Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations


Posts posted by Patch

  1. 39 minutes ago, Slojo said:

    Arguments from authority don't always work, I completely disagree with the idea of invalidating ones opinion just because of their skin colour. 

    Exactly. We should all be treated as equal and our skin colour shouldn't matter. The people in here seem obsessed with peoples skin colour. It's disturbing.

    Just to add, the post you replied to said "a white bloke telling a black bloke what is and isn't racism doesn't sit well with me. No matter how much they keep saying that's what I'm saying, I haven't actually said this. All I said is I'm not going to find someone guilty of racism, or someone the victim of racism when there is zero evidence that is was racism. The victim thinking it was racism  isn't enough.

    A perfectly sensible and reasonable position to take.

  2. 7 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:


    The fact that the source was a Guardian article detailing the racist statements said and articles written by our current prime minister is irrelevant to the point under discussion.

    You can keep on digging as much as you like.  Neither you nor I have any right to tell a black or other minority person whether or not they have been racially abused.  And, as you seem to have difficulty in either reading or comprehension, the relevant part of my previous post was

    "These reforms have since become the standard for prosecutors. They allow victims and third parties to define if something is racist. "

    Nothing to do with flagging, subjectivity or otherwise, and no-one but you has raised the concept of enhanced sentencing.  And again, you claim you have the right to decide whether any abuse is racially motivated or not.  That really does smack of the entitled, exceptionalism that is hugely on the increase in this country, very much to the detriment of all decent, caring people.

    Don't bother replying, we are of opposite ends of the spectrum and will never agree on this, so lets get back to the football.

    It has everything to do with flagging! It's standard for police and prosecutors to use that definition to flag a case as racist, but that is all. They obviously won't try and prosecute for any racial crimes based on the victims word and no evidence. The fact the CPS might consider it a racist event doesn't actually mean anything.

    The fact is the victim legally can't decide if a case is racist. This is a fact.  I follow the same standards as our legal system. 

    My post was from the CPS Prosecution Guidelines.

    Posting a bit from a 20 year old newspaper article is so stupid. 

    Also, I didn't actually make the claim that I decided if any abuse was racially motivated or not. So all that stuff you said at the end is irrelevant You're putting words into my mouth again.  I said that someone claiming abuse was racist doesn't automatically make it racist. That's a very different thing to your lies you're making about what I'm saying.

    I'm saying there has to be evidence and not just accepting the word of the person involved, especially when that person involved doesn't know himself if it was racially motivated. Exactly same standard as our legal system. 

  3. 1 hour ago, yorkleyblue said:

    I'm fairly sure, but I'll go and check now, just to make sure.


    Right, I got it from a piece about how racially and homophobically offensive Johnson has been throughout his career.  The specific article said

    "In a piece written in 2000 for The Guardian, Johnson said that a "bunch of black kids" made him “turn a hair”, and added:

    If that is racial prejudice, then I am guilty.

    Yes, Boris,  you are.

    In the same column, he railed against the Macpherson reforms, which were proposed in the wake of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

    These reforms have since become the standard for prosecutors. They allow victims and third parties to define if something is racist. Johnson wasn't keen, saying it was "Orwellian stuff" from the "PC brigade"."

    A bit from an article in The Guardian from 2000. Really?

    That's the definition the CPS use to flag a case as racially motivate, but they can't prosecute someone for it and flagging a case doesn't mean it definitely is a racial event and the other person was racist.


    "Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes."

    So someone can claim an event is racially motivated,  but that doesn't mean it was and I have to believe it.

  4. 2 hours ago, Samdwich said:

    I think the trouble here is that it's impossible to dig into the police officers' brains and ascertain their reasons for stopping him. Our biases are often subconscious and are difficult to acknowledge. This is an interesting paper on the topic of implicit and subconscious biases I recently read. 

    When you look at the broader statistics - eg. black people are something like 40 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people - the inference that Brutos's ethnicity had a part to play seems a sensible one.

    None of my white friends have ever been stopped and searched by police. Many of them frequently carry things they shouldn't - as do many "respectable" professionals in the City. If they were stopped, searched and charged for possession, there would be serious ramifications for their personal and professional lives. On the other hand, black friends and colleagues have told me that being stopped and searched by police is routine to them. If that's not a systemic issue then I don't know what is.


