greg_hill

I've just read their grumbling about being drawn away all the time. The 10:50am post actually lists all their cup games with home games in bold. Looking at it, you do have to feel about sorry for them.

Breaking the law and cheating are not the same. Cheating is a deliberate attempt to deceive, breaking the law can be accidental. Also, offside is not actually breaking the rules, because offside is not a rule that states you must or must not do something. It states that if the ball is played ....etc. then the other team gets a free kick. Yes, cheating matters. None of us would love football if it was ninety minutes of people throwing themselves on the ground and doing the best acting they could. We love football for the skill and the passion, which is the opposite.

You don't think effecting arguably the biggest change since Cromwell to the power of our monarch, our politcos, our borders and our system of law falls under 'constitution' then? Why do you think leaving the EU would be disastrous? We need to discuss this because it's yet another received wisdom from the pro EU groups that has never been substantiated. Does anyone see Norway and Switzerland sinking into oblivion? Did they struggle more or less than us in the recession? Have they been made the Pariahs of Europe? Has Lundekvan or Coretese been kicked out of the UK?

First of all I'd be interested to know what your source of information on the Lisbon Treaty, given that the documents itself is heterogenous and most MEPs have not read it. Are you by any chance relying on wikipedia? I find it a bit rich that you present yourself as having summarised such a beast in a couple of platitudes. Now, let's actually look at three pillars of sovereignty: The head of state. Our monarch is still head of our armed services and has executive refusal on any public bill. The Lisbon treaty pushes further towards an EU army and the EU take legislation away from our own electorate, thereby avoiding our own executive. We are signing away powers from our sovereign of centuries. The elected legislative. You say the EUP is "more democratic" but it is still denied legislative initiative. I think you would be very hard pressed to describe any system as "democratic" that does not include legislative initiative to the people whoa re actually elected by popular vote. The courts. The EU supreme court is now well established and although right now it only "advises" on law, none of of courts will refuse them and ultimately the EU Supreme Court will reign. Do you remember the Spanish trawler case about fifteen years ago? The Lords were defeated by the EU. I trust that is a pretty decent explanation of why we are signing away sovereignty. What worries me as well as how easily some people are swallowing EU nonsense is how little people appreciate what we are signing away. For all our faults, Britain has one of the best constitutions in the world. No other major country has gone for so long without coup, civil war or mutiny. We're taking a unique system that has evolved and been fought for for a long, long time, and signing it away without a fight. I just hope we wake up before our rights to withdrawal are signed away, too.

Several problems with that. Firstly, Labour promised a referendum then did not deliver. Secondly, the Lisbon Treaty is, in effect, a total overhaul of our constitution and it also effectively transfers sovereignty away from our monarch who is still officially head of the armed forces, so by your own reckoning it's vitally important. Third, it's totally illogical to say it's impossible to decide politicians' choices are better or worse than a referendum. What if tomorrow they made a law saying everyone must support Portsmouth FC? Is it impossible for me or you to decide that's silly just because we are not politicians? Also, your opening paragraph is only one school of thought. Another argues for greater involvement of the electorate. Switzerland for example hold a great number of referenda. They also happen to be outside the EU. You also have the catch 22 situation: do you believe we can elect people and thereby give them the right to transfer power to people whom we didn't elect? You did not cover that at all. It also needs to be pointed out that there is a large amount of deception going on within the EU and its development, which is why they want to move ahead ASAP with referenda. Essentially, unless you believe a constitution that has been fought and worked for over centuries should be overhauled within a few years behind closed doors to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, then you cannot make a case for allowing them to go ahead with a vote. Could you explain what it is about the EU that makes you feel closer to your continental brothers? Do you feel closer to Saga and Bart than Claus and Cortese because the former two belong to a country that has agreed to sign a treaty nobody has read, handing over sovereignty to an elite few in the name of greater profits? What educational and cultural benefit has this given you? Are the Norwegians and Swiss little islanders, sinking into economic ruin and ignorance? If I were to explain in full why this is total and utter nonsense it would take a flipping book. Indeed, it has shocked me a little to see how easily some people are taken in either by basic propaganda or just received wisdom.

