Messages

Does the GPA really need an official crisp or tin of beans?

Equally as important in trying to figure this out, will the beans people see a sales bump here? What do they stand to benefit from this sponsorship?

Why is no one talking about City " bottling" the league?
It was in their hands after beating Arsenal then they mess up against Everton.
They might still win it but it's crazy to think everyone was saying Arsenal had bottled it but the same isn't being said about City.

No one cares, plastic club so they just don't really matter.

People care about  the 115 charges

When will that decision be made? If ever?

People care more about cheating than the team?

Stroke sponsorship.

The GAA and the GPA

What a corrupt mess that relationship is.

As opposed to the Corporate Tax haven money in ROI going where?

A wealth fund for a rainy day/Irish reunification

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Hold up. The definition does or doesn't reference criticism of Israel? You are claiming both.

The definition does REFERENCE criticism of Israel. Well done.

It DOES NOT say "criticism of Israel is antisemitic", which is what was and is repeatedly claimed.

Do you understand the difference? I most certainly did not claim that it both does and doesn't reference criticism of Israel.

Hold up indeed.

It says certain criticism of Israel is, and has unquestionably been used as a shield

You said "It says nothing about criticising Israel being anti-Semitic".

Given that most people's problem with the IHRA definition is EXACTLY this, could you outline which other bit of the IHRA definition you have a problem with, that causes you not to accept it?

That's because most people, such as your good self, choose to, at best, misread or misunderstand what the definition actually says. You argued that Israel is a Jewish community institution ffs. A state is not a community institution. You have f**king idiots on here tying themselves in knots to protest that burning out Jewish ambulances in Golders Green isn't antisemitic FFS. Know what a local Jewish ambulance service is? A Jewish community institution.

And not that I owe you any explanation of anything whatsoever, the particular pieces that I have issues with are the suggestion that denying Jews have the right to self determination is in and of itself antisemitic, or that one evidences this by labelling Israel as a racist state, along with the one about not comparing contemporary Israeli state policy to the Nazism.

As I suspect you well know, the definition expressly states that criticisms of Israel that are thrown at any other country are not antisemitic.

Hold up. The definition does or doesn't reference criticism of Israel? You are claiming both.

I see the lads warmed up for their clash of the titans fixture with Grenada by putting Real Murcia's B team to the sword.

Top stuff.

It's a B squad camp in all but name. There are 4 broadly first team squad players coming back from injury and then kids and lads worth having a look at now the English lower leagues are over. He got criticism for not calling up LoI players who would be ahead of most of these players in the pecking order. 7 debuts?

It is what it is and suits a purpose

I can see why

It's only a matter of time. I think a lot of people are waiting for Burnham to set out how he can become an MP and when. My guess is someone will resign and they'll announce that Burnham is running in the by-election

I think that is public knowledge as the plan.

Some craic if they couldn't win the seat?! Surely the number of Labour safe seats is dwindling, and can they really persuade someone in one such to give up a cushy/promising political career for someone who may or may not win a leadership battle?

I understand an older MP in or near Manchester will get parachute into the Lords. He can't lose on the basis 'this will be your new PM' and what constituency doesn't want that?

I really enjoyed "Michael" the biopic. It's well done, it's well shot and the music is of course great. I had no idea until after the film and I googled it, that the lead was his nephew Jaafar Jackson.  He does a great job for his 1st film.

Some things are covered that I didnt know about, and I feel some things have been glossed over a bit, but perhaps that is to be expected.  It looks like it'll be a 2 parter.  It'll be interesting to see how they handle the next part.

It will be. As you say, the nephew playing him, the Jackson Estate involved.

He wrote it, he's entitled to make his point ffs. And it most definitely is 'an act of pointed gleeful counter-programming'. It wasn't really the point I was making or interested in tho.

His point is that showing it is anti-semetic. If you think he has a point in that, you could get a job for yourself in some Israeli Government propaganda department.

Again. In typical Glinner fashion he actually has a point but decided to make it in a bombastic and gratuitously offensive way.

He has chosen to make himself irrelevant

I thought it was an apt choice by RTE to be honest on a few different levels, one being the writers current stance on genocide.

If "Glinners" is so upset he'll give his royalties to a charity of his choosing.

You know he won't. We are talking about him, so job done. It's all about poor oppressed him.

He wrote it, he's entitled to make his point ffs. And it most definitely is 'an act of pointed gleeful counter-programming'. It wasn't really the point I was making or interested in tho.

His point is that showing it is anti-semetic. If you think he has a point in that, you could get a job for yourself in some Israeli Government propaganda department.

Again. In typical Glinner fashion he actually has a point but decided to make it in a bombastic and gratuitously offensive way.

He has chosen to make himself irrelevant

What is his point?

It's a completely ridiculous and bigoted take he has

His point is RTE are using a Fr Ted episode to make a political point that he disagrees with without his sign off.

That wasn't difficult

It's only a matter of time. I think a lot of people are waiting for Burnham to set out how he can become an MP and when. My guess is someone will resign and they'll announce that Burnham is running in the by-election

I think that is public knowledge as the plan.

We are making a big assumption that the EU want them back or even want to renegotiate closer ties.

He wrote it, he's entitled to make his point ffs. And it most definitely is 'an act of pointed gleeful counter-programming'. It wasn't really the point I was making or interested in tho.

His point is that showing it is anti-semetic. If you think he has a point in that, you could get a job for yourself in some Israeli Government propaganda department.

Again. In typical Glinner fashion he actually has a point but decided to make it in a bombastic and gratuitously offensive way.

He has chosen to make himself irrelevant