long at that price makes it bad value. If that makes sense?
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
US democracy does itself no favours though.
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
We went over all this in November, but to be fair i think there is a fair amount of rubbish talked about things like this, and US elections in general. There are many reasons why counts in the US take a long time, and whilst some of them are no doubt the consequence of poor administration, many are perfectly valid once one looks into the detail and the real reasons.
And some of them (no sniggering at the back) are actually because the US often aspires to a far higher degree of accuracy on the electoral counts (as opposed to just the electoral outcomes) than in most of the rest of the world. Whether often it is a spurious level of accuracy is another matter, but they are certainly motivated by the necessity to head off the possibility of any sort of legal challenge to results of the sort of that would be very rare in eg. the UK, where once the results are declared they are basically accepted as true and correct barring some glaring evidence to the contrary that comes to light subsequently.
Also that it takes time to count and certify votes is in large part because the system is designed to allow it. In almost every other country the time between election and outcome becoming reality is very short if not instantaneous. The victor in an election takes over in hours if not days. In the US there are lengthy periods built in - so naturally the electoral authorities take advantage of that. So why does California take a long time to count the votes (and contrary to perception they are far from alone in that, and arguably have more excuse given their size). The best answer is because they can. Maybe if in eg. the Presidential election the outcome of California was in doubt they might speed up a bit...
Absolutely agree. The poppy should be a personal decision and a personal decision only.
Yes, I'm a libertarian on this - we can reasonably expect football players to play football. What they choose to support in other contexts is their business (though we reserve the right to shrug it off like any celeb endorsement). For public displays at the start of a match, the gesture shouldn't be obviously offensive to most people - mooning, shouting "Hitler was right", whatever. But wearing a poppy, kneeling briefly, shrug. Players are not public property, required to behave in an identical approved manner.
I don't see how it's damaging to the country at all. I can see how some people might think it could be damaging to the United States of America.
The end of US democracy will create global instability, protectionism and collapse. Any idea how much of UK pension funds are invested in the US alone? Let alone all the other economies heavily dependent on the US.
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
If the author was referring to the US, they should do so. A simple 'their' instead of 'the' would work. And would be a neater rebuke to those Republicans.
As for the rest of your post, it requires several very big leaps of logic to suggest that Britain will be damaged by the preoccupation of Republicans with Trump. That it results in his candidacy is one. That he wins the resulting election is another. That he acts in a way that results in total American collapse is another (not even sure how this would happen). That he acts in a way that isn't just bad for the US but bad for other countries is yet another.
Sometimes it's nice to be left alone to actually run one's own country. I can't imagine (for example) Trump sending us an envoy to tell us off for initiating a new coal mining project, which then gets shitcanned at a significant cost in jobs and prosperity, and merely results in more use of imported coal. Just one example of the rather irksome 'global leadership' shown by the current regime.
Certainly the US polling shows that the GOP is still very much Trump's party.
If Trump wants to run again in 2024 he is therefore highly likely to win the GOP nomination for a third time, a feat only previously achieved by Nixon.
However with President Biden still governing as a relative moderate and with solid approval ratings he is unlikely to defeat the incumbent if he runs again, in which case I think Trump would likely sit it out and let a fellow Trumpite like DeSantis get the nod.
However if Biden steps down and VP Harris ends up the 2024 Democratic nominee then Trump would fancy his chances as she would allow him to run the divisive, culture war campaign he wants far more than Biden would
I think that is a really good analysis and my betting is in line with it.
70% of the GOP are pro Trump and will support his nomination or anyone he anoints. So I'm betting on Trump (or his nominee if it turns out that way) for the GOP nomination. That looks like a no-brainer.
However around 30% of the GOP and a large majority of independents do not support Trump. So a large majority will vote against Trump (or his nominee) in the 2024 GE. It will be a Democrat landslide. So I'm betting on a Democrat win. That looks very likely too against Trump or his nominee.
If Republican legislators then attempt to overturn a Democrat landslide there could literally be a civil war. But I would bet against a hot war if such a bet was available.
If it came to it, it wouldn't be guns (neighbour against neighbour where the Republicans probably have more guns) but individual economic sanctions against guilty Republican legislators and office holders who would find their funds drying up, bank accounts inoperative, blackballed in public events etc. GOP media mysteriously turned off. Asymmetric warfare.
