macphisto

You're completely right about respecting different views when it comes to Capital Punishment. According to this article, 33 countries have used the death penalty since 2013 so we're not talking about only a few countries. It's really a question of whether the onus of a justice system is on rehabilitation or punishment. All legal systems contain elements of both, it's just a question of to what degree either way. Broadly speaking, based on the map in the article it's clear that most countries who retain capital punishment are either Asian or Islamic countries who have different philosophies to a lot of other countries. There's nothing wrong with respecting their views whilst strongly disagreeing with them at the same time. It's also worth noting that there is significant support for the death penalty in the UK so it's not as clear cut as many on here are making it out to be.

You should check out The Last Executioner: Memoirs of Thailand's Last Prison Executioner who executed 55 prisoners. I'm trying to think about the end of the book as I read it some time ago. I don't think he had regrets.

100% agree!

I think it will be the game plan too. I also don't think we'll buy many players, if any, from the Premier League. We now have a solid number of 1st team players with Premier League experience who we can complement with young players from overseas. Young players very much along the lines of Botman, Ekitike and Bruno.

The UK is known for its tolerance, we'd never send the buggers back

I wonder if any of the local journalists, Caulkin/Hope, helped Howe craft his reply? That's not to detract anything from Howe but more a sign of the good relationships that have been built over the last few months.

Sadly either do I...

What, sanctions staying in place? Personally I think they would be lifted fairly quickly. A lot of European countries were quite reluctant to have heavy sanctions when Russia initially invaded Ukraine. Those countries might have changed their stance since then but I doubt it. Or rather their resolve isn't too strong.

I guess it would depend on the settlement. If Ukraine was in favour of the settlement and Russia withdrew then sanctions would be lifted. Historically, the aim of sanctions is not to punish countries, though that is a byproduct, but rather to get countries to change their actions. If they were kept in place after a settlement then effectively we would be saying they will only be lifted once Putin is removed. The West might insist on Russia signing an agreement promising to demilitarise their European borders or something similar but that would be a pretext for keeping them in place. Similar to WMD and Iraq where the ultimate aim was to remove Saddam.

I doubt Corbyn would go against UNITE trade union who are well represented at BAE systems. Difficult to be definite but a lot people could have forecasted that a politician like Corbyn would never be accepted by Northern working class communities. Obviously, things can change but that applies to relations with almost all countries so I wouldn't worry about it.

Because Iran is the common enemy.

Not sure how serious this proposal is but one option for Man U is to knock the stadium down and rebuild. If we stay where we are then I wouldn't be surprised if we went down this road. Obviously there's the problem of where do we play whilst it's rebuilt?

Johnson will probably Whattsapp PIF to let them know they're losing the club.

I wonder what VAR would make of this elbow?

The Western world has no right to lecture others when the leader of the West, the US, still has Guantanamo Bay. We can debate the rights and wrongs of capital punishment but it is a form of punishment that many countries adhere to across the world. Guantanamo Bay was deliberately set up to evade people having the right to a fair trial.

I don't know enough about the implications of being disqualified by the Premier League. Is Ambramovich allowed to reject offers he deems to low? Would it eventually go to something similar to a silent auction where the highest bidder wins? If we think of Ashley, he was "trying" to sell Newcastle for the last 10 years.

Makes it easier to trade though, particularly for energy supplies. I thought that was the reason some European countries were reluctant to cut off SWIFT. I might be wrong but that was my impression.

I misunderstood your question, I thought we were talking about if the club was allowed to trade as normal. Yes, sanctions will be in place for sometime. I suspect until Putin is replaced. Though I could see access to SWIFT and restoring normal Russian energy supplies fairly soon as we are not on a position to do without Russian oil and gas for any length of time. Or rather it would be too costly.

When it happens is immaterial. If the business continues to trade as normal then eventually, say 10 years from now, the club would revert back to him once sanctions are lifted. The value of the club wouldn't have significantly decreased and he would be eligible for profit accrued during that time.

If you allow the club to trade as normal then you may as well not bother with sanctions. If the club trades as normal then two things happen. 1) Value of the club more or less remains the same. 2) The business will continue to accrue profits. OK, maybe not in Chelsea's case but in theory it could turn in a profit by selling players. Once sanctions are lifted then Ambramovich would have been mildly inconvenienced at most. He wouldn't materially be any worse off.

What happens when sanctions are lifted?

A difficult question to answer, in general no I'm not in favour of them as they presume people are guilty. Difference with sanctions is that in most cases sanctions are only implemented when there has been a violation of international law or agreements and a country has been found "guilty".

For those asking what crimes has Ambramovich committed? Sanctions are not about identifying guilty parties responsible for certain actions. Sanctions are a way to coerce a country into changing its actions. Often they will target the very rich as those are the people who have direct access to those in power. It also weakens the support base for those in power. If anything, in theory it is probably best to target innocent rich people as they would then have more cause to try to implement change.

I was replying to the discussions about Chelsea in this Chelsea thread where people have raised the point of people losing their jobs. There is a thread in Chat for the war in Ukraine which is a more appropriate thread to discuss the points you've raised.

Chelsea will not cease being a club, the worst that could happen is that it becomes a new entity similar to Rangers a few years back. I wouldn't worry about them too much; indeed as l said yesterday I'm quite enjoying it. The UK does approximately £16 billion in trade with Russia. Think I'll save my thoughts for some of those businesses and employees who will really be affected rather than Chelsea. Many of whom will be outside of London without the prospect of easily finding new employment.