Brit

Sweet!

Missing chances like that was my one exceptional skill when I was kicking a ball around on a football field...

Well Gazza was a bit... special. Yeah, Charles was a major deal. But I did not think anyone else had heard of him... He is playing a different role than that he normally plays for his club. Apart from the finishing I thought he had an excellent game - he ran the Swedish back four ragged and this opened up a normally very solid back four far more than they normally are. Wish he would score a bally goal though...

Ah, Luther Missit... Blissett was a complete failure, so bad that he has skewed how people see English players on the continent. But plenty of English (and other British players) have fared well in Europe. Kevin Keegan was twice European player of the year in Hamburg, Chris Waddle is considered one of the best foreign players to have played in France, Beckham was loved by Real fans as he was one of the Galacticos who put in the effort that allowed the others to strut their stuff, Lineker got the goals in Spain, David Platt had a successful career in Italy. There are others who also did well overseas (or, at the minimum, did not bomb like Blissett). It goes both ways as well. Plenty of foreign players have flopped playing in the top English division (and others have been the best players in the league). The English premiership is of such a high standard (and the players well paid) that comparatively few English players need to go to Europe to ply their trade. English football is going through an uptick at the moment, with a bunch of really talented young players starting to come through (playing for the junior England teams) and the old guard (who under performed at the big tournaments) being dropped from England. Barring injuries there should be a bunch of new faces pushing their way into the limelight in the next two to six years. England did go into defensive mode for the last 15 minutes or so in the second half as Columbia tried to actually win a game of football rather than try to win the Royal Rumble or an Emmy. The equaliser hurt England and Columbia looked good (possibly their most dominant period of the game) for the first period of extra time, but in the second period England retook control again and could (should) have won the game before penalties, had a couple of good openings and one clear attempt that should have been put away. Columbia looked like it was they who were holding on right at the end.

More a shameful record of not investigating rumours properly and taking perverts at their word when they denied the rumours. Well, Savile had no position of power. He was a popular entertainer and did a lot of work for charity. The fact he was a POS was not clear at the time. The management did not believe rumours about Saville - without hard evidence they were unlikely to do so. That piece of trash was reported to police on multiple occasions for sexual offences. He committed crimes in over a dozen hospitals. Other times he committed sex crimes in schools and children's homes. He used his fame and public image to gain access to children all over the place (I think the victim count is close to 500 in total). Unfortunately without any real evidence being presented the old boys club ideals of the time led to Savile being taken at his word at the BBC. After his death there was a serious crisis where a documentary featuring allegations of Savile's crimes was shelved. People rightly question whether this was a cover up after the fact. It seems it wasn't, but management did go into a massive panic at the time. What is worse, though, is the attitude of the police and authorities at that time. If they had shown any kind of real determination to get to the truth he should have been caught decades earlier. And not just Savile - the number of cases where complaints were not thoroughly investigated, ignored or, at the very worst, suppressed is depressing and infuriating at the same time. The general assumption was it was the kids who had made things up. There have also been allegations of outright bribery by Savile to corrupt police officers in order for investigations to be dropped. On a positive note the BBC did start a child telephone service where kids could call for help / advice in the mid-80s. And management was very supportive for this. This still runs today. Pity there were apparently no calls about Jimmy the pervert, though.

Sigh. Well, no. Robinson's broadcast breached contempt of court rules. There are specific rules involving court cases that are designed to ensure there is a fair trial. The press respects those rules, Tommy Robinson did not. End of. Reporting done by news outlets was within the guidelines. You are not making a true like-for-like comparison. Free speech is a thing in the UK. It is covered in our laws. Right to a fair trial is another thing in the UK. This is also covered in our laws. In criminal proceeding the right to a fair trial can lead to temporary restrictions on reporting. These limits are set by our independent judiciary in relation to specific trials. Independent judiciary is another thing in the UK. Robinson does not even count as a minor irritant in the UK, politically. There is nothing reasonable in the idea the government had a political agenda against the man. What press he gets is largely for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. He is seen as an abhorrent figure and a thug by the vast majority of people, if they think of him at all. He claims to be a former racist and homophobe who has changed his ways. At best he has shifted his hate to Muslims. And followers of rival football teams. Our culture is fine. We can discuss anything we like (part of that free speech thing). Gaol is not a thing we fear for discussing contentious issues. So being murdered there is pretty unlikely. Plenty of public figures have spoken out against an array of issues. Including those of Muslim fundamentalists and sexual predators; funnily enough they avoid gaol easily enough.

