CHAPEL END CHARLIE

So I gather that some on here feel that Khalid Masood's murderous rampage in Westminster is the result of his take on the Muslim religion and not this particular individual's history of personality disorder. The fact that his ex-wife has chosen to describe him as a "violent controlling psychopath" must be tangential to the question of religious doctrine then. His long and appalling criminal record, coupled with seemingly reliable reports that he once held a knife to a friend's(!) throat uttering "I want some f**king blood", are also matters that need not long concern us presumably. Perhaps Thomas Hamilton and Robert Ryan were also secret religious fanatics intent on overthrowing western society and not the mad/bad men they appeared to be ... It seems me that this is far too simplistic and that religion is often employed as an EXCUSE for a individual's violent behaviour that in reality springs primarily from deep-seated psychological problems and social alienation those concerned are quite incapable of addressing. For that matter, 20th Century history teaches us that godless ideologies are equally prone to attract individuals of this psychotic type - I take it some of you lot did actually go to school didn't you? How on earth can you even hope to comprehend the problem of modern terrorism without putting that issue into its proper historical context and accepting that we in the west are at least partially responsible for the state of civil war much of the Islamic world is now immersed in? Violence breeds violence. Obviously many of the fanatics who commit these horrendous terrorist crimes justify their behaviour with the argument that they are soldiers fighting in some "holy war". Where in practical terms does that banal realisation get us in modern Britain I wonder? For example, would condemning and suppressing the Catholic faith during the hight of the IRA's 'long war' during the 1970s and 80's have made the terrorist situation here better or worse? It seems to me that your average British Muslim in 2017 is no more responsible for the Westminster outrage than peaceful and law-abiding British Catholics living in Aldershot were responsible for the 1972 IRA bombing there. There is crime and there is punishment - the latter the responsibility of the forces of law and order. I refuse to condemn the faith of millions because of the actions of the extremists. Indeed, this blatant "them and us" view of modern society so often displayed on here is far more dangerous to us all I think than terrorism ever could be.

Ten seconds research on Google will show you that many on the left are equally convinced that the BBC is biased against them too - indeed variations on this hackneyed story are as old as the hills. A number of MP's signing some letter is proof only of what they happen to think on the day and not emperical evidence of anything. In my experience, and for all its faults, the BBC is nevertheless still one of the least partisan broadcasting organisations in the world. If some on here find themselves becoming upset with the manner of the Corporation's reportage then this is probably because the truth has a habit of hurting methinks. It is not the role of the BBC to please politicians and if those who are peddling especially weak arguments come a cropper every now and then this is a good thing for the health of our democracy. It seems to me that the real problem with good old "aunty" is that she is often TOO balanced in her reporting.

I for one can distinctly recall the BBC's Andrew Neil bending over backwards to give 'Remain' supporters a easy time during the referendum campaign - the pinko bar-steward that he is. So for once we are definitely on to something here

While Mark Carney is (as usual) perfectly correct when he warns against reading too much into any single month's numbers, today's unexpected inflation spike to 2.3% may nevertheless indicate that a trend is becoming established now of increasing price inflation coupled with falling wage growth - the latter number a (annualised) 2.6% according to the ONS. Should this trend continue just a little longer (and there seems little reason to doubt this) then inflation will soon overtake wage growth. The inevitable outcome of that unwelcome development is that our people can expect to become poorer over time - in real terms. A further knock-on effect may well be a negative impact on our hitherto unexpectedly resilient level of GDP growth. Not a pretty picture. There is no doubt at all that much of the increase in inflation can be laid at the door of Brexit and the resultant currency devaluation that immediately followed the referendum. So two years before we have even left the EU, Brexit already looks set to make our people poorer than they might otherwise have been. If we also crash out of the Single Market in 2019 and are reduced to "WTO rules" trading with our primary export market - a very real possibility given the governments hard line approach to the problem - then I suspect the UK economy risks entering into "you ain't seen nothing yet" territory.

But Royal Ascent was a mere formality after the Bill in question passed though Parliament. For that matter, there was never any real question that this enabling measure would eventually succeed anyway given the reality of the political situation. So as historic events go today will one suspects hardly endure long in the memory of the British people. I must say I would have expected that a constitutional expert of your standing would have a better understanding here. My tactical tip of the day to you would be that "Laid Back Les" would come across rather more persuasively on here if he could avoid overstating his case - such as it is. Furthermore, replying to me this often is hardly likely to improve the plausibility of your new model relaxed personality. Ironically, in order to appear to be relaxed you really must try harder than this old boy. But keep at it by all means because I must admit you are atypically entertaining today.

The forum may note that, in a wild change of direction, our Les is currently attempting to portray himself as a sage (if slightly world wary) commentator on events - a calm and reasonable man who is at peace with himself during his declining years. This gloriously unlikely new persona might even come across as nearly convincing I suppose - were it not for the fact that this sudden volte-face has only emerged today after 18 months of unceasing obsession, aggression and naked denial. Looking back at the 27,847 posts he has managed to amass of this subject I ask myself what does this huge pile of europhobic verbiage all amount to ultimately? To resort to the (bad) habit of answering my own question, I'm thinking that Shakespeare must have somehow foreseen the emergence of the 'Sez Les Show' all those centuries ago when he wrote that: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". So I await with much anticipation which of his many personalities he will decide to adopt in his next communication.

