Love it personally! Love the idea of a red rose in place of the red spot. On the home page, what sort of news are we thinking of? Our own generated news? Perhaps links to ‘Newsnow’ for Blackburn Rovers, a link to club pages, club twitter account etc? I like the idea of directing my ‘rovers traffic’ through the forum rather than googling.

England u21s haven’t lost a competitive game since Harry Kane last played for them. Gwan lads!

I’m pleased that such good personalities head our dressing room, but hope it is with a view to phasing in the new blood. I’m already starting to view Rodwell as Sir Charlie’s heir apparent, such is his composure on the ball at the back.

He was ridden there on Shergar by Lord Lucan

I DON'T KNOW ANYMORE ?

It could be that the meeting is cancelled because no negotiation or justification is needed for TM's demands. Ie: He's asked for a budget and they've just signed it off. Remembered it seemed in the summer that TM had to calm them down in ters of throwing money at it. Maybe seeing that attitude from TM has made them lower their demands of him?

Good to read. Well, not literally. The LET is grammatically all over the place!

Esp' when our first team has a reasonable record of playing academy players. Raya, Nyambe, Lenihan being the current obvious ones.

Remember when the Ewood protests were more common and I was specifically stopped off the fans bus from Darwen by plod (I assume because I was involved with Rovers Trust, and nobody else off the bus was stopped) and asked to provide ID. Only gave repeated answers of 'No thank you officer, I just want to watch the football', but it wasn't until I showed my driving license they let me past. Clear abuse of power, but once was once too often. Bad taste in my mouth. LucklyI have a couple of mates in the police who keep pranking that officer to this day

Brereton showed exceptional nous for that assist. Half-second pause made the defender think it was out for a corner, before bursting onto it for the cross. Think he's earned a start up front on his last 2 cameos, esp as Graham hasn't particularly pulled up trees for a few weeks now.

Dack needs to stop coming deep for the ball. Stay just ahead of the centre circle and get forward with the wingers. Richie, Lenihan and Rodwell have been solid in open play, but we lack height when defending. Loving the recurring 'F*** off, Smith!'

While not necessary, I'd recommend playing RDR before RDR2. Being a prequel, a lot RDR2's interest is the anticipation of what caused the events of RDR. And RDR is an iconic ending to a fame imo. Also, I could imagine RDR2 could be overwhelming in terms of controls, while moving from RDR to RDR2 is an easier transaction.

As a fan of the RDR series, I'm biased. I love it. I don't think it's actually that slow tbh, but I use 'cinematic mode' so tgat any excessive travelling is just like watching a cutscene.

RDR2 in 4K... holy shit!

Tell you what, Batman, I could read these discussions for ages, really interesting! To reduce it to a little more crude analogy, is the Simulation Theory basically a bit like the Red Dead Redemption? Ie: Your actions determine your 'honour' and this alters how the simulated world treats you even after respawn. It isn't simply reset unless you know the cheat codes in effect science is the hunt for those cheat codes?

In any average job, I'd agree. But in a job where a significant chunk of your fandom/custom is negatively targeted by what is said, there was little alternative imo. For context his comments were about 20% of the English population. Imagine the uproar if he'd negatively addressed Muslims (less than 5% of the English population). That's also bearing in mind that religion is a choice, while disability isn't. I do have to admit it's an area I'm biased about, mind.

I don't think there's been any supression of freedom of speech on this thread, rather there has been quite a good, lively discussion. Glenn is perfectly entitled to express his views as strongly as he likes, just as I am to contradict them as strongly as I like, and all areas inbetween. However, there are certain jobs where one's relationship with the public DO dictate just what you can publicly say bevause of the nature of the job. Imagine if there had been an aspiring English disabled footballer breaking through at the time. If one were to change what he said so that it concerned black people, how do you think the Ferdinands, Cole, Ince, Palmer, Collymore, James, Dublin (any others?) would have felt about playing under such a manager? The freedom to offend is extremely important, but surely one must take with that the freedom to criticise and be condemned.

The bit I left not bold, I can't disagree with, but I've no idea why you present it as wrong. The bit in bold just shows that you are so determined to argue that you create them where they are not. I don't think we'll get much further, but I've enjoyed this conversation. Broken up a dull day. Best keep on topic: Get well Glenn, you pillock.