Well, ISIS controlled areas which were almost totally Muslims. And many of those Muslims had been so badly treated by their neighbours (ie the Sunnis were badly treated by the Shias) that they gave support to ISIS as they were (to all appearances) their coreligionists. The fact their judgement in this was badly wrong would be a serious understatement. Muslims in the UK for the most part get on with their non-Muslim neighbours. While there are idiots and scumbags who stir up tensions (on both sides) and there are issues that need to be redressed there is sod all chance of ISIS forming a caliphate here at any point. Come on. I did specifically say I am better informed about the UK. This is not a stretch. I have bugger all knowledge about upstate New York or the use of bicycle paths in Delaware. I would bow to the superior knowledge of those who live there (although I reserve the right to be skeptical about anyone from Delaware complaining about the UFOs from upstate state New York using their cycle paths...). Besides, isn't Tom the font of all knowledge? A modern Thomas Young, perchance?

Definitely averse. Also irrelevant since I knew what was being talked about via context, if not the grammar. Robinson was sent to gaol for contempt of court. As in the USA contempt of court is at the prerogative of the court. He was arrested in front of the court committing an act of contempt. He videoed himself committing the act. Nothing gets put into motion as fast as Contempt of Court. If you decide to act in contempt in front of a trial Judge while a trial is ongoing the process can take a lot less than a few hours. (Both here and in the US). Most of the time it is an act of truly reckless stupidity when someone commits contempt. The fact that this was the second time Robinson had done this speaks an awful lot about the man... In Robinson's own case the ban (postponement) on reporting was put in place in case his arrest and imprisonment would prejudice the serious trial he was in contempt of. The last thing anyone involved in the process would want is innocent men being found guilty because of Robinson and his actions, or guilty men having to be freed - there was a possibility Robinson's conviction potentially could have caused this. The court looked at the issue and after deliberation made a decision - the temporary ban was lifted. This was a more nuanced matter than the contempt proceedings - it still took no more than a day / day and a half to resolve. All such bans are merely postponements in reporting.

Er, no. I said he admired much of Islam and was very critical of aspects of it. Perhaps I should have emphasised the 'very' bit more. Apologies for that. Many aspects of Islam do deserve to be criticised. Nothing in what I said was indicative of a love of Islam. His family was worried he might convert such was his admiration of some parts of it (a conversion which was never on the cards). You would think he may well have said something to his family to cause such concerns - it is unlikely they would have pulled something like that out of the blue or if he had been so totally against Islam at that point. Orientalism was popular in the UK when he was a young man, unsurprising given the state and breadth of the Empire at that point in history. He noted that many, many Muslims were brave and loyal to the British crown. This was during a critique of Islam. Refusing to call Istanbul by its correct name is something you could expect from Churchill.

Ominous use of an ellipsis there...

I was around earlier (ie: years ago) with a different poster name and email address. Forgot my login and had to re-register. Lurk a lot on the forums, used to visit the old Bills chatroom on game days (I miss that). Unfortunately there is little I can add to the Bills forums as I do not get to see the Bills very often (although I did go and see the London game, of course. Just another emotional scar added to the many already suffered). About all I could add would be fluff (Go bills! and all that) - hard to be well informed this far away from the action - it is why I come to the site so I can be as well informed as I can be. Of course, I am better informed than pretty much everyone else on the forum about the UK (living here for most my life and everything). So this is somewhere I can add some substance to a discussion (and try to shed light on reality with a wider appreciation of how things are this side of the pond).

Yeah. Similar to what happens here. Previous convictions have a real difference to the severity of sentence here - not in the trial to decide guilt. It was right not to report. It was right he got convicted (and hopefully sent back to gaol for a very long time).