    Back to CHO:

    Glad that his legal troubles are behind him, and I'm glad that he kept a dignified silence until charges were dropped. Hope he gets his head down and performs now. Was looking off the pace before the break, but he was coming back from a pretty nasty injury so it's understandable. He's going to have some tough competition for his place in the team.

    We are all aware that black people get stopped more than white people, and using the stats would have been a sensible argument that I would have agreed with. Instead all that was provided was a couple headlines (which didn't show anything) and anecdotal evidence about being searched once when he was 15 years old. It's not even a horrible story. He just got searched once when he was 15. Hardly a big deal. They were awful examples to use to prove racism and I'm not going to be told that I have to accept a certain event was racism without evidence because the person feels it was racism, or because of the colour of my skin making my opinion not matter (which is an outrageous thing to say!). 

    There is a chance is was racial, and the police stop black people too often, but that doesn't prove that Bruto's case was racial, and I'm never going to jump to conclusions and say his case definitely was. People were jumping to conclusions over CHO arrest in here and I said everyone should wait and not jump to conclusions. I don't jump to conclusions with anything as I know better then to make my mind up without the full story. Maybe that comes from people jumping to conclusions with my situation.

    Now there is a problem a huge with the police stopping black people more than whites that needs to be dealt with, and there is systemic issue in the police. The evidence is clear on that and that needs to be dealt with.

    That's not a debate, but that also wasn't what was being debated. 

  5. 15 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

    Still cant believe we've managed to get Ziyech and Werner regardless of CL qualification

    Neither can I. It seemed certain that Werner was going to liverpool.  Massive for the club that we managed to get him!

  6. 1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

     I'm just going to repeat what I said as it still actually is an answer.

    If the police wrongfully arrested 100 people in a year and  99 of them are black whilst 1 is white. The fact that one white person is in there doesn't mean the police aren't racist. It also doesn't mean that all 99 wrongful arrests of black people are racially motivated.

    But it does indicate the police are probably racist and that the average black person is having a harder experience with the police than the average white person. 

    You've actually just proven my point. I don't think you have been reading what I've been saying either as you've backed up what I'm saying.

    I was very clearly told Bruto's case was racism and I had to believe it. That's what I take issue with. If you accept that not all wrongful arrests of black people aren't racially motivated, then you have to accept my view that Bruto's being searched doesn't have to be because he was black based on the information given.

    My whole point is you have to judge each case individually and not just assume that because a black person was searched it was a racist event like Valerie claimed. 

    So thank you for backing up what I've been saying the whole time.


    The football season is starting up again. Let's get back to football.

  7. 49 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

    It's nothing to do with whether you or I believe him or not, whether he himself believes it or not, or even whether it was a racially motivated stop and search or not.  The simple fact of this is that neither you nor I, as white people, have the moral authority to determine what does or does not constitute a racist act.

    I sort of agree that false accusations do very little to promote a sense of equality or justice,in the same way as false accusations of sexual assault don't serve the accuser well under normal circumstances, but trying to belittle the existence of racism in the police force and the wider community because you say something similar or worse happened to you is just bollocks. 

    Something similar happened to me.  I was out with three black mates some years ago.  Walking from a pub to a blues party we got pulled over by a police car.  The first thing they said to me was I ought to be careful who I mixed with and then told me to f**k off on my way.  The rest of the group were then pushed back against a fence and searched quite roughly.  They arrived at the party about half an hour later, not very happy about it.  Just after midnight the same police and four others came into the party, started shoving people around, saw me and told me to f**k off out of it again, and then started frisking everyone else.  Silly, really, as I was the one carrying the weed that night.  And that was in a sleepy little market town in Wiltshire.  Want to tell me that wasn't totally racially motivated?

    We're only "so much better than America when it comes to racism and how the police behave." because the majority of our police aren't armed.  When the armed police are out and about in say Tottenham, for example, don't be a black man in a taxi if you can help it.

    That's a silly thing to say. Of course we can determine what does or does not constitute a racist act. We all know the definition of racism and can all know what a racist act is.

