David Guiza

One could argue that Italy has seen greater dominance than England in terms of title winners. Since the 1929/30 season the top three winners have shared 72 titles between them with Juventus (36) Inter (18) Milan (18) compared with 50 from our equivalent in Liverpool (19) Man Utd (19) Arsenal (12) since 1888/89. But yes, Roma should and could have won more in any event.

I know there are posters on here who aren't Praet's biggest fan, and I fully appreciate this may come back to bite me, but I think his return could be massive for us. He was starting to really make an impact before his injury, particularly early in the season when Maddison wasn't fit. Hopefully that continues.

I Never hit the De Boer heights

Very true - I wonder if Hertha are viewed with the same derision as West Ham from opposing fans. Some of the followers of German Football on here may be able to answer that? Think there's some comparisons between Hamburg and a few sides over here, like Forest, Sunderland, Leeds and co. Though Hamburg are much more successful. Yes, very true. I couldn't bring myself to compare a side I quite like to West Ham or Spurs, but that's a good comparison. Roma really should have won more, they're arguably 'bigger' than many of those who have won more in Italy. There's certainly something 'Spursy' about them too, in that they have fallen just short of the mark on more than one occasion and often blow up in big games, including ones against their biggest rivals. Think Arsenal/Milan is a fair comparison, although Arsenal have never been close to being the best side on the planet like Milan were in the late 80s/early 90s. I can only imagine their fans aren't quite as cringey as Arsenal either! Would quite like to see an Italian club go all the way in the Europa League as a throw back to the 90s. I think Roma and Milan are more than capable if they get through their current ties.

With all due respect, I thought my post was fairly clear as a 'draw a line under this and move on', but seeing as you have raised it again I will respond - in spite of the fact that this isn't even on topic with this thread so apologies. I am not disputing that more men are killed. My dispute with the statistic is/was twofold:- 1. Those men are also being killed by men, at least in the majority of cases, therein men remain the problem in terms of the general public being fearful of attack. Buce had already pointed out before I responded. 2. It was irrelevant to what was being discussed at the moment in time. I cannot see that anybody has suggested that men are not vulnerable etc, but the conversation at the time of your post was about ways in which women can be made to feel more safe given the pertinent issue at the moment. The point you made wasn't incorrect, it was just irrelevant to the point in hand. I'm sure your point was that men deserve the right to feel safe too, and I, along with everybody else, wholeheartedly agree with that. That's why I referenced the BLM issue, as similar things happened during that conversation too. Whereby people would dig up statistics to show that white people were in fact more likely to die in police custody than black people, but again, whilst that statistic is true it's skewed, in that there are more white people than black, and irrelevant to the larger issue, in that it was about a systematic look at injustice faced by black people not about police custody. I hope that makes sense, as I can't be arsed to reply again and derail another thread .

Yep! Dislikeable and propped up by a lot of cash when they were successful, but still pretty big sides in their own right. Both surprisingly hostile given their locations too. The idea of a South Coast Mafia probably doesn't have the same gravitas though.

Very true, I think Parma were relative obscurity before their 90s heydays so that's probably closer to the truth. I did think Napoli and Liverpool in that they're both seemingly hated by anybody outside of that city and consider themselves Neapolitans/Scouse not Italian/English.

I was watching the Inter v Atalanta game the other day and drawing comparisons between Atalanta and ourselves. The unfancied and unfashionable side who, until recently, have only one or two domestic cup triumphs to their name and have spent the most part of their history bouncing between the top two divisions. Their side has one or two standout players, but are generally more of a complete unit rather than just a couple of flash stars. I was then thinking if there are any other direct comparisons between European sides and, as my main knowledge of football outside of the UK is Italian based, I came up with the following:- AS Roma and Arsenal - two undoubtedly huge sides from the capital who haven't really troubled domestically for a couple of decades. Home to some iconic players who once lit up the division and world football, but are very much in the process of a rebuild. Parma and Leeds United - supposedly everyone's favourite second team at the moment. Huge success in the 90s and home to some incredible stars whom you could never work out why they were there; before financial implosion and a slow and painful comeback to the big time. I would however suggest that Parma are infinitely more likeable. Torino and Everton - huge clubs in their own time, but ultimately overshadowed by their bigger and better rivals of the same city. Seemingly always there but never seem to actually do anything of note. Sampdoria and Villa - big clubs who are known throughout Europe, but have done nothing for ages. In conclusion, lockdown has left me with a lot of spare time to ponder nonsense. Anybody else got any?

