youreavinalaff

You are the only one. That speaks volumes.

No, it isn't. Even grass roots level sport involves making a profit.

I've not seen any comments on here saying anyone should not be able to compete in sport.

As is everyone else.

A list would be interesting.

Your views, outdated as they are, on women's football drags your comment down.

That is the funniest attempt at trolling by you for sometime. Hilarious.

You don't understand it because you cropped my comment. Either that or you don't want to understand it or you struggle with reading and comprehension. Probably the latter.

The deaths in this conflict are the fault of all sides.

Not justifying. Not blaming.

Judging by your first sentence, you clearly did not read my comment in full. Your comment is therefore inane

No, I didn't. I'm not wrong. I stated a fact. Let's see: I invite anyone on this forum to hold their hands up and say "Wow. I'm shocked someone has died in a warzone". That is, with no reference to who the deceased are, what they were doing in the war zone, who they were representing or who killed them. No discrimination, no blame, no taking sides.

I didn't reference who they were or whether they were intentionally targeted, mistakenly or deliberately. I said, " the headline makes people dying in war zones seem a shock". How many Isreali and Palestinian civilians have been "intentionally" targeted, and killed?

What I believe? Not at all. I said it's not a shock when people get killed in war zones. Not a belief. A fact. If he's laughing at yhat, it is he who is the fool.

To say "LOL" in reply to a post about dying in war zones would suggest otherwise.

Both were committing contempt of court. Plain and simple

It is totally relevant. You condemn one but condone the other.

Why is he? My comment that he quoted didn't say they weren't.

If one person is arrested for a crime because of what people think of them, then another is not arrested because of their previous career, that would be discrimination. Discrimination is a terrible thing. Which ever way you look at it.

Jurors don't get told the law in court? How strange. I wonder how the u derstand the charge and come to a decision.

Excellent. Glad you've cleared up the reason both were arrested. It's called "contempt of court".

I would have thought protesters aims are the complete opposite.

I believe jurors are informed by the judge, at the beginning of the trial, to only take into account what happens inside the court.

Laughing at deaths in war zones? Not good.

That's an interesting comment. No, not really. I'm joking. I guess you were joking too, when you suggested someone's knowledge and preference for cheese is in some way connected to a vote. I know people that don't like cheese. Not sure how they voted in the referendum though.