But it won't come to that. 1.72 on a Democrat win is good value in my opinion.
For those looking for the opposite bet, it is illiquid but the best way to oppose Trump is on win the popular vote market. He is a far far better lay at 14 than 9.8 to win the presidency. (I am a small backer of 9.8 presidency and have laid double figures the popular vote). They would have to throw out many millions of Democrat votes to get to that as a winner.
Comments
The Brazil v. Chile match produced the greatest moment of football I've seen in a long time, I don't think the piece of skill by Gabriel Jesus will ever be topped by England or by anyone else in Euro 2020.
https://twitter.com/TSN_Sports/status/1411129853571735558
The school holidays and hoped for significant decline in testing and therefore cases probably can't come soon enough...
I've never understood the Spurs attitude that supporting them is somehow uniquely painful. They are, what, the sixth richest club in the country, and about the sixth most successful. Yes, they haven't done as well as Man Utd in my lifetime, but they've done better than most clubs. To a Stockport County fan their tales of woe sound like a man complaining his hot tub takes slightly too long to warm up.
I doubt anybody claimed that cases would fall day after day in a smooth pattern but current cases are well below the peak and still trending down.
A look at the graphs show that its very much a football boosted blip upwards -notice how infection rates fall for the 60+ while they increase for those under 60:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Blackburn with Darwen
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Bolton
And maybe you'll give us an update on the Blackburn and Bolton cases after 4pm when Blackburn's will show a significant fall while Bolton's flatline. As they will do again tomorrow.
The poppy campaign is explicitly charitable.
“Taking the knee” is indelibly associated with Black Lives Matter which is a very political campaign.
You can’t adopt the symbols of a political campaign and claim you are nothing to do with it.
For example, it looks like the vote for the Democratic nomination as NY Mayor has essentially collapsed amid a pretty big error on ballots.
Can anyone in Gareth Southgate's team save our bacon against the Danes?
Boris preserved his reputation of standing up for his team before bowing to his backbenchers wishes. Party democracy ain’t it. Or something 😂
https://www.joe.ie/sport/james-mcclean-sent-vicious-packages-post-following-poppy-stance-647234
It's probably why he's so popular.
These voters can see that the massive bills for the government's love affair with big state socialism are coming around the corner at them.
NIMBYism is peak conservatism
This damages UK security and economy as well as that of the US, which was fairly obviously what the author was intending.
But this is why I’m not keen on either. At least poppy shirts are only once a season, mind.
Don't be an over-literal fuckwit, Charles.
(I believe I have a seal of approval for that type of banter)
Basically one of those black swan events.
As for the <60/60+ split that only works for Bolton, since the 22nd of June in Blackburn rates have increased 6% for under 60s and 22% for over 60s
Why does it take California over a month to count Presidential ballots as one example.
There would be no 'stop the count' calls if counts were done competently.
On the specifics, the stop the count was a specific tactic by Republicans to mandate the counting of Republican skewed votes first and then Democratic skewed votes last, with new rules introduced for the 2020 election. So that was not a case of bad general design, but a deliberate move to create confusion and lack of trust in the counting.
You’ve (and others) just assigned that label to them. They have little in common with the Tories, for example - not the free market radicals, not the Whiggish Liberal Unionists and barely with the Ditchers.
'It would be a good idea.'
According to the Metro, this uniform has been called "misogynistic" - I'm not sure who by. The North Korean skipping march (performed by both sexes in normal boots) is misanthropic.
Incredible.
There has never been a clearer case of an MP blatantly lying
LYING
than this
https://twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/status/1411603975082758147?s=21
It is player choice, the FA have no policy other than to support what the players choose to do.
I do agree it has gone on too long, but the players should be free to express themselves if they collectively choose to do so. They don't have to do what I, you or others think is tactically optimal.
Or maybe they're just sick of the amount of vile racist abuse they have to suffer from a small but vociferous minority of football 'supporters'.
OTOH it puts those who support Labour in an awkward position if they want to make much of the PM's relaxed attitude to the truth.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1500124311
If a club wants to take a minute before a match to remember a fallen hero, of the club or country, then that’s fine. What tends to annoy people is when these things are seen as compulsory, or overtly political.
The FA had a perfectly serviceable “Kick It Out” campaign, which made huge strides over the years in changing the behaviour of fans.
