Reply With Quotewho is more likely to sell their club to the highest bidder regardless of the buyer's suitability?
City owners, Newcastle owners ......or FSG and the Glazers?
|
|
|
First Team
I can't attend to incoherent, obtuse, strangulated sentences that don't reveal a meaning, a question or an argument.Originally Posted by CCTV
like this one
You think I'm having difficulty quoting sections (?) where you compare some kind of monetary assessment you've made of two separate ethical justice scenarios that have nothing to do with sports washing?
I've actually addressed the two problems numerous times. You know exactly what I think of them in relation to sports washing. Why would looking up the meaning of universal morality make any difference? These things, like so many others, shall remain enigmas in the great solipsistic moral crusade of CCTV, 2022, LFC online.
First Team
who is more likely to sell their club to the highest bidder regardless of the buyer's suitability?
City owners, Newcastle owners ......or FSG and the Glazers?
...shows his class...
I've stated earlier that I feel I have to make my views based on what I hear and see - the mainstream media.
How could I get hold of a more balanced point of view?
Where do you obtain your information, and how long does it take to find it?
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief
Koala tea
If the monarchy decided to compensate Andrews rape victim from the Epstein saga, with the head of state herself contributing to the fund.
Then perhaps the state should follow her lead, and compensate Rotherham etc victims similarly.
I've assumed you would agree, as you've failed to address it, having said she has no need to have concern over her reputation. Although the police officer I posted, was acutely aware of guarding her reputation and the presence of Gizzlane Maxwell many years before the public became aware of such matters posing a risk to it.
There are several simple questions put forward to people, and open to others, that don't get replies. Perhaps people are too timid and scared to address them. Could be a hate speech incident that costs you your job under Tony Blairs Blasphemy laws.
Personally I believe people are too deeply involved in their identity to traverse issues that make their side look bad.
Koala tea
My advice would be, wherever you hear about a crackpot, give them a listen.
Wherever you hear a mainstream opinion about a topic or place, give it a look yourself. The safe bet, is that there are always lies involved of some sort, even where somewhat true, or mostly true.
Return to news when it's out of the cycle and apply a likely bullshit to news that is very fresh. People jump on opportunities to believe news they like.
Observe your heroes, like Klopp. Quick to call out non-vaxed like drunk drivers, the tubercular Jews of our age. Hasn't spoken about increased heart attacks, hasn't spoken on the association of monkeypox with gay men.
It would appear gaymen, owing to the fact they are males who don't need women for sex, spread monkeypox. But it would be unsafe to call out gays for spreading covid similalry, but the means of monkeypox transmission might suggest gays spread a bit of covid.
It would also be unsafe to comment on the hiv/aids law reforms in California, where it is now relatively safe to not inform a person you have aids before having sex. There are lots of medications available now, and profits to be made in pharma products.
Gaymen spreading disease onside, anti-vax folk offside. Gays are boosting pharma merch, antivax are rejecting it.
Most of Klopps speaking up, is on the safe side of mainstream opinion. Down with advertisers.
It is increasingly difficult to find information and some people are like religious zealots who seem to take pleasure in removing access to information.
I'd also suggest there's nothing wrong with having a belief that is resistant to data. The only issue is when you burry your head in the sand regarding what might be the consequences, or what the consequences are of holding that belief.
Then you have the issue of not understanding why things are the way they are. Immigration, diversity, good racism, bad racism, is a good example of that in effect.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A
This is Tommy Robinsons Oxford union speech, a disgusting figure for many. Worth listening to such people imo.
First Team
There was an out of court settlement, which means Andrew has not been convicted of rape. His apparent victim was more interested in the money than in pursuing justice. So that is not compensation in the way you are framing it.
It was clearly a matter of personal and familial embarrassment for the queen, which the Rotherham case are not. This makes your ‘perhaps the state’ idea a non-sequitur. Victims of crimes do receive compensation in this country as a result of legal proceedings.
None of this has anything to do with sports washing which is why, for the I don’t know how manyeth time, I question why you are bringing it up and why you are pressing me with the matter.
Have you ever noticed anyone bringing it up as a matter of reputation washing in any sport?
Do you think Rotherham police or the British state are likely to try to make amends for these scandals by using sports to improve their image abroad?
If not, why are you still going on about it?
Koala tea
Some Andrews are more equal than others, it's unlikely the UK would allow Andrew to face a trial in America. The prevention of justice being sought, was compensated by a 12 million payout.
Perhaps the Queen was legitimising false accusations and rewarding dirty women who make false accusations. Or maybe she was protecting her favourite son from an American cell.
It's rather like Tony Blair not being brought before the Hague, as he's played onside by the intelligentsia of Albright and Denmark. An illegal war by definition, unconcerned with facing justice because of 'his' universal morals, including covering up labour's involvement of the gangraping of the native working class.
Chief Tony Bull.
As Head of state, all such matters directly damage the Queens reputation. As she is the nations representative.
As Head of state, to a nation that hosts many sporting events, with royals participating in sports, she is by definition certainly open to charges of sportswashing. The Queen herself involved in horse racing and Royal Ascot. Here the assumed positive and humanising effect are bestowed upon her by the virtue of sport.
