^I agree that not all threads are without a bit of bleed-over, and I have no problem with that. But, in this particular case, I don't see how discussing it is going to make it different: yes, Murray's going to get a hard time for speaking out on separation, or, no, he's not. It becomes a conversation about separation, then, and yes, should be left to Off Topic. There isn't really any fine-point to it, nor anything that has to do with his tennis.
The issue of Djokovic tax-sheltering in Monaco is different, if you really want to bring that back up. He flies the Serbian standard very high, and plays DC for Serbia quite proudly. His "Serbian" identification has quite a lot to do with who he is, according to him, and yet he has his residence elsewhere, for tax reasons. I never questioned whether he was truly a Serbian citizen, though, yes, I have asked about the hypocrisy of caring about your country so much, and tax-sheltering out of it. It's not political or off-topic to comment on Djokovic's playing choices v. his homestead ones, because he, himself, blurs the lines.
Murray is British. He lives in Britain, and pays his taxes there. (And THAT can't be easy. OK, he spends a lot of his time in FL, but I don't see that he's transferred his residence to the US.) He made a comment about the referendum on separation. As many have said, it was as much complaining about the negativing about the NO campaign, which was fairly universal.
I'm not trying to give Murray a pass and Djokovic a hard time, but one is about a specific political moment, and the other is about a life-choice that speaks to a broader ethical decision.
To your point about people discussing what Murray had to say, and how it might be greeted in London, I don't have a problem with it being discussed, per se, but my point is: we won't know until we get there. So I don't get why GSM wants to push the notion that it might be a problem. To me, that seems pot-stirring, until, and if it actually becomes an issue.
Jing jing $$$$