Excuse me, did you read my previous post? Did you see any of your stereotyped statements in there? I've given reasons why we should at least take a vote on it, others have responded with 'Little Englander' type insults whilst, ironically, failing to offer a single sensible argument for staying in or even giving a sensible opinion.

We've just had a thread on this. Yes of course we should have a referendum, since it involves an almost complete overhaul of our constitution. Strange rulings forced upon us - we now abide by a constitution, sorry I mean "treaty" that has not been fully read by the people who signed it and involves laws being passed by politicians we have never heard of from countries like Greece and Portugal. EU accountants have been rejected by auditors for many years in a row. The elected chamber has no legislative initiative. Most countries have been refused a referendum. Most people don't understand how the EU works. MEPs have been filmed signing in and sodding off to claim expenses en-masse. We now spend billions on EU funds that go to other countries when our own health service is in such a mess. The threat that we'd be ruined without the EU did not help us or any other nation during the economic collapse. There was no coherent or organised plan whatsoever. Every president and PM scrambled to save their own. When the Irish voted 'no' the EU simply ignored it, then used tax payers money to bankroll a second referendum. The council of ministers has a whole bunch of nasty characters. The transport minister was convicted of embezzlement. Estonian Siim Kallos was convicted for giving false information and is now in charge of fighting fraud in the EU! The list goes on. Think about it: we only just managed to expose our own MPs committing a pretty basic act of fraud thanks to a well developed constitution that allowed the press and the police to bring about the exposure, even when the MPs tried hard to block it. Just think what they'll be doing up in the EU, safe in the knowledge that most people don't have a clue how it works, let alone how to catch them out. Why else would they push ahead so fast without letting the people have a say? The Lisbon treaty transfers our sovereignty, and that is a constitution, regardless of whatever names it's given. And don't believe David Cameron, he never intended to give us a say and he knows full well his pledge of a referendum on further changes is a total lie because the treaty already has the right to amendments written into it. In other words, it's self amending. Cameron is actively deceiving people in the arrogant belief that he's already won the next election. The only thing any small 'c' conservatives can do now is to vote anyone but Conservative. Vote Popular Alliance, UKIP, vote Green, vote Monster Raving Loony. Vote anyone but Tory. If that bunch of fraudsters lose one more election, they'll be finished and we can put real conservatives in their place.

I totally disagree. There are plenty of right wing parties with more sensible and moral policies than the BNP. Popular Alliance (my party) , English Democrats, UKIP, UK First, the list goes on. In fact, it could be said there are too many.

Actually she's half Chinese and if we lived in the UK (we don't) then it would be by choice or at least family choice, since ethnic Chinese people do not originate from the British Isles. The point I was making is that I doubt the crime rate amongst BNPers is a lot higher than any other random group. You could include, teachers, Man Utd Fans or any other group that involves choice in that analyses. It's interesting that Verbal did not actually respond to my argument. I made the point about ratios, but he totally ignored that and simply pasted some list he found on the internet, which is a total non-argument when you think about it. Anyway I hope people will understand if I discontinue the BNP arguments now. I don't wish to appear to defend them anymore.

Actually the last sentence applies to yourself. With regards to your neighbour, that is a complete non issue since you are basing it on assumption. As a civilised country, we do not convict people based on prejudice. Your list was eighteen people, and you tracked it down from a list compiled by people witha political agenda, in other words it is their best effort. Now the BNP leaked list was some fifteen thousand people, right? Let's take a frugal estimate that half of those people joined the BNP. Therefore the people (by your own admission, easy to track down) known to be very nasty are eighteen. Eighteen from seven thousand five hundred gives us 0.24%. I dare say that is close to the typical rate for crime amongst Chinese communities, Sikh Communities, taxi drivers, people who post on here or any other group you can care to imagine. Do you think members of Labour or Lib Dem or Tory or Greenpeace have not committed crimes in the same time frame (some of those convictions go back fifteen years)? I think you have really proven my point, even articulate people like you can become unreasonable and fail to analyse things critically when emotions are high. To add, I don't support the BNP because Griffin has made some very nasty comments about the Holocaust, and to judge people purely by their ethnicity is stupid. Being British isn't just about race. I'm sure we all know people of non-white ethnic groups who are afr more English or British than, say, Margaret Hodge.

You're right of course, but this is another convenient twist for people who wish to defend Islam from a dishonest perspective. They do indeed use the argument that The Koran must be read in Paleo Arabic. This presents two main problems: first, that form of Arabic is no more contemporary than Shakespearean English. Secondly, so many Muslims now are not Arabic speakers, yet if we were to suggest they were not true Muslims because they haven't 'read' The Koran, we'd be demonised. I said I would not discuss the BNP any more for fear of appearing to favour them but I must say this: their membership list apparently contained some 15,000 names. Now, given that the media love nothing more than a story of violence or wrongdoing by celebrities or politicians or especially BNP "supporters" I would think it would be easy to track down any scandals or episodes of violence involving them. Yet I'll bet that the ratio of BNP supporters found to commit some terrible act is no higher than any other group in society, including, say Chinese people (my wife is half Chinese) . Yet if we seized on a stabbing committed by a Chinese person and said: "Look, another Chinese person acting like a thug!" we'd quite rightly be accused of bigoted, narrow minded discrimination. For some reason, it's OK to take a minority of BNP people and tarnish the rest of them as the same, but it's not OK to do that for gender types, racial types or religious types.

@Verbal Are you a Muslim, Verbal? If not, you put yourself in a paradox because you state that the Koran is unintelligible then go on to tell me what it does or doesn't say. If you are a Muslim, you are spiritually trapped into denying the truth, if you're not, your argument is a non-sequitar. I have read The Koran in its entirety once and also parts of some Sirahs, I am not an expert and I can't quote you verses from memorey but I have read and understood it and have notes on it. Feel free to ask sensible questions about that. The idea that it is unintelligible, too spiritual, layden with hidden meaning, etc. is nonsense propagated by people who do not want to subject it to criticism because they fear doing so. You say only Muslims can understand it, how so? If I convert to Islam, do I gain some magical insight as I read the book? I would argue I can understand it better than most because I approached it with an open mind, not bound by faith. It does not tell people to spread 'Sharia Law' but it does tell them to spread the word of Muhammed, which we now recognise as Islam, which, in turn, is now Sharia Law. Verses 9:5 and 9:123 are the first two examples I can find. Regarding Indonesia, it is more open and tolerant than most Islamic countries, that is true. The law is not directly Sharia, it's true. However the fundamental laws and values spring from Sharia and Indonesia has been heading back towards fundamentalist Islamic law for some time. A poll of 8,000 randomly selected Indonesians found forty percent favoured chopping the hand off of a thief. If you don't mind, I'd rather not get more in depth on the BNP debate because I may be perceived as defending them. I will then be dragged to Salem and dunked until I drown. If anyone cares, I support a small party called Popular Alliance that welcomes members of any ethnic type or nationality who support traditional, Peter Hitchens and Daily Mail type values :-) Bear in mind I've only got three posts per day (I can't sign up from here in Asia) so my replies may be a little delayed.

Understood, but there are several important differences. 1) The House of Lords is weak. The elected chamber can approve any bill and force through any legislation. The HOL can only delay legislation and on taxation issues, it can't do anything. The EUP's un(directly)elected chamber is its strongest, and its elected chamber is weakest. They have no legislative initiative. 2) The Lords are an upper house with historical roots. They represent the old gentry of the nation they serve and have a clear role. 3) The Lords provide balance to our constitution. If both chambers were elected, we'd elect the same idiots to both houses and Labour would control the HOL. ID cards would be in place by now. In short, our system including our unelected Lords has come about by evolution. It gives most power to the elected and just enough to the Lords to stop the lower house running riot. By contrast, the EU is purposely designed to give the most power and secrecy to the Council and gives the lower house as little power as possible but just enough to pretend it's democratic. If someone had said to us: "Right, we'll hand over our sovereignty to Europe and a bunch of politicians from other countries you've never heard of. Sorry, you won't be able to vote for them and the people you vote for will have no real power and the whole system will never be explained. No sorry, you can't vote in or out for this" we would never have gone for it. The politicos know this, so they've done things bit by bit and under secrecy. All the while they feed us nonsense about economic disaster and ostracisation if we don't play along. I don't buy it.