If you take this article in isolation and without any background information it might appear nuts, however... There is a major concern in the UK about people's health. The British are becoming a nation of fatties. Lumps of lard. Bags of ballast. Ad infinitum. We also have an issue with a lot of cars on our overstretched roads. One way to tackle both these issues is to encourage people to cycle more. This will help them stay fit(ish) and healthy(ish). Plus it will reduce pollution and congestion. These are not bad aims. Generally this has been successful. (It has helped that we are producing a lot of top international cyclists at the moment). As the article indicates it has been very successful among white middle class men (who are in danger of the dreaded middle aged spread). This is a good thing. It will be a better thing if more people benefited from other groups. Which is all the article is on about. The idea of this having anything to do with anything else assumes this is a zero sum issue. It is not.

Yeah. I imagine the current case is linked to other cases that have previously gone to trial or will do so in the future (the most common cause for the limits to reporting in these types of cases in the UK) - so there is plenty of potential for prejudicial information to be published otherwise.

Jeez. There was a whole slew of paedophile activities that have been exposed in the last decade or so. These included awful examples of childcare workers, entertainers, sports coaches, Catholic and Anglican priests, (a very small number of) Members of Parliament, and others in (and out of) the public eye. The grooming gangs of Muslim men are/were just one of these. The term grooming gangs is used not to lessen their awful crimes but to accurately label their methods - different child rapists have different methods of getting victims - most people in the UK are aware of what the grooming gangs are and how they operate (thanks to a series of in depth reporting from various news sources not called Tommy Robinson). Tommy Robinson was not the catalyst for the exposure of these. Various journalists (BBC, The Times and others) exposed different scumbags over the years and also the appalling failures of the authorities to properly investigate and prosecute these scum. What Tommy Robinson has done is target the Muslim grooming gangs specifically for his own agenda. He is well aware people are outraged over the child rape scandals and has used them to gather support. He is not some great journalistic giant pursuing the truth. There is plenty being reported. Interesting that the article you link has the Daily Mail being shown as being unfair to Tommy Robinson. The Daily Mail (like most of the UK's national press) is a right wing newspaper. So right wing that it was pro-fascist and pro-Hitler right up until it became obvious that war was coming in the summer of 39. Overall its views have not changed that much. In the UK the right to a fair trial is considered an important thing, along with the presumption of innocence. In order to achieve this in some ongoing trials there are limits to what the press can report so that a fair trial can be achieved. Once the legal proceedings are over then the press is free to report the trial and its outcome. Tommy Robinson was well aware of the restrictions of this case and ignored them. He knew what he was doing. In due course the trial (like others before) will conclude and those judged guilty will be locked up for a long time. And they and their crimes will be reported in the press. As has happened before. Repeatedly. Essentially the right to a fair trial is considered so fundamental that we have these temporary restrictions to ensure that. The historical failure of the authorities to stamp out the abuse at a far earlier stage is contemptible (and is not unique to Muslim paedophiles or to the UK). Sending Tommy Robinson to gaol for his actions is not.

Churchill admired much about Islam (so much so his family was worried he might convert - never seriously on the cards as he was pretty much an atheist by then). He was also very critical of elements of it. His view was nuanced. And he would be fine with the current mayor. Most British Muslims do not want a Caliphate (although there is a loudmouthed minority who do). Chances of this happening is just about nil (ie: about as likely as the US becoming an Islamic Caliphate).

You are mistaken. Last time it was checked London was 60% White. Likely to be a couple of %age points down from that now, but still majority white.

Sinn Fein do not sit in Parliament and as such fail to represent their voters their. So they would be no use as a coalition partner. The DUP will never deal with Labour because of their leadership's ties with the nationalist terror groups in Ulster. So there is no chance of a Labour led majority government. There can be a minority government. Basically runs the country without being able to introduce any major reform in any direction.

To a degree. Although they will want a far less hard Brexit than May was aiming for. UKIP are a tiny party and have no seats in this parliament. Even at their height of popularity they only ever had two MPs, both of whom were ex-Tory defectors. Their vote in this election collapsed.

There are plenty of oddball candidates in UK parliamentary elections. The 'Party Party Party' party and 'Monster Raving Loony' party are things.