leicsmac

And this kind of lie actually represents a threat if enough people believe it in order for policy to be based upon it. "Sticks and stones..." is a dangerous fallacy. Words have power.

The nations that won't move beyond oil and gas for energy generation will either wither under market pressure, or be directly responsible for societal collapse. Either way, their legacy will be mud if they don't adapt.

Repeated for emphasis.

Would definitely make an argument for that.

Most of the 70s and late 80s/early 90s say hello Edit: barring Italia 90, naturally

Unfortunately, this is hardly a unique case in that regard.

I disagree, but you could be right too. Would be only one way to find out.

Sorry, allow me to clarify. I'm saying that there wouldn't be a debate about it at all, or not much of one anyway. Rather there would simply be (almost) universal condemnation and animosity towards the club for the idea, rather than the massive talking point this might turn out to be.

Probably not, because I don't think there's as many folks (other than hardened parts at both ends of the left-right spectrum) that think the actions of the Russian military are justifiable.

... sorry to butt in, but I have seen at least one Insta post other than that does rather more than "lament the suffering". I won't post it here but it expresses direct condemnation at people who (apparently) only cared about the issue post October 7th 2023. Not a direct thing regarding the actions of the IDF, but certainly "picking a side" rather than simply mourning the senseless death on both sides.

It's not even just about the obvious deceit - that's hardly unique for him among the politician fraternity. It's what that deceit results in.

Superb post. Only thing I'll add is that as per above, I don't think there's any way to handle this carefully without it becoming a shitstorm.

I think that depends on the beholder. People do keep demonstrating that perception is more important than fact these days, after all.

It would be a PR shitstorm no matter how the club chose to approach it, rightly or wrongly. If the club thinks the bloke is a good enough player to justify that, then fair enough.

Honestly, the objections are IMO legit but then if anyone expects to see ethical business behaviour in high level football as a whole then they might be waiting a bit.

Ten or twenty years ago it may have been seen as alarmist. Now, I think, it's just a reasonably realistic assessment of causality, given the way things have changed in terms of tech advances and attitudes, and the Earth itself. Our species stands at a crossroads, and its fate, along with that of a great many others, depends on what we choose now.

ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Absolutely, the caveat of the "free" press actively being co-opted by those others in power aside.

No doubt.

Extend that to a lot of issues outside football, too.

Reform in Nottinghamshire taking a leaf out of books of their counterparts Stateside and only agreeing to engage with media outlets they approve of. Clearly, the idea of "freedom" actually means "freedom to have enough power to inhibit the freedom of other people and enjoy it".

It's one of the few left that don't rely on sensationalism to sell.

The Times, perhaps. Sadly, the casualties of truth caused by the proliferation of social media are many.

On the general topic, the whole immigration debate can be boiled down to the age-old problem of insufficient/badly distributed resources and how much they matter when it comes to the value of a human life - no matter their demographic.

I don't think it's an exaggeration at all - it's a significant nonzero possibility. I fear, however, that terrible outcome is what it might take for the apathetic and/or "legitimate concerns" crowd to realise just how far some people are willing to go in their name and perhaps speak out and act out against it rather than enabling it.