    Assuming you've told the full story, of course that was a racist act. Why would I say otherwise? I've never said their aren't police who are racist. I don't believe in generalising large groups of people tho.

    Our police try to de-escalate while in America we don't. I'm not saying our police are perfect, I've spent 8 months in prison and slept on the streets  because of them and I suspect foul play, but it is nothing like American police. Racism isn't anywhere near as bad either. It's a different level over there.

  8. 19 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

    Yes we are. 

    But racism exists. 

    Just to shut this down. Please. 

    If the police wrongfully arrested 100 people in a yea and  99 of them are black whilst 1 is white. The fact that one white person is in there doesn't mean the police aren't racist. It also doesn't mean that all 99 wrongful arrests of black people are racially motivated.

    But it does indicate the police are probably racist and that the average black person is having a harder experience with the police than the average white person. You do understand that right? 

    That's the topic here. Your experience, whilst sad, is not relevant. 

    • Gallery
    • Woman
    • Londons
    • League
    • 14 Games
    • 20 Years
    • 70's
    • Abraham
    • Back Seat
    • Background
    • Gallery
    • Woman
    • Londons
    • League
    • 14 Games
    • 20 Years
    • 70's
    • Abraham
    • Back Seat
    • Background
    • Gallery
    • Woman


    Yes I understand, and haven't said anything otherwise, but that doesn't mean his case was because of racism. His experience isn't even sad as he was only searched, doesn't actually prove anything or add anything to the discussion.

    No one is saying racism doesn't exist (how many times do I have to say this?), but that doesn't automatically mean Burto's  case had anything to do with racism. You can't just decide every black man searched is because they are black. Burto's was silly to give that as an example of racism. 1, Being searched at 15 isn't anything major and happens all the time, 2 it doesn't prove, or even suggest racism.

    You seem to be trying to put words into my mouth and claim I'm saying things I'm not.

  9. Just now, RIP Mourinho said:

    I don't know where Brutos comes from but if its from the backwards country to our west then it probably was racism. USA is beyond saving. 

    I agree with you on America.  We're far from perfect in this country, but we're so much better than America when it comes to racism and how the police behave.

  10. 58 minutes ago, Vagabond said:

    I suspect Werner will be put in front of Abraham most of the time and Ziyech can play on both wings as well as attacking midfielder. CHO will get enough opportunities.

    It will be interesting to see. I suspect you're right, but Werner can also play off the left. I suspect CHO will start of the bech with all the options we have, but as you said, will get lots of chances through the season to make an impact.

  11. 44 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

    I wasn't going to get into this but having a white bloke telling a black bloke about what is and isn't racism doesn't sit well with me at all, and is patronising and condescending at the very, very best.

    Bruto's has no idea of the police intention that night. The police did something to him that has happened to me several times, but I'm being told I have to believe the police did it to him because he is black, despite there being nothing to suggest it, just because he thinks (doesn't actually know) that's why. That's ridiculous! I don't jump to conclusions without facts just because someone makes an allegation (which isn't actually based on anything other than what he thinks).

    It's a reasonable position to want some evidence that something happened because of racism instead of automatically believing it must be racism, and so accusing the people involved of being racist.

    The fact this position doesn't sit well with you says more about how you think than anything else. Do you believe everything that people say? Do you believe everything that people believe is true? Or do you look at the facts to decide? 


  12. 31 minutes ago, Andy North said:

    I don't know if he makes the team to be honest.

    He's been a silly boy and probably needs to take a back seat for a while. He knows he's let the club down and will probably need a few starts from the bench.


    If he's considered good enough start, I'm sure he will. I'm not saying he will start, but I would be surprised if what's happened will have any impact on the decision.

  13. 4 hours ago, Valerie said:

    Oh, I read your posts. And I read self pity if not white anger. And I see that you acknowledge the existence of racism (without condemning it btw), but only as a general concept. When it actually happens to individuals, you deny it's a racial incident.  You, as a white person, tell people of colour that their perception doesn't count, because someone didn't mean to be racist. 

    You're so laughable, it's pathetic. I'm done with you, don't expect any more replies crom me on your blinkered posts. That's what you want, isn't it, live in your own aggrieved little bubble.