Sitting next to Nick Griffin on the show was Jack Straw. That would be Jack Straw from Labour, the party which actively pursued, created faked documents for, told lies in support of and signed off billions of pounds for a war in Iraq. A war that killed thousand of innocents including women and children, created misery nd pain, racial hatred, opportunities for western countries to commit economic rape, and destroyed liberty for thousands of Muslims. When one good man tried to tell the truth about it, they pressured him so much it drove him to suicide. Yet here we are demonising the bloke sat next to him. I have an Asian wife and mixed race kids, I don't support the BNP and I am well aware of the truths and lies about them, but I find it sad that we get things out of proportion simply by using tags such as 'racist' and 'fascist' (the latter is a term rarely understood or studied by those who use it) to demonise people. The show itself was a farce. The BBC obviously felt intimidated by the pressure groups who take it upon themselves to decide what the rest of us are allowed to see (all in the name of 'anti'-fascism, of course) but could not lose face by dropping Griffin altogether. So, they allowed the show to become a circus. At one point they asked Griffin three questions in a row then when he tried to answer one, Dimbley spoke over him and asked for the next question! What kind of 'Question Time' is that?! Now onto Islam. Someone on here has written a piece basically equating Wahbisim with the 'down' side of Islam nd implying the rest is better. Well I've actually taken the time to read The Koran (so many apologists have not, they prefer to take a moral high ground rather than do the actual hard work) and I can't agree. To be sure, most Muslims are good people. I work with Muslims and have Muslims friends. However, the religion per se is not good. Sharia Law is not good. The Koran has a whole lot of verses that should be massive cause for concern. These include anti-semitism, violence against those who leave Islam ,strong chavanisma nd numerous violent verses. Apologists will often point out that The Bible has similar problems. The reply is twofold: first, The Bible has a lot less, second, we live in a relatively secular west. We may derive our laws from Christianity but we have adapted and progressed them. Islamic societies treat the Koran as their constitution, it is, literally, the word of law. We should engage in a very careful discussion with Islamic groups in the west to ensure that Sharia Law is rejected and nobody seeks to impose out in the west. The Koran does tell its followers to spread Sharia Law.

Hi Mustapha, This is one of those topics that seems so simple in my mind, but so hard to put into words, so bear with me :-) No I don't think science has peaked and I thought I was clear about that. However, I believe the fundamental mistake we humans make is to attribute anything we don't understand to our own supernatural fantasies, which in fact is the total opposite of applying science. We used to believe that the weather showed the temper of the gods until we came to study the atmosphere. We used to believe that mental illnesses were some form of demonic possession until we came to understand psychology. Yet, still we continue to ignore the law of parsimony for things we don't fully "get". If I see a strange figure walking across a graveyard at night, I'm tempted to think it could be a spirit. Of course, it's far more likely to be a trick of the light, a hallucination due to illness or medication on my part, or even some manifestation we don't yet understand. None of these answers can point towards the existence of an afterlife or reincarnation, yet that would be the first conclusion of so many people. It's a logical fallacy: to equate the unexplainable with the failure of science and proof of pre-conceived supernatural beliefs. Why do we think like this? Like I said, the human mind is not designed to comprehend the idea of something coming from nothing (The Universe) and is terrified of death because like all species we seek to preserve and procreate. Because of this nature, we seem to dream up ideas of religion and the supernatural and attempt to apply them in situations that otherwise mystify or terrify us, when in fact science would be a far better tool to help us understand. This is a good point and it highlights another factor we overlook: our own psychology. Unless ghosts have some form of criteria for haunting that states a place must look spooky, then there is no logical reason for the Abbey to have more ghosts than any other historical building, so why is there such an excess? When I studied Netley Abbey I went to the historical section of the library and read several books from various time periods. Each book seemed to tell a completely different spooky tale about the Abbey. In my opinion it's easy to understand why: because the Abbey **looks** scary, each generation has made up various scary tales and passed them on to their friends. Moreover, the scarier a building looks, the more likely we are to attribute any strange event there as something supernatural. As an interesting aside though, there was one book which quoted a bizarre hymn or chant by the monks of the Abbey which put a curse on some group or something which I forget. If there are any local historians reading, I'd appreciate a reminder.

