LondonBristolian

Anyone who employs anyone who works with children or vulnerable adults IS liable for undertaking reasonable checks into the background of those they employ and putting the necessary safeguards in place so that potential predators cannot use their position or role to abuse or exploit people. The issue is not simply whether the club employed a paedophile. It is that, according to the claimants, a scout who was sanctioned by the club to go out and approach children on the clubs’ behalf abused and exploited children and the club did not put the measures in place to check into that scout’s background, to enable people to raise concerns or to prevent that scout from getting away with abuse and exploitation. The question is not whether the club employed the guy so much as whether they enabled him to abuse children and get away with it.

You know full well I could. I replied to the post in question at the time. Stop being disingenuous.

To be honest, it is far more law student than lawyer. A lawyer would know that juries are sophisticated enough to understand the difference between the way the meaning a word is defined in a dictionary and the way meaning is understood by society. No lawyer on Earth would bother claiming Barton was using “Holocaust” as defined in the dictionary because no jury on Earth would be taken in.

Oh I get all that. The issue with it is that - as you say - it is utter nonsense. It is like trying to defend someone who has insulted someone’s mother by saying “no, he genuinely mistook her for a female dog. He had no idea there was another definition…”

If you need someone to explain to you how making inaccurate sweeping negative generalisations about Jewish people is anti-Semitism then you may need to invest in a dictionary. If you can’t understand how describing a poor performance in a football match with a word which is rarely used by itself except in reference to the murder of six million people is conflating genocide then you may need a history lesson. But I don’t think you need either of those things. I think you need to grow up and learn skills in self-reflection.

If you post anti-Semitic stuff, you are going to be called anti-Semitic. If Barton makes trite and offensive comparisons of his team’s performance to the genocide of six million people, he’s going to be called trite and offensive. How have we reached a point in society where people are utterly incapable of taking responsibility for their words and actions and instead blame everyone else?

Exactly this. Even with the squad now, I’d argue it is less that the players we have are “bad” so much as the squad lacks balance with players who don’t complement each other and a real absence of certain key attributes.

Yep - good luck on to him. Hope he does well there.

At least we now know why you are defending anti-Semitism. I am guessing the next step for you is claiming that your inaccurate sweeping generalisations about Jewish people aren’t anti-Semitic either. You will be wrong to say so when you predictably do.

It doesn’t matter how much they cheat on you and let you down. There is always the hope that next time will somehow be different…

Not to mention a Gerry Gow reference on “This One’s for Now”.

Indeed. The whole “yes but it’s okay because he didn’t clarify which Holocaust he was talking about” is one of the strangest arguments I have ever seen on these boards. Everyone’s mind goes to the same place with the word “Holocaust” and - as you say - even a nuclear Holocaust is a deeply in appropriate comparison. I’m not a big fan of calling for someone to loss their job but comments like this - aside from the PR damage - are massively alienating for any Jewish Rovers fans. At the very least Barton and the club should have quickly and sincerely apologised and Barton should have committed to learning about the seriousness of the Holocaust and why it is utterly inappropriate for glib comparisons.

Confirmation no further action taken being taken over the banner. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59042671

We need to win it. Simple as.

Gives United fans an excuse though. “We only lost cos of the sending off at 5-0 down…”

It's easy to knock Solskjaer but that totally discounts the fact that he did get a good result at Paris St Germain once in 2019...

I think we need a home win from somewhere and this is one of our best chances of getting it. It has to be seen as a must win game in my view.

I really hope Sheff Utd hold on…

I suspect this is it. If someone has reported it then the police can’t really say “nah, we’re not gonna be looking into this one” but I struggle to believe that they will find an offence has been committed.

To be fair, that Poster 2 is a **** though…

Indeed. One strength LJ had was that - apart from that absurd losing streak - he generally had the ability to scrape out a win at the exact moment the fans’ patience was exhausted. That was a bad thing in some ways as it meant he stayed longer than was good for him or us but Pearson needs to find a way to do the same. There is only so long reputation and improved early season performances can stave off the angry mob…

When O’Dowda scores his fifth of the afternoon, you will look very silly.

Today is depressing but the barometer for me is next week at Barnsley. We need a vastly improved performance and a win. If that does not happen, I will believe we are in real trouble.

Yeah -I always saw Pack as the “sitter”. I thought that was the problem in LJ and Smith’s last season. Neither Nagy and Smith were natural holding players and both would have preferred running around the pitch than sitting deep. Smith did it out of necessity but it did not get the best out of him or the team.

I think Bakinson is a decent player but not a Nigel Pearson player. If we’re aiming for a high intensity team that work hard, put teams in pressure and break quickly then that isn’t Bakinson. For me, it is not that I don’t rate him but that he and we would be better off letting him move to a team that suits him rather than trying to make him something he is not.