    There's no anger from me. You're making things up again. You also clearly didn't read the posts.

    This is what I'm talking about people not being able to have a sensible discussion about racism. You're getting too emotional and can't debate anyone with a different opinion to yours without bringing my race into it (white anger 🤣) and being childish.

    I treat everyone the same no matter what the race. You're the one who changes his opinion based on what someone's race is. You're the one who says some races opinions matters less than others. People like you are part of the problem. Stop seeing people's race and judge each incident on it's own merit and each person the same, no matter what race they are. 

    I deny a incident is racist when you and Bruto's have no idea if it was a racist incident.  Something bad (not that it was even bad) happening to a black guy doesn't automatically make it racist. It's childish and an unintelligent way of thinking. Yes perception doesn't count. Just thinking something is racist doesn't mean it is. Intention and facts are what count, not how it is perceived. What if the police were just doing their jobs and following up on the information they had and there was no racist intent but Bruto's thought it was racism, would it still be a racist incident? Of course not.


    19 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    Again you try to reason racism away. The fact that your nasty experience happened to you doesn' t automatically preclude racism in Brutos' experience. You use false logic. He told us what the police said: he fit the description. He 's black. Were you arrested because of your skin colour? What are the chances of it happening to you again? I'd say fairly minimal. What are the chances of it happening again to Brutos? Fairly substantial, because there is a history of racial profiling by the police.

    And why are articles racist? Because millions of black people would flag it as racist. Something isn't not racist because a white bloke like you says it isn't. It's gow it's perceived in the context of so much more, that's what counts. Nothing childish about that.

    You're not reading the posts. It's the second time  you've done this. Please actually read the posts before replying.

    You would know the answer if you had bothered reading my post. It's happened several times to me and I was also told I fit the description. That's a common thing police say when investigating a crime. I've also wrongly been put in jail for a crime I didn't commit partly because of police mistakes, so it seems you're wrong that the chances of it happening to me again are minimal. I've had far more bad luck than Bruto's has with being treated badly by the police. 

    I never said that what happened to me precludes racism in Bruto's experience. Where are you getting that idea from? I am saying you can't just automatically assume that it was racism when exactly the same thing also happens to white men. Description doesn't just mean skin colour!  I never said it's impossible it happened because of race, but the fact it happened to a black man doesn't automatically mean it was racial. I'm not reasoning racism away. I just don't randomly accuse people of being racism without good reason.

    Being black or white doesn't make someones opinion more worthy. It's not how it's perceived that counts, it's the intention and the facts that count. Being white doesn't make my opinion any less. 


  15. 28 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    I disagree anybody has randomly accused of being racist, or that people have not discussed it in a sensible way. On the whole posts in this thread have been very sensible. And you cling to Brutos' story as example why not everything that happens to a person of colour is due to racism, on the sole argument that it has happened to you as well and much worse too. I'm sorry this has happened to Brutos, and I'm sorry it has happened to you. But telling your story is a classic diversion, it's 'what about-ism'. What happened to Brutos happens to many black men, it's practically par for the course. Because of race it's exactly why it happened to him, and to thousands of black men. It's not for nothing the expression "driving while black" has been coined. You say there needs to be a reason to accuse people of racism. There is. Their behaviour and their talk are systematically experienced as racist by people of colour. Not once, but again and again, their entire lives. And then they have to explain their feelings, because some people don't believe them. Racism brings nothing but misery.

    People in this thread where accusing that person of writing that article of being a racist and you just decided that the policemen who searched Brutos did it because of race.

    I certainly don't think you have discussed it in a sensible way. You've been very childish at times.


    (the bolded bit) You don't know that and you can't make that claim. You're just randomly deciding to believe it happened because of race and randomly accuse the policemen involved of being racists (something you just said no one has done). That's unacceptable. Has it occurred to you that police make mistakes or just follow up on information? Of that they were just doing their job?

    The same thing and worse happened to me several times and that's not racism. A lesser thing happens to Brutos and it is. If what happened to me had happened to Brutos, you both would claim that it was because black. There's no logic to what you're saying. Brutos didn't go through anything bad anyway. He was just searched, that's it. 