Why do so many people buy into the myth that we'll be thrown into some kind of economic hell if we leave the EU? Are Switzerland and Norway going down the pan? Did our EU membership help us in this recession? Did the EU have any kind of coherent strategy for dealing with it whatsoever? No, each PM ran home and took acre of their own. The EU is totally corrupt and undemocratic. There is only one directly elected chamber and they have **no** legislative initiative. The EU accounts have been refused a sign off by auditors for seven years in a row. MEPs are known to SISO (sign in and sod off) to claim their daily expenses. Yes I know we've had similar problems at home but two wrongs don't make a right. They frequently vote for less and less transparency and the 'Lisbon Treaty' is simply a constitution under a new name. Hardly any MEPs have read it in full. Why would we want to sign away laws and protections that we have built up over hundred s of years for laws and courts chosen by unelected bureaucrats? Why would we want MPs from Greece and soon Turkey to tell us what we can and can't eat in a Southampton restaurant? Would we feel it is right to tell them what the speed limit is in their country?It's a total sham and the only response federalists have is the "Little Englander" insult, which is no different to calling a Greenpeace voter a 'hippy' or a Labour voter a 'Communist'. Someone asked what would happen to the rules on signing foreign players if we left. The answer is - anything the government wish. There where plenty of foreign players in the Saints side before the EU took its current form, you know. We could either make bilateral work permit agreements with other nations or simply allow players to enter the country on a merit basis as we now do with non EU nationals. In short, the rules would be decide by the UK, not Brussels.

OUT

I belong to a group that investigates paranormal incidents. I have spent nights in the now disused Oxford prison (as an investigator, ta very much), Belgrave Hall in Leicester, Netley Abbey (I did a thesis on that) and I also investigated a report of a family that had a very strange manifestation on an old video. Some of these things made me afraid but none of them provided any conclusive proof. I've come to the conclusion that belief in ghosts is as illogical and as supported by evidence as belief in Santa. Likewise, belief in an afterlife and any form of god is our attempt to rationalise the unrationalisable (is that a word?). The human mind is not designed to handle the concept of something coming from nothing, or something becoming nothing. We attempt to deal with this through religion and paranormal beliefs. That is not to say that we understand everything, of course we don't, but that does not justify or rationalise belief in ridiculous things. As one person said - it's very likely aliens exist, but a lot less likely they have made contact with us.

It seems to be a consensus then that we don't want the Skates to disappear because then we can't laugh at them, but we do want them to suffer. I'll go with the flow on that one.

But because I didn't know the woman in Ecuador doesn't mean that if the topic of her being stabbed was raised I would make a point of telling everyone I didn't give a toss, I'd sooner keep my mouth shut.

Excuse me Benji, some things are even more important than football and when an innocent woman has been stabbed, I do feel pity. I would seriously worry about the mental state of anyone who didn't and I'm surprised you take such a callous tone.

Torquay fans seem happy on the whole: http://torquayunited.talkboards.net/index.php?action=t&t=1201784661

Excuse me but this is a fans forum. Please could you take your calm, rational and considered opinions elsewhere? :-)

I think Thomas is at least a useful squad player but his salary may be causing tension in the ranks. Now speaking of transfers, guys, I watch a lot of football out here in Thailand and Arsenal are after two players at my local club. If I wanted to recommend a player to Saints, whom should I contact and how? I'm not trying to be an agent or any nonsense like that, I just want to know how to go about notifying the club if I think I see a gem to be snapped up.

I do feel a little concerned but I imagine there are several candidates that 'borough would be after and I doubt Pards is one of them. Still, in one sense it's good that we are a little concerned about it - after all, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the Dutch duo were still here would we? :-)