Again.
He was desperate for us to not use the name that was becoming common use within the community, because of its slave trade links and the name of Bramley Moore. Calling it BMD likely shook him to the very core. He couldn't comprehend how people weren't so shocked by historical treatment of the enslaved that they could even utter the name of the location of the new stadium.
Now though, he feels it acceptable to completely cheapen their plight by suggesting similarities in the position of people who were oppressed for generations, and Evertonians naming a stadium by its actual name.
If these two things had happened as separate entities, an argument made by two different people then maybe you could put it down as nuance. But, for somebody to be so staunch on one side of the argument, to then so dramatically cheapen it, I can only think that it is a play for attention. He couldn't give a shiny one about BMD, nor Hill Dickinson, nor the historical treatment of the enslaved, he just wants you to hear what he has to say, regardless of actual value to the discourse.
This will be my first, and likely only ignore. I've had enough.