HawK

Thanks, your detail on her background makes NUFC's actions clearer on this. Being decked out in NUFC attire whilst spouting hateful speech is one thing, whereas without the NUFC association I believe it would be treat differently. Although I disagree that your example is fair, the employee-employer relationship with direct abuse involved is not really the same thing as pontificating your beliefs on the Twitter soapbox. However if you were decked out in your company uniform and every other post is about your company and you mix your own disagreeable views, then rightly that company could be seen to be associated with those views. If the company then does not act once aware, it could be seen to be complicit or condoning those views.

In my personal view - unless she actually harasses or distresses people specifically, she should be allowed in. But if that line is not crossed - i.e., she attends a game, watches the match, has a pint, goes home, she's fine. It's all a matter of opinion, you clearly feel that people who say things that we both find abhorrent and post about them on twitter should have their access to the world curtailed. I can understand your reasoning and respect that viewpoint, but I disagree. I don't think we're going to convince each other otherwise - it comes down to our own core value systems that are ingrained at a very young age.

To answer you point directly (I'm no legal eagle), I think it's not specified (gender-based hate) under law, whereas offences can be specifically racially aggravated.

The difference there is that racial abuse is a crime under the Public Order Act 1986. It's another conversation entirely to ruminate over what should be a law and what shouldn't though.

I do get your point - I don't agree with her as well, if that's what she's said then that's incendiary and downright offensive and disgusting to me and probably most would think the same. I wouldn't like to stand next to her in the crowd. But if I did, I'd choose to still talk to her, challenge her views, have the conversation. In my view, when communication stops that's when wars start. If we don't allow her in because of those views I really don't like or agree with, where do we draw the line? Should we also ban all other undesirable people or people who have abhorrent views - people who incite murder and violence based on political belief or ideologies, people who've committed certain crimes - rape, murder, paedophilia. Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in saying that there shouldn't be consequences for actions or publicly held beliefs or views, but I don't think those consequences should include being denied entry to a football match. Should this person be allowed entry into a room with teenage children with gender dysphoria issues? Absolutely not.

For me, it's the implication that the club are selectively allowing people to enter the ground based on views and opinions which I think sets a dangerous precedent.

I don't agree with those views if that's what she's expressed. I don't see how I've been painted in a bad light? And I think the only person in our conversation dealing in absolutes is yourself. There are people in the world who think people who commit certain crimes should be executed, they are also calling for groups of people to be killed. Do we have a checklist on people coming into the ground if they support capital punishment, and to what degree? What about views on the current genocide in China or Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, Israel? The list goes on and on. You just can't bar entry to people because you don't like their views or opinions, it's undemocratic. It's a wider conversation to be had in a non-footballing thread, but on the specific point about a Newcastle Utd fan being barred entry based on held views on beliefs I disapprove of the banning. I'm sure there's literally 1000s of people in the crowd who hold unsavoury views that most would not agree with in the cold light of day.

My view?

Oh come on

Directly defaming individuals with slander or threatening violence is against the law and should be treat as such, but holding and expressing opinions about groups of people isn't though. I'll say again, I might not like nor agree with what opinions people have or express, but being selective on allowing entry to a football game only if you hold compatible opinions and views doesn't align with the laws of a democratic society.

I thought we've barred her from attending because of things she's written on Twitter? I admit I've really not looked into it beyond that at all, I could be mistaken.

I think it would be quicker for our conversation if you just tell me what it means to you

So we don't believe in freedom of speech anymore, great. I might not agree with her views, but she shouldn't be punished for saying them. It's not as if she's made direct threats of violence against anyone. What a world this has become :/

I thought on the few occassions where he's played as the obvious advanced midfielder (not recently from my patchy memory though), he's always looked lively. He's very good at running in to find space and goalscoring positions, very good. If Bruno had a counterpart to sit with like a Phillips, I think Longstaff ahead of them both with his pressing off the ball to support whoever the front 3 may be, would play a lot to his strengths - not saying anything about his goalscoring positioning. It's mental how one glaring hole in a team has so many knock-on effects, I hope there wasn't any more we could have done to bring Phillips in, because I think we'll regret it in the medium term. Hopefully we're identifying targets for the summer to fill that role.

Just bought some dining chairs from there

Voting for goal of the month is open now on the BBC app / motd BBC sport page. Get your vote in for Alex, think it's open for 30 mins from now.

3-1-6 with Bruno just behind, could work.

Well those 3 people have something in common, they don't get any minutes on the pitch.

Aye, in a one-off game, with players at their peaks, you'd always choose differently to players who count consistency and reliability among their notable traits. Woodgate was something we'd never really seen before in our team, a genuinely world class centre half. I'm not going to sit and try to suggest that defensively Schar is better than Woodgate was, because I don't think he is. But he's close, and everything else he brings to the table, for me, he's the most complete centre half we've ever had. Woodgate then is like Bruno today, he was a level or two at least above everyone else on the pitch. Schar is alongside our best ever PL right-back and arguably our best ever PL midfielder. It's not so obvious how good he is imo.

So Hamilton to Ferrari is going to be the biggest move today then.

Still holds up - gap growing to Woodgate imo. The absolutely effortless positioning and poise of Woodgate with the threat on the ball from Albert, and let's throw some Pirlo-esque long-passes into the mix. No question in my mind now.

Rumor has it his sister really hates a certain tongue twister

I want to see more of Miggy on the left. If Isak is out for Luton, a front 3 of Almiron - Gordon - Murphy would press the absolute shit out of them.

He's a good lad he'll be fine