1. You said 'I know more about these faiths than you'. I took that as playing a false trump card, especially as you presume to know so much more than me based on not much, leading me to... 2. I know enough about those faiths to know they are as daft as the Abrahamic religions, having covered them throughout my GCSEs, A levels, and my time teaching about them. I was skipping the 'knowledge' part because that bit is boring and we both 'know' them, hence nothing to debate. I moved on to the criticism part because that is where debate is to be had. This was also because I know first hand how those who follow those faiths treat disabled people in their everyday life in my time travelling through Asia several years ago (ie: they treat them like shit, because they 'were bad in a past life'). 3. Science IS knowledge. As far as we know, there is no such concept as afterlife or pre-life or whatever. What I won't do is presume there is based on no evidence. Although I will admit that you are generally correct in this part, assuming that everything science tells us is false based on layman intuition is baffling. If that's not what you're doing, then the fact you're even arguing with me is even more baffling. 4. Fair enough. 5. It's offensive because it is assumes I am or was a bad person and deserve my disability. It's as offensive as the concept of heaven and hell, or the idea that a rape victim deserves it for wearing a short skirt. It is offensive because it places blame on the sufferer and doesn't acknowledge the effect such views can have on people (which I covered in the post you were quite dismissive of).

You played the 'I'm more intelligent than you' card and you think I'M arrogant? We've been discussing these ideas on here all day. Nobody has said he cannot believe what he believes, only that he (and the idea) deserves criticism. I'm not 'programmed' in any such way, I just choose science over fiction. I reserve my own right to think he's a pillock for believing without evidence that being deaf is my fault. You say he meant no malice, but a chosen belief like that, based on comes from a lack of empathy at best and malice at worst. If I had come on and said I believed he deserved to be ill for his comments and the effect they had, you'd surely find that abhorrent rather than excuse them? And that would be a claim based on things that HAVE happened in THIS life, rather than the utter BS of 'past life sins'.

Surely luck is happenstance, while karma is about decency in ones actions? The idea that I just happen to be deaf is fine. The idea that I'm being punished amd deserve to be deaf for something nobody can possibly know about IS offensive. For someone with an A-level in RE (or is it Ethics and Philosophy now?), you seem to have little emotional intelligence.

When you are using that knowledge of those faiths to excuse (or possibly even justify, but benefit of the doubt and all that) a man's comments that disabled people deserve it, yes. You don't particularly appear to have critiqued the the concept of karma for someone who knows so much. Knowing about faith doesn't stop you from being ignorant about disability. Edit- Do1995 said it better.

If you can't see how it's disrespectful to so publicly blame millions of people for having their disability based on whimsy, that seems like a pretty bad trait to carry. With regards your 'actual point', the post I quoted by you stated that I should be able to see through media manipulation of his views, while ignoring entirely the effect that the views themselves had on me (and many other disabled children). In your haste to excuse Hoddle, I fear you're showing yourself to be as ignorant as him. Or the other option I mentioned. Pity.

Isn't the Sea (rather than lake) of Tranquility on the Moon? Email NASA, see if you can hitch a ride

Again, objectively, you're probably right. But growing up deaf in Britain was pretty crap for me and with all my various negative experiences as a child that stemmed from being deaf, it's hard to forgive the people who played a part in it. The usual bullying, I knew how to deal with, but being rejected for not fitting in (by hearing kids) and not being deaf enough (deaf kids, this is STILL a thing with some deaf adults - you're not deaf unless you sign) took its toll. For a few years, I had an identity crisis of sorts, I suppose. But when someone you admire, and who has some authority in your young mind (the England team manager ffs) says that on TV, it hurts. The attitude that being deaf was my fault (leaving Glenn's comments alone for a moment) still goes on today. Quite often, my first interaction with a customer to whom my back happens to be turned is (ironically enough) 'Oi, don't just ignore me!' That belief (let alone saying it) of karma or paying for past sins only works in this life, in the same way hell is a threat and heaven is a reward. If you believe in past lives, then karma doesn't come from a culture of compassion, it comes from a culture of ignorance and/or blame at best, and being downright tosser at worst. Whichever one Glenn was (ignorant or a tosser) he had a small but contributing effect on my life with an 'invisible disability'. Rightly or wrongly (I'd even PREFER not to feel how I feel about it), I will hold that against him whether others choose to or not, and I'll do so until I feel comfortable enough to let go. As people still often treat the disabled like lepers or benefit scroungers (I've never claimed, believing there are other 'more disabled' people than me who need it more), I will fight against those views for as long as I'm able until society is ACTUALLY compassionate. Wow that was a bit of a loaded post, apologies for ranting.