@edwinhayward@LukeTryl I think the leave side would be perfectly happy to frame FoM exactly how they want (remember 2016?) and that this could prove a major drain on support.
When we ask about acceptable terms for rejoining the EU - we showed half the sample 'restoring free movement' and half 'removing limits on immigration between EU and UK' and sentiment flips 51%-23% think FoM acceptable but removing limits is 31%-45% opposed.
@tomrenniesoccer tbf when he came into the team in Feb he was part of our revival then I think, he can play with both feet which Areola can't. But he can't save or command his area which is a pretty major limitation for a goalkeeper.
I'm now £150 up from making small bets West Ham will lose. The bookies haven't figured out how shit we are yet, I got 4/1 on Blackburn to win at home against us today. Free money.
@HansGutbrod Hard to see how a 'graded' approach would work, if by graded you mean banning some areas of legal research because some people find them unpleasant/offensive. That is basically the key point of AF, allowing people to research in such areas.
I don't agree with Cofnas or Malm but I do support Academic Freedom. It's depressing how many academics either don't understand viewpoint neutrality, or do but are too frightened to support it in practice.
@johnarmstrong5 To my understanding no specific reason has been given for why Malm was denied entry. He has said he was not a member, had never publicly endorsed the group and had not funded it.