    It's very dumb to just assume things without knowing the facts just because it happens often elsewhere.

  16. 16 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    There you go about the evidence again.

    Can I try and explain how your comments rub me the wrong way?

    Racism has parallels with sexism: both are about the way a person or a group of persons are treated or thought of because of their bodies. I have not experienced racism, but I have experienced sexism. Suppose I perceive something (a remark or treatment) as sexist. Not all women would mind it as I do, but others do. And it's the same the other way around, what other women think is sexist, I wouldn't mind as much. But we'd all acknowledge that the act or remark is generally sexist. We don't deny it's sexist, or tell the other they're at fault for feeling it's sexist. The person at fault is the one who is responsible for the act or remark. And we certainly will not accept a man to tell us we're wrong to feel discriminated against. How can someone who isn't a woman presume to tell a woman something isn't sexist when she and other women clearly do feel it is? They don't have experienced this once, but again and again and again. Sexism influences education, health care, housing, jobs, day-to-day interaction in society, and the media. Mature women are called 'girls', mature men are not called 'boys'. In interviews women are asked how they combine their jobs and their families, men don't get asked that. There are comments about how a woman dresses, nothing about the appearance of a man.This is all pervasive, and it's so common, most people don't even notice, and when somebody does remark on it, it's waved away as overly sensitive, it's downplayed. Or denied, then followed by the complaint they're unfairly accused of being sexist because someone dares to point out something uncomfortable.

    Racism works in a similar way. And you want 'evidence' of racism. You think without such proof people are wrong to flag something (for instance media articles) as racist. Open your eyes for context, for history, listen to other people's awful experiences without yelling how one thing happened to you too so how can it be racist! 

    This is not a CSI episode where they look at tangible stuff under a microscope. As Brutos said, Ask, Listen, and Learn. 


    So you think it's acceptable to just randomly accuse someone of racism where there's nothing to suggest there was any racism? You can't just randomly decide people are racist.

    Can you see how that would rub me up the wrong way.

    Just because there is racism doesn't mean we have to accept every time someone calls racism and there's no proof at all.


    Let's go back to Brutos. He got searched as a kid, says it's racism and they did it because he's black. Why should I believe that to be the case when the same thing (and much worse)  has happened to me? It wouldn't make any sense to. Just because he assumed it's because he is black doesn't make it true.

    Just because there is racism in this country doesn't mean everything bad that happens to a black person is due to racism, or we have to believe every case, or accuse people in specific cases without good reason. 

    Again, I know there is racism, we don't need proof for that, but if you're going to accuse people of racism there better be a reason for it. People struggle to be able to talk about racism in a sensible way, as shown here.

  17. 1 hour ago, Brutos said:

    Yep we have been seraching for racism for 400 years, you know I was searching for racism when I was 15 coming from a friends house after a champions league match on a Wednesday eveing where I had a police car drive onto the pavement infornt of me and three officers came out and told me " There was a robbery in the area today and you fit the description of the accomplice" I got searched by all three.
    15 years old, been at college during the day came out home and went to my friends house watched football and going home to sleep.

    1 hour ago, Valerie said:

    So funny when some white dude tells you you're not a victim of racism, it's just a matter of political correctness gone mad, you know, and by the way, where is your sense of humour...


    Neither of you are actually reading what people are posting. Not one person has said there isn't racism, and  not one person has said black people have been searching for racism for 400 years. Please actually read and understand what's being said if you're going to reply.

    I'm a white guy I've had much worse than being searched done to me by the police. I've was stopped several times by police for matching the description when I was younger. I was also chucked in prison for a crime I didn't commit. It finally got thrown out of court. The police made several mistakes when recording evidence and didn't include evidence that supported my case. This only was found out the day of the trial. I lost my job and was made homeless because of it. Being searched isn't too bad in comparison. 

    So I'm not sure what your story of being searched actually proves. 

    Again, I repeat, I know racism happens.


    2 minutes ago, CFCholland said:



    I'm not going to have this discussion here. I just want to make clear that I don't deny that racism exists, and that I obviously condemn it.

