Coxford_lou

Oh c'mon - we look this rubbish in pre-season every year! Particularly when there's a new manager.

I've been around, thanks for asking, Whelk. But between this and the other place, there's only so much male posturing a gal can take

Thanks for the link. Levels of individual heroism in Syria are just off the scale.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere - can't remember where - that he needed a week back home in Argentina for personal/family reasons, before he started with us....

I don't think Sanders has ever come across as incompetent? Whereas Corbyn definitely does, hence why I'm bundling two clearly very different politicians in a similar camp. A lot of people, both sides of the Atlantic, don't seem that fussed by the question of whether either are competent enough to run the country. Corbyn may technically be a career politician (again, whatever that means) but his appeal seems to be in that he's considered a 'man with principles' (whatever that means) and the 'career' bit gets ignored. The illusion that we don't like 'career politicians' anymore so we're prepared to consider a buffoon (Trump) or a blundering nice-guy (Corbyn, just don't mention the iRA), could get both countries into a bit of a mess. As far as I can tell, a lot of this is based on perceived lack for trust for politicians/politics and the little rules we make up in our heads for why one person is 'ok' and another 'not'. As well as a lot of other things, of course. Risky experiment.

Sadly, that's pretty much nailed it. Corbyn is the Trump equivalent - not in policies, but in competence. I guess his popularity is a rally against the 'career politician' whatever that means. Which makes politics pretty d*mn depressing at the moment. I've not decided which way I'm voting yet. Definitely not Tory (would rather die). But Corbyn is my MP and I'm pretty d*mn p*ssed off with him and his band of idiots. Brexit protest is an option, even if just for my own therapy.

Yeah, I thought the same. He definitely didn't look a happy bunny after the game or his normal self in the interview.

That must make a lot of sacked people if that's true.

Thank God.

Didn't Koeman say a few games back how we need to toughen up? It could be a consequence of the need for us to be less of a 'nice' team, and we're just not very good at it yet!

Maybe regaining confidence in a lower league before getting another crack at the Premier League will do him good. I still like the guy and hope he does well.

Following a link from that article I came to this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12161216/Is-the-Labour-Partys-problem-with-racism-beyond-repair.html 'Last night, a statement from the Oxford University Jewish Society began to circulate on social media, claiming to give an insight into how this problem with Jews was actually manifesting itself. According to the statement, senior members of the Labour club liked to regale listeners with a song called “Rockets over Tel Aviv” and endorse Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians. They were in the habit of casually referring to Jewish students as “Zio”. They repeated tropes about the “Zionist lobby” and “high net worth Jewish individuals”. They stated all Jews should be required to denounce Zionism and the state of Israel, and that those who refused to do so should be shunned. And they had arranged for a group of students to harass a Jewish student and shout “filthy Zionist” at her.' Good god, what is it with people? What a bunch of a*seh*les.

Well, it was a moment of empathy for a man in an embarrassing position. But I accept that's my human weakness, and it would gain no thanks from the man himself. If he just laughed or something, he would have gained some control from the situation. But to just stand there and take it, looking a bit ruffled, was not good and made him looked a bullied man. Which is not a position of leadership. But regardless of Corbyn, clips like that don't do politics any favours. And in the other one, Cameron is a prat of the highest order.

I don't disagree with your analysis on Corbyn. But Cameron doing 'patronising' always makes him look like a slimy condescending pr*ck, and while the other "who are you?" clip is a genuinely funny response, watching a whole room laughing at one man standing up, is pretty unedifying. Yup, that's where we've got to - I'm now feeling sorry for Corbyn. Not good.

Oh my god. That was pretty cringeworthy. And clearly rehearsed. What a d*ckhead!

In the main, I agree with CBF observations. Different media benefits different campaign objectives, so no right or wrong answers. TV generally good for softer brand building, audience dependent. Digital great for more specific call to actions and tracking. But most well managed campaigns will be delivering integrated but varied assets across a range of media (and press still has a role in that media mix, dependent on objectives). TV costs more, and you need higher spend to get any impact, whereas with digital (and bear in mind that's a very broad catch-all term) you can achieve on a smaller budget, but unlikely to change brand perceptions on a larger scale. But to achieve that, you should be looking wider than just advertising anyway. I'm no media buyer, and a great media buying agency collaborating with the ad agency is worth their weight in gold. They will consider media mix based on what you need to achieve/who you want to reach/what your creative solution is. The difference these days is there are more options than say ten years ago - which is great, but more complex.

He doesn't really! There are just a few core topics we disagree on, and Pap attempts (but fails) to draw me into a full on barney. Shurlock pretty much nailed it really... (Except the bit about me standing up).

PS. FYI. I don't mean well. At all. It's all a cunning ploy. C*cks*ckers.

Haha! Nice one Shurlock. (Kno*b).

Reminds me of one of my favourite lyrics: How could you want me if I were untrue When you know if I'd cheat her that I'd cheat you too

I've never entirely understood the far-left's love in with Russian politics, and not read up on it enough. Aside from the fact it's an all round fascinating country. Is it because of the romance of communism? Or is it because of their general anti-West stance? Or are there deeper historical ties? Can anyone give me a quick history lesson?

Blame Benji, he started it! I just thought if we're going to have a dumb thread like this at least have some expert female opinion in it. But of course, we like all our players for their skills and 'personality' rather than looks Go Matt Targett!

Good list, Lillyflo. I approve.

1. van Dijk 2. Soares 3. Ronald!! Especially after tonight!

I don't know if I necessarily agree it's naturally more Blairite (I'd say more centre-right) but Blair was able to position left/socialist policies in a way that was palatable to the public. When you put aside his failure in Iraq, he got an enormous amount done alongside Brown. The trouble wth Cameron (who has said he was influenced by Blair) + Osborne, is they don't have the same gravitas or ability to persuade, and I think the public after years of positive Labour policies eg NHS investment, got used to less individualistic policies. Therefore they don't have the same respect, and there is a level of mistrust towards them and their party on a wider scale. For what they are - centre right - they should be doing better than they have - the success they have had is based on Labour failures. If Blair came back tomorrow, while the detractors would be baying for blood, I'm not so sure the mass (non protesting) public wouldn't vote for him again. Obviously, this is my gut feel rather than evidence based, so feel free to pick apart!