Rotherham police did indeed try to wash their reputation, by expressing they left thousand upon thousands of girls to be gangraped, drugged and pimped out as sexworkers because they were concerned with being labelled racist.
Ahh, phew, they clearly had their prioritise right as those working class girls had white privilege. There's absolutely no fear of being labelled racist according to BLM doctrines. Letting minors get raped < being labelled racist. Protecting minors < self image. Woke policing as seen in the UK. There are officers who participated in the offenses.
From my perspective, having the RCC sex scandal over here, and looking at yere sex scandals. It seems the UKs superior religion is a child gangrape proof virtuous one.
Police rather than be throughly ashamed of their heinous crimes. Have doubled down. More woke. Checking your thinking as free speech is hate speech enforced by men who left girls get gangrpaed so they wouldn't look bad. Clown world.
Team England and the fa, have been accused of virtue signalling whilst their kit is produced by Bangladeshis on 21 p an hour. Their incessant virtue signalling over LGBTQ has gone down like a lead balloon outside the west, and not just the middle east.
As a representative of the nation, and kingdom, they are indeed using sports for promotion. They aren't interested in sex slaves serving Germanys thirsty men, a few of the city boys having flown in escorts, nor the dead Muslims bombed to death, nor the gangraped girls of Britain.
They're off brand, their staying on brand, on the right side of advertising.
The curious case of a fair few black lads taking the knee over BLM, whilst decrying England and the wider kingdom, as a systemically racist nation, yet they are paid more in image rights in contracts and sponsorships because they play for England.
Their virtue signalling might expect a resignation from international football as they are tied in to representing a systemically racist nation under blm doctrine. Money says no.
Their virtue signalling might expect their withdrawal from Qatar.
But as said by their on brand focus, what they select and what they choose to ignore, you can deduce their sincerity. 'Their' universal morality interests suits their needs.
Outside your view of the monarchy and the empire, there are a lot of places that revelled in her death. Like those who'd dance on Tatcher or Corbyns grave within the UK, you might find anti-monarcy sentiment in the UK itself.
...shows his class...
"selective righteousness"
First Team
Are you under the impression that I am arguing this country is full of saints while at the border, sinners suddenly appear on the other side? You don’t seem capable of following a principle.
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. No one is putting pressure on the UK through sports to change its ways either because the queen has an errant son or because the Rotherham police failed to protect young girls from Muslim grooming gangs. They is no international outcry about this unfortunately because it fits the international pattern.
The queen wasn’t washing her reputation through association with the sport of kings in her own country. She was evading a messy court case by the legal means available to her - nothing to do with sports.
The rest is in your head.
Koala tea
What an odd question. Care to answer it yourself, or quote where you have this impression from.
In this thread I've said a people have a right to their culture and could reject Islamic migration or others, as could islamic nations reject western culture/peoples/lgbtqism.
There is no international outcry by your measures, whereas pro-monarchy, pro-Queen commentators have pointed to those who enjoyed and celebrate her death. As occurred with the likes of Tatcher, and Blair/Corbyn/Bojo in time.
I posted a royal protection officer who served at Buckingham Palace from 1998-2004. He was aware of Gizzlane Maxwell being a reputational risk to the Queens reputation at that time.
The Queen associated with all sports in the UK as monarch/HoS, attends events in person Ascot and was part of the London Olympics.
Benefitting from the humanising association with sports.
Preceeding her Mi5 James Bond opening ceremony cameo, we had royal protection officers aware of the scandalous nature of Gizzlane Maxwell having picnics in Buckinham palaces Gardens, who subsequently became more notorious with the public since.
The games were won by Tony Blair her majesties prime minister, who had a by definition illegal war in Iraq on his CV, and a home office who'd been covering up the abuse of Rotherham etc girls since 2001. To protect the values of the new religion.
At the ceremony you had the NHS and many other valued institutions and opinions venerated as Britain used sport to portray itself in a positive light, and steering clear of a balanced reflection, the scandals and abuses were absent.
I've said most opening ceremonies can be seen as weak propaganda and mainly for the hosts peoples.
As an individual she qualifies, just about any individual would, as a nation the UK/England qualifies as just about any nation would.
Of course this would lead us to wonder whose got the most to do, and whose got the most benefits from these hostings. But that discussion was abandoned by yourself when asked to attend to a simple 4 items, and then 2 to demonstrate your case.
In the case of PL claims, its claimed Roman was a beneficiary of sportswashing, and yet not so longstanding and no clear opinions expressed on the value of each clubs spends.
Of course aborting the working class, life segregrated into medical waste bags, gangraped - pimped out & drugged up girls, and dead children's various body parts, some wikileaks footage, and dark web pedos, didnt make it into the opening ceremony.
I'm almost sure the value of education and childhood as invented by the British were celebrated too as part of the opening ceremony.
Shortly thereafter we found out that the police had been educated to be more concerned about being labelled racist than they were about gangs of men gangraping young girls and minors.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks