Rayvin

Also my view. Or at the very least what I hope. The far left were going to hate anyone who came forward who wasn't from their team. They've been absolutely pathetic since he came in, article after article trying to undermine the guy. Pointless.

Yep, well said. Starmer is absolutely carrying on the right way. It's also, tbf, a fantastic opportunity for him which demonstrates a good reading of politics. He's made Johnson look weak as shit (Jenrick), made a clear statement on antisemitism, and neutered the remaining elements of the Corbynite faction. It's just a great move.

It's circular now anyway really. RLB is a twat in general, I won't miss her, and I think this was the right move by Starmer. Whether it's "fair" is another question entirely, but not one that really matters in politics.

Even if Israel special forces had taught this, it's still the US' fault. The point is, it's not as if Israel have been plucked out of thin air on this. As you can see quite clearly at this point, I suspect.

Are any other non-US special forces training the US police?

This much I agree with.

What isn't? The technique? I mean I don't think that matters, if special forces from any country are training US police, then why would we look at who invented it? It has no relevance when talking about where the US learned it from. Also, another key fucking point here - even if Israel did teach them this (and again, as I have said, I don't believe that), that doesn't mean the US just has to accept everything they're told by foreign actors. The US bears total responsibility for the actions of their forces.

It does also appear that the US police work very closely in training with the Israeli military, so while this technique is presumably not part of the training (and therefore flagging it as such is ignorant and sowing misinformation), it is also not as if Israel has been plucked out of nowhere as such. "Police all over the world" might use this technique, but how many of them are training the US police force? I'm going to outline again that I support this decision even if it turns out that the Israeli police did train the US police to do this (not that I believe at present that they did) - mostly because it's good politics, makes it clear which side Starmer is on, and has the benefit of forcing the issue away from the leadership.

RLB didn't though. It was just one sentence in an otherwise detailed article, written by someone else, about a separate issue. All I'm saying is, I can see many people gliding right over that without even taking it in, and then tweeting that they support the article. I fully agree that we need to stop talking about Israel, I'm just saying that I think this is probably more a mistake/oversight than an endorsement of the view. Not that this changes the fact that politically, Starmer has made the right choice.

I mean, I could believe that it's an Israeli police technique - not because they're Jewish, but because Israel has a reputation based on decades of oppressive violence against Palestinians. I do accept that making the claim without it being true, coming from a left winger, IS antisemitic. But I suspect I wouldn't have picked up on it from reading the article given that, based on how Israel goes on, it's entirely believable. However, I'm not a politician in a party that should be on high alert for antisemitism.

On reflection I think it's probably more that he wanted to make a firm statement on antisemitism. RLB is probably only a secondary concern. EDIT - I mean she's not exactly a threat, she's very mediocre.

I think this was the right move by Starmer, but he was clearly just looking for an excuse because there's really nothing in that. It does make a very clear statement though. This will be it for the far left in Labour - they'll leave in droves and then we can see what the remainder looks like I guess. I won't miss them but I hope they don't turn on us next time out...

Is he actually unhinged? Like, not in a joking way, in a serious and concerning way?

Aye that was heartfelt and powerful - and I'm impressed to a degree that it was aired that way. So often you see these things being paid lipservice only and it's nice to see some genuine honest human feeling behind it rather than the "presentable" dulled edges you would normally get. Maybe we really will see change this time. It's long past due our side of this was fighting back tbh. Nice to see football taking a positive stance.

What the fuck is that gif Was he offended by the camera or something?

I legitimately do think this is one of those examples where the people saying 'All Lives Matter' should just say that they're racists. There is no logical argument for their position once all the facts surrounding the statements are on the table.

If that's true then yes, they are indeed overplaying their hand. Also continues to point to the takeover going through IMO.

The comments as well man ffs.

How does their decision not to broadcast Serie A have any impact on the Premier League?

I always come back to something the MD of a counselling service I used to work with said to me. Was relationship counselling specifically and I've mentioned it on here before but it bears repeating. Her view on domestic violence was that alongside having shelters for women to escape to, we also needed to spend money - quite possibly more money - working with the men who were perpetrating it. Actually concerning ourselves with their mental health and the reasons why they struggle to control and contain their rage. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do this because people would rather just see these sorts of individuals as 'evil' and 'beyond saving' (and not to put too fine a point on this because your reaction is very natural, viewing them as rabid dogs). Why should we spend tax payers money helping them? And the reality is, as uncomfortable as the notion of spending tax payers money to help them would be to some, fewer women would be beaten and killed if we did. I would imagine, and frankly am entirely convinced, that the same approach is needed through the prison and justice system in full. So what is more important? Actually fixing the issue and trying to turn these people's lives around - and ultimately saving lives in doing so - or the sense of satisfaction we get from seeing 'bad' people getting punished?

You want the politicians then, not the justice system. Fixing this problem, these people, requires spending money on reforming and rehabilitating them - and if we can't do that, there should be some manner of avenue available for retaining them in prison indefinitely (if a danger to the community). Otherwise we're just kicking the can down the road IMO. The issue is the crime and what drives it - the early release is just a distraction.

From the sentencing council: "Offenders sentenced to two years or more will serve half their sentence in prison and serve the rest of the sentence in the community on licence. While on licence an offender will be subject to supervision and the licence will include conditions. If an offender breaches their conditions, they may be recalled to prison." So it's as Alex says really - this is the law and it isn't controlled by the courts or even really the justice system, beyond the actual act of sentencing. As I understand it only a life sentence evades this, but they are restricted in what they can hand life sentences down for.

What is the solution there though, keep them locked up forever? Presumably there are processes for vetting these people prior to release based on behaviour inside and other factors. He won't just have been released on a whim. The only solution here is to lock these people up forever with no possibility of release, or to become better at vetting them. I daresay the latter is in motion all the time. What is it exactly you think should be done differently?

Christ that article was dross. "Breaks silence" roughly translated here to mean "under pressure from our journalists, said the following nonsensical ramblings before finding an excuse to leave"

Agree with the general vein of thought here. It's possible it could be a last ditch move to salvage something that they're losing control of but it doesn't seem to have that look of desperation to it. It's far more likely to be an agreement that will run as a prelude to a PL announcement. The Saudis needed to go public first to give the PL the room to approve it. Who knows, maybe even today's result helped the situation - eliminated any remaining doubt on the Saudi side perhaps about our ability to stay up this season.