Given that the bold part of your post relates to my response in a separate thread I thought it best to reply, however Facecloth has pretty much responded with exactly how I would have responded to this already. I wasn't annoyed, just questioning an opinion/misleading statistic that I didn't agree with. The vast majority of my posts on here relate to debating in some shape or form because I enjoy seeing the differing views and challenging them if I feel I can offer a reasoned and intelligent (arguable) response. I think I've been posting on here, on off, for about 14/15 years now and have rarely read anything that has outright offended me, as even the posters I don't agree with seem like reasonable folk. Plus, ultimately, we're all worshipers of the same blue and white church.

Clearly a ridiculous statement, but I would guess that it is, to some degree at least, born out of the curfew that was given to women when the Yorkshire ripper was at large. I believe women were advised to not leave the house after 9pm, or similar. This lead to 'taking back the streets' protests, similar to what has been arranged for Saturday in London. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_the_Night I always see people desperate to throw out stats like this. The same happened when the BLM protests were in full swing about more white people dying in police custody than black people, in spite of the fact that per person the odds were still heavily against them. Why somebody would be looking to throw that sort of statistic out in a time where large numbers of women are clearly concerned is beyond me. Anyway, I don't want to contribute any more to this story as it's just so awful and incredibly sad. Hopefully justice is served in whatever way possible and women (and men!) can feel safe in all aspects of their lives, especially when doing routine activities.

I can only speak from personal experience, but 100% of the women I've ever spoken to about that sort of things, which obviously isn't a huge amount as it's not the sort of conversation I tend to have with colleagues and acquaintances, have experienced some sort of unwanted attention. Ranging from literal sexual abuse, to being touched up in a nightclub on more than occasion etc. My Mum and Wife and completely different generations (thankfully!) but both have countless examples of some sort of harassment. In respect of your argument in your third paragraph, think about the amount of different people you have encountered in your entire life - it only takes a minimum of one of those people. The amount of women who feel uncomfortable leaving the house after sundown is astounding, and not without foundation either. I'm sure every man on here, myself included, can think of instances where male friends, colleagues, strangers in your environment etc, made inappropriate comments, gestures or the like at women. I can think of countless examples of football games, even if nothing else. Outside of being shouted at by chavs when out running, I can't think of a single incident where the same has happened to me or my male friends. It's blindingly obvious that it's not all men, not even close, and there is clearly a massive difference between committing a crime and just being 'a lad' but it all contributes to making somebody feel uncomfortable and, at times, afraid. It's also not about 'cancelling' men, or living in a world where you can't flirt etc. If one hasn't done anything wrong then they have nothing to feel guilty about, if they have then maybe reading some of the tweets and alike may make them reflect and change for the better. Also, as with anything on social media, it's always going to be over the top. The whole story and related follow up is just depressing. I sincerely doubt it, but maybe this level of attention over harassment may lead to something positive.

Yep, used to park there occasionally as it's about the closest you can to the Uni without paying. The sort of area where you're the odd one one out if you haven't got a St George's cross in your window. One extreme to the other though with the Ricoh. There's so much empty space around Warwick Uni and beyond that would have served as a better location, thus making it far more accessible to the M69/M40/M42 but I imagine there must have been some reason against that area.

