mccaughey85

I give it a 50/50 chance he plays the euros.

Thats not a kind group. Hungary and Switzerland are decent sides these days, especially Switzerland and playing the Germany in Germany will be tough. It's not the worst group but it's still going to be tough to qualify from it.

Jack fletcher( Darren fletchers son)is training with the man utd first team and ten hag is talking about fast tracking him. He's a midfielder, not quite sure what type but if hes like his dad then it will defensive duties he will be best at. I think he's with the England youth set up but surely Darren would push him over to Scotland when the time comes.

Goal for mctominay

Michael Mellon seems to be scoring alot. Only league 2 but the lad only 19 and can score goals. Looks like a fair bit of potential there for him to become a decent striker in the future.

Decent player but sadly hes 32 and not likely to get a chance unless theres a crazy amount of injuries to guys like gilmour and McGregor etc

When has anyone given topics or subjects as an example? Yes I have said that no topics or subjects should be banned. I am a supporter of freedom of speech. You have gone on a crazy tangent trying mix libel and slander with freedom of expression. Like anything in life if you directly accuse someone of something serious then you will have to back that up otherwise you will be open to getting sued and you will look like an idiot. You should still be able to do it but there will be consequences. There shouldn't be consequences with having an unpopular opinion like being anti abortion or attending orange order marches. In the UK we take these things for granted.

If someone was to accuse me publicly of something absurd or a crime then they should have that right but also I have a right to sue them for slander or defamation or report it as a crime. Thats alot different from someone expressing an unpopular opinion like the far right do or marching like the orange order do. If you make false accusations then expect to have to back that up or face the consequences. I think most ppl understand the difference between freedom of expression and just going about slandering ppl. Your confusing two different subjects.

Lol fair enough. I thought you were against free speech.

I am able to differentiate between libel, false allegations etc and freedom of speech. The 2 are very different things. As I said let the courts deal with libel, false allegations. Your confusing two different issues.

I don't think any topics are banned and thats how I want it to be. You take that for granted and would probably appreciate the liberty you currently have if you lived in a country where certain censorship and restrictions hinder ppls freedom of expression. It should be up to you to name the subjects or opinions you think shouldn't be discussed if you don't want freedom of speech.

Eh? False allegations and libel has nothing to do with this subject. It's about ppl being able to say their opinions and freely express ideas no matter what they might be. If those ideas are stupid and ludicrous then the general public will reject them anyway. If it's libel or false allegations then let the courts do their job.

Well if I said discussion and promotion of Scottish independence was not allowed would that cause problems, civil unrest etc If I said labour or the green party were barred from expressing their views on certain subjects would you not think that would lead to civil unrest. You take freedom of expression for granted. Your last paragraph is true because we have freedom of expression/speech. What subjects would you bar or deem unacceptable? Leaving these things to opinion doesn't work. What one person considers hate speech another person might consider it a legitimate opinion. Should pro LGBT marchers be banned or pro hamas/Palestinian supporters be barred from expressing their views?

So what would you consider unacceptable subjects or beliefs for ppl to express or talk about?

Personally I think ppl need to express themselves otherwise you end up pushing extremist types underground. I think we take freedom of speech/expression in the UK for granted and it's integral to keeping functioning country. Most of the western democracy's have freedom of speech and it's what helps keeps a healthy debate on differing issues that might be controversial. Out of interest what topics or subjects would you limit discussion/expression on?

Then you don't believe in free speech and that's fair enough but personally I think much more problems arise from not allowing freedom of expression. Has to be all or nothing imo.

I did say arguably. Its written in their constitution tbf. End of the day its a big country with alot of different states so I am guessing that free speech will sometimes be upheld and other times it will be curtailed by ppl who choose to ignore other ppls rights.

Thats technically not free speech. Who should set the limits, Westminster? You either have free speech or you don't. Theres no compromises.

Either way my point still stands. Why stop giving your opinion after years of giving it on here relentlessly lol?

When does your opinion or my opinion ever matter? we still like to give it on here on various topics anyway. Why get testy now?

Do you think we should have absolute free speech?

Then thats not free speech. I would say America arguably has free speech.

You either have free speech or you dont. Theres no in-between imo. Who decides where the line is drawn?

Lol fair enough.

It's not stretching the imagination but he still has a long way to go. He could easily spend his career at mid table epl teams.