What grates about the current campaign, is that it’s been going on for months now, and the actions of many of those involved in “Anti-Racism” can come across as a little, err, dare I say, racist.
To be fair she looked as awkward as she would if she were informing on her parents to the police
https://twitter.com/marknelsoncomic/status/1411452645424906242/photo/1
You have pension funds investing in public companies and pension funds investing in illiquid assets like PE
The ultimate beneficiaries are the same: the pensioners. For example, Ontario Teachers are one of the biggest PE investors around… they manage the pension fund for, errr… the teachers in Ontario
Some players, albeit not England ones, and several domestic league teams have opted out, both white and black players before we get into that nonsense again, without any issues, so they are demonstrably not trapped.
No, not "I am concerned about long term effects", nor "The Tuskegee Experiment makes me nervous of government"
Full on "The vaccines are against God. And made from foetuses. And are a plot by the X..."
He is an American style bible basher preacher - "Praise the Lord and give me all your money"... and here on a visa - not a UK citizen.
Thoughts?
But then I remember many of the other silly parade uniforms ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_United_States_Army#/media/File:West_Point_Cadets.png
https://www.robertharding.com/preview/1161-7287/soldiers-ceremonial-uniform-part-military-parade-sofia-bulgaria/
But at least most of those will be able to run, unlike women in high heels ...
That would have been far more subtle than having that photo in the context of Islamaphobia in the Tory Party, which, even if you think is a valid issue, obviously has nothing to do with Boris courting Modi.
They normally wear boots
70% of the GOP are pro Trump and will support his nomination or anyone he anoints. So I'm betting on Trump (or his nominee if it turns out that way) for the GOP nomination. That looks like a no-brainer.
However around 30% of the GOP and a large majority of independents do not support Trump. So a large majority will vote against Trump (or his nominee) in the 2024 GE. It will be a Democrat landslide. So I'm betting on a Democrat win. That looks very likely too against Trump or his nominee.
If Republican legislators then attempt to overturn a Democrat landslide there could literally be a civil war. But I would bet against a hot war if such a bet was available.
If it came to it, it wouldn't be guns (neighbour against neighbour where the Republicans probably have more guns) but individual economic sanctions against guilty Republican legislators and office holders who would find their funds drying up, bank accounts inoperative, blackballed in public events etc. GOP media mysteriously turned off. Asymmetric warfare.
But it won't come to that. 1.72 on a Democrat win is good value in my opinion.
Like Sumption, big Vern seems another who seems to have been deranged by the times.
There's also the issue of change in absolute numbers compared to percentages.
Also the under 60s should be reducing proportionally to the over 60s as almost all the vaccinations becoming effective for the last few weeks would have been among the under 60s.
And some of them (no sniggering at the back) are actually because the US often aspires to a far higher degree of accuracy on the electoral counts (as opposed to just the electoral outcomes) than in most of the rest of the world. Whether often it is a spurious level of accuracy is another matter, but they are certainly motivated by the necessity to head off the possibility of any sort of legal challenge to results of the sort of that would be very rare in eg. the UK, where once the results are declared they are basically accepted as true and correct barring some glaring evidence to the contrary that comes to light subsequently.
Also that it takes time to count and certify votes is in large part because the system is designed to allow it. In almost every other country the time between election and outcome becoming reality is very short if not instantaneous. The victor in an election takes over in hours if not days. In the US there are lengthy periods built in - so naturally the electoral authorities take advantage of that. So why does California take a long time to count the votes (and contrary to perception they are far from alone in that, and arguably have more excuse given their size). The best answer is because they can. Maybe if in eg. the Presidential election the outcome of California was in doubt they might speed up a bit...
As for the rest of your post, it requires several very big leaps of logic to suggest that Britain will be damaged by the preoccupation of Republicans with Trump. That it results in his candidacy is one. That he wins the resulting election is another. That he acts in a way that results in total American collapse is another (not even sure how this would happen). That he acts in a way that isn't just bad for the US but bad for other countries is yet another.
Sometimes it's nice to be left alone to actually run one's own country. I can't imagine (for example) Trump sending us an envoy to tell us off for initiating a new coal mining project, which then gets shitcanned at a significant cost in jobs and prosperity, and merely results in more use of imported coal. Just one example of the rather irksome 'global leadership' shown by the current regime.