That's literally victim blaming. One could perhaps make an argument that the first example you gave has an element of lack of hindsight, maybe, but the other two are without question examples of victim blaming. I appreciate you're not doing so intentionally, but it is exactly that. I think there is a misconception as to what it is, which perhaps doesn't help.

Sounds great, I do vaguely remember somebody mentioning that they were either from Leicester or supported Leicester so may have been yourself! Glad to hear she's as delightful offscreen as on, I think her and David Mitchell would be well up there with ideal 'couple friends'. I do remember when she was on episode of QI and Stephen Fry did an Only Connect style question that Jack Whitehall got before her and she looked genuinely livid. Amazing; though I would have been disappointed to not hear any reference to Michael Portillo. The intros and outros really make the programme, but again if you're only switching on for the first time I imagine it's utterly bizarre.

A bench that will likely include Ward, Perez, and one of Cags or Evans feels far better than what we've had for the past couple of games. Slowly getting back to a decent squad. No doubt something will prevent it, but within a few weeks we could conceivably field our strongest XI, minus Justin, and have a bench of Ward, Amartey, Soyuncu, Thomas, Praet, Under, Mendy, Perez, and Iheanacho. When you compare that to past seasons it really shows our progress.

I am so jealous. What series was that? How was Victoria? What was your weird intro bit? So many questions . It's comfortably my favourite of the quizzes and the only one I will watch every episode of without fail. I appreciate that it's niche, but once you're in you are hooked I think. I often wonder what my opening would be and I think I'd go with 'was once given breakdown advice by Andy Townsend'. It's a good level of niche, but not too niche.

Yep, absolutely. She and I are fully aware that it's incredibly unlikely to happen, but she's always been a worrier in pretty much every respect and this sort of story only exacerbates that for her, and i'm sure many others too. As a strong feminist she (and I) are also depressed, but not surprised, to see the usual 'what was she doing out alone' comments, as though a woman should have to consider that something as god awful as this may happen to them on a walk from A to B. As you mention, also, I think the bigger concern has always been the non-homicide crime(s). I read a tweet earlier by a woman along the lines of reciting an incident where she was followed home by a stranger who asked for her number, which then lead to her walking elsewhere rather than straight home so that said person didn't know her home address. Of course 99.9% of these instances are just awkward and uncomfortable encounters with odd people, but it does make me grateful to not be a young woman. As an aside, the statistics around women being killed by partners/ex partners never ceases to depress me yet there only seems to be a select number of MPs who have ever tackled the issue. I know Jess Phillips has been quite outspoken on it, but plenty more really should be said/done.

The Sarah Everard news has knocked me for six a little. Only the other day my wife was telling me how she wanted to start going for walks on her midweek day off to benefit her mental health, but that she has never been comfortable, as an adult woman, to walk alone even in a fairly quiet country environment that we live. I wouldn't think twice about it and regularly go for runs/walks in the middle of nowhere by myself as it's just second nature. Sincerely hope there's a better resolution than what seems to be unfolding.

I'd never really considered it before, until it became more personal, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the growing obsession with True Crime Docs. I completely understand the enjoyment and interest in them, but the lack of closure that the victims families already have being opened up yet again and made the subject of a public gallery is a little unsympathetic and tactless. I guess it's perhaps down to the way in which it's approached. It can be done respectfully and in a public interest way, or it can a documentaries answer to the Daily Star.

Sitting on hoards of wealth gathered in such a way goes beyond being apolitical, it's just a human decency thing. I do however completely agree; ultimately there is no way in which to make amends for such atrocities, but it's still far from ideal that they are propped up on such dirty money. As we both say though, it's completely off track. I would also argue that your choice, or perhaps borrowed choice, of wording of 'budget to buy freedom for all slaves' is a sticky point too. The budget was to compensate the slave owners at such a grossly enormous sum that it was only recently paid off. Two sides of the same coin, but one makes it far more favourable than the other. Ironically, the last thing I did before total lockdown was watch a play about it called The Whip which wasn't as masochistic as it sounds . Anyway, that's enough of this thread for me. When folk like Emily Hewertson are being cited, successfully, as the middle ground you know it's gone too far.

