It can do. Palace fans protested loudly when we were in administration and it is thought to have helped 2010 get a deal with the bank over Selhurst Park. (i seem to remember Parish saying it helped).

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.

I'm not sure what happened at Palace is a good comparison for this.

Sure, it can work for individual companies....the SJWs have showed that by complaining in large numbers to companies and getting people sacked and policies changed.....leading me to the conclusion that nine out of ten activists are arseholes.

But it isn't going to change income inequality.....there isn't one company deciding on income.....and while I agree with the argument that income inequality is too high......I don't agree with the argument that it can be changed easily.

Here's a video on it.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Feb 2018 3.35pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I am a fan of a "virtue signalling tax". The great and the good can sign up for this which then entitles them to lecture the rest of us on whatever bandwagon they are jumping on that week. If they choose not to pay more they can still lecture us but I think the public will reserve the right to ignore them.

I note that last week Emma Watson gave £1mm to a charity supporting victims of sexual harassment fair play to her I will listen when she speaks.

I wont be holding my breath for Lilly Allen's donation.

One more point

I don't agree at all - if people only championed causes which affected them, directly or indirectly, society would be a lot worst off.

How does it muddy the water? Do you have any examples of this?

Wealth inequality is an inevitable part of society, but the extent of it is very much in 'our' control - I don't think anyone could argue that the current levels of inequality are reasonable.

The point on Venezuela is just throwaway hyperbole.

It isn't a charity, it's a fund managed by a charity. Which sounds like a backdoor way to avoid having to set up a registered charity, and they'll presumably be abusing the tax relief status of the charity.

It's apparently for Justice and Equality (they seem to have trouble spelling Women, which is who it is actually for)

Optimistic as ever

Totally with you.

I have no criticisms of people who back their principles. I may disagree with them but I respect them more.

While I disagree with a lot within the meetoo movement I applaud Watson's donation.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)