    It's not that I don't understand the issue that is at hand here. But it isn't beneficial for anything to claim racism when it's just not there. You see people(and I'm not saying you in this case) are almost 'searching' for something to be racist, when sometimes (and hopefully more often than not) it just isn't there.


    This is exactly what I'm saying. Racism needs to be dealt with, but  It doesn't help at all for people to be looking for racism when it's not there, or at least there isn't any reasonable reason to think it's there

  19. 17 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    Yes, empathy is a questionable quality, and trying to walk a mile in someone's shoes is totally pointless, you're absolutely right  :face_palm:

    I didn't think people still think like this. Lord.....

    Bit of a random reply. It's nothing to do with empathy or walking in others shoes, it's to do with accusing a writer of racism without any evidence.

    It's out of order.

  20. 14 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    "Claiming racism where there isn't any proof of racism...".

    From your post I conclude you are not black, and probably white.; you seem to claim that because you - as a white person - don't perceive something as racist against people of colour, it therefore isn't racist. In other words: if people are offended, you're telling them it's nonsense and their feelings are their own fault. 

    What kind of proof do you require anyway? 

    Being offended doesn't mean people are right in feeling that way. There's nothing in the example (with the two headlines) to suggest it has anything to do with race. So yes, if you look at that and see racism then it is your own fault. Being offended doesn't mean anything. People get offended over silly things all the time. 

    I'm more interested in facts than peoples feelings. Facts are all that matters.

  21. 10 minutes ago, bluedave said:

    Stop doing it then.

    That's why I gave you another one.

    I'm not debating it. At no point have I been debating what the media is like.

    There wasn't any need to post another example as I was debating the media as a whole, just how silly the example you gave was. Giving more examples doesn't change how silly of an example it was.

    6 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

    Beckham was from a poor family and that was known but very soon after his breakthrough he became very popular and he's really well spoken, the problems he had was because of some red card he got while playing for England and I remember the media being all over him prior to his Real Madrid transfer because someone hit him in the face with a boot or something like that, he was a real celebrity I don't remember him being bothered by the media because of his paycheck at all.
    Giggs is mixed and he took his mothers last name but I don't remember the media doing anything towards him in that sense, he was really low key and he wasn't in the spotlight up until it became public that he had an affair with his brothers wife and all that ugly stuff, the thing I do remember is him talking about how they were paid very little during the 90's and how football wages and everything exploded later on but he wasn't really at the top when it came down to earnings from what I remember.

    I have seen people hating players just because of their foreign backgrounds so having that in mind I think that any mention of money that they have is just fuel for those haters...In Sweden many didn't fancy someone like Larsson that is mixed or Ibrahimovic that has a full foreign background and they are known to be as the best attackers that Sweden has ever had, particularly Ibrahimovic and that's despite for everything good that they have done they always had some haters.
    It reminds of an older rap song by Kanye West that says "And for that paper, look how low we a'stoop, even if you in a Benz you still a n**** in a coupe" - meaning even if you made it, many will still be racist towards you just because you look different.

    Beckham was getting criticised by the press not living the lifestyle of a footballer as he started dating a pop star six to eight months after making his debut. His lifestyle was questioned very early on in his career.  They were writing negative articles about him very early on.

    Giggs was very high profile when he broke through and there was a lot of talk in the papers about how much money he was earning. I actually think it was worse back then as the press and managers had the opinion that young players should wait until they earn big money.

    Anyway, let's not ruin this thread with non Hudson Odoi stuff. Anyone can PM if they want to continue discussing this.

  22. 3 minutes ago, bluedave said:

    Somebody said "What makes you think this would have been handled differently if he had a different skin tone?". I gave examples of how it might have actually been handled differently if he had a different skin tone, which you seemed to object to because of something to do with how famous they are. So I gave you another example featuring a more famous player (and I could have provided several more).

    Now you're saying "I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this." I'm just defending my original point, which is that certain aspects of the British media have a history of treating black players somewhat differently to white players. Now, where are you going with this?

     I have no interest in debating what the media is like. I was just pointing out that was a silly example and explained why. 


    43 minutes ago, Valerie said:

    Nothing like anecdotes, friends of friends and some downplaying as a basis for a sweeping opinion :rolleyes:

    Care to explain what sweeping opinion that is?

  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!