If one wants to take the route of divulging into the centuries of racism, it's not too difficult to see where it began and continued. The Royals still hold a significant sum of wealth acquired from the British slave trade, which was established to a large degree by Elizabeth I. This then grew and continued for centuries through Charles II and beyond, and yet The Crown have never offered reparatory justice for this. Prince Charles, so as I can tell, is the only Royal to have spoken out about the embarrassment and abhorrent nature of their past. Now, sure, I appreciate that one cannot be held to account for something their ancestors did hundreds of years ago (one could even debate as to whether they are even ancestors), but, inheriting a fortune that was at least in part built on one of the most disgusting acts of human existence and choosing to avoid that issue is at best a little 'dodgy' I would say. That's a whole different mess altogether though. As for the second part of your post, engaging with sexual activity with somebody below the age of 18, but above the age of 16, when you are in your 40s/50s etc is still a legally questionable territory as consent and grooming are understandably complex areas. Again, that's another mess for another day. At least on the plus side, this is incredibly tame compared to previous Royal dramas. To paraphrase Jeremy Usbourne, it's not quite murdering your nephews or changing the religion of the entire British Isles to marry somebody else.

1. By not naming a specific person or persons they are not calling a specific individual out on national/international media and consequently are not opened up to unnecessary legal implications. Despite what some members of the Telegraph seem to think. 2. I would imagine the racist and the alleged sexual abuser can do that quite sufficiently without their aid. One could also argue that by not commenting on the countless derogatory, defamatory, and just plain rude articles that have been published about Harry and Meghan the Royals have allowed this to get to this point in the first place. So far as I am aware they were not paid for the interview and have a right to defend themselves against the countless accusations thrown at them on a daily basis. Such is the world we live in, an interview to perhaps the most well known and likeable hosts on the planet is as good a platform as any. The 'secret' issue could by used for myriad reasons. I don't know where to start with the final paragraph. If you think the best possible way to show that you're not racist is to have a "token" mixed race child in the family then I don't know where to begin. As I stated earlier, I couldn't care less about anybody involved but what I do care about is unwarranted sexism and racism that has been directed their way. I'm not suggesting that you are either of those things, I don't know you from Adam, but what I would say is that even in your post you only refer to her and not him and that is mirrored in the media portrayal also. It's always 'she' never 'he' or 'they'. As though Harry has been lead astray. The same happened with the Beatles decades ago, people could never accept that John Lennon was somewhat of an awful person and chose to lay the blame at the feet of Yoko to the point where any woman who isn't a submissive cardboard cutout is labeled by her name in a derogatory manner. If one is to question whether this country, and beyond, still has a sexism and racism issue then this whole sorry saga is case and point. I'm sure nobody will come out of this well, and perhaps rightly so. I just hope all parties who have actually done something wrong are held to account but I'm not naïve enough to think that will happen given the past.

May have been mentioned previously, but was the line up on Saturday the most overseas players we've had in a starting 11? If Vardy is rested in favour of Perez (cannot see that happening) then we'd be in line for our first ever non English/British XI?

Generally speaking I could care less either way about the Royals, but this story does interest me simply from a race and feminist perspective and just how just how depressing it is that on International Women's Day print, visual, and social media resemble a witch hunt. I will also never get over the fact that Meghan is treated worse than Prince Andrew. It really does speak volumes.

Usually I'd be concerned by Spurs and United's impressive wins, but it's worth noting that United have been picking up impressive away wins at top sides all season and Spurs are playing a side who have more than their fair share of bad days including getting battered at home by Burnley. In an ideal world they'd have both lost, but it's certainly not unexpected and both will (hopefully) drop plenty more points.