Wot no "shrill" today Les? How disappointing ... I suppose it was asking quite a lot to expect you to try and leave the Sez Les Show alone for a week. But I would have thought that a hour or two should have been achievable - even for an obsessed loon of your reputation. As for the weather this morning, even as I pen this little note I'm outdoors basking in the eternal sunshine, and sense of mild satisfaction, I often get from being proven a good judge of character when it come to you.

First off. let me say how overjoyed I am that "shrill" has at long last made its welcome return to your somewhat limited vocabulary - if only you could have avoided the obvious error of over-employing the noun "arrogance" for the umpteenth time too then your stuff might even make less tedious reading one day. So some signs of progress here then. But as for the rest, I'm struggling to find ANYTHING in the above that you haven't opined on here a hundred (or do I mean a thousand) times before. You seem utterly incapable of comprehending that mere repartition of a weak argument doesn't tend to make it any more convincing. Worse than that, as you are obviously unable to add anything new to this debate, and therefore resort to repeating yourself, this tends to leave me with little real choice but to follow your example and reply with arguments that have also been well aired. In that sense you are dragging me down with you. I already know that you feel the potential breaking of our old nation is "a price worth paying" because you told me that bilge a year ago. You also told me at the same time that you were "not bothered" about the prospect anyway.Those methinks are quite bizarre attitudes when expressed by someone who also claims to be a patriot concerned with the sovereignty of his nation's law and ancient institutions - but clearly your (highly peculiar) sense of patriotism doesn't seem to stretch far beyond the bounds of Little England. All in all Les, you really are not much of a 'one nation' Tory - to put it mildly. I must also say that for a man so lacking in humour it is almost comical that you choose to criticise others for resorting to insults, when the record indisputably shows that you yourself do little else on here now. Again, your characteristic lack of any real degree of self-awareness constantly leads you into this type of unconscious hypocrisy. It is equally absurd of course to lecture others that they should wait and see what happens before expressing any opinion on this subject when you freely 'rush to judgement' on here in regard to our Brexit future on a almost daily basis! Yet more hypocrisy from a renowned specialist in the field. But if you really want to convince anyone reading this that you are not the obsessed and narrow-minded europhobe you come across as, then there is a easy way to prove it - i.e. leave this thread for a week or two if you can. Needless to say, I really don't believe that you are capable of that.

Another tory budget, another omnishambles. This government is extremely fortunate that the Labour Party has ensured that they face no effective opposition in parliament any longer because otherwise they'd be in deep trouble.

Anyone who didn't know you by now may have assumed that as your side prevailed in last year's referendum, and furthermore we now have a Tory Prime Minister in office who seems hell-bent on achieving the most extreme (and hence damaging of course) form of Brexit possible, this might all have mellowed your personality a little. After all, you and your type are now living the Little Englander dream are you not? But no, instead of enjoying your euro-sceptic triumph you appear to be becoming ever more bitter and obsessive on the subject, endlessly picking pointless fights with anyone foolish enough listen to you. I genuinely believe that - in your mind - every opinion that you see on this tread that does not happen to conform with your own particular brand of extremist viewpoint is assumed to be some kind of personal affront intended for your eyes only - as if you were the centre of the known universe. Well *Newsflash* time Les - when people express their grnuine fears for the economic and constitutional future of their nation you and your dysfunctional ego problems are not necessarily the first thing on their minds - yes a shocking thing to read I know! This issue confronting the British people is something that is far bigger than the Sez Les Show. As for the Scottish question, as well as telling me you were not bothered about that little poser I can also recall you telling me not so long ago that the dismantling of the United Kingdom was (and I will quote you here) "a price worth paying" anyway - as long as you got your way and we departed the European Union. Well then, it seems to me that instead of adopting your oh so familiar 'deny everything' tactic in regard to any possible negative consequence of Brexit you would do better to have the courage of your own convictions and accept that what may well be about to happen to the UK is just a inevitable consequence of the outcome you sought. Your mother did teach you that actions have consequences didn't she?

Well naturally I disagree with all of the above garbage. Furthermore, there really is no great need for anyone on here to "infer" that you are a bit thick Les when you strive so earnestly to prove the point on a daily basis. But I do actually welcome your sudden conversion into contributor who now at least pretends to give a hoot about the fate of this old nation - for who amongst us could possibly forget your infamous "not bothered" reaction to that grim prospect. You can rest assured that I certainly won't. But do comfort yourself with the thought that God loves a singer who repents of his ways.

Again,if the democratically elected (and SNP dominated) Scottish Parliament elects to hold another referendum then I see no way that could realistically be denied. This Union of ours can surely only endure while the peoples of these islands freely agree to live together in the same nation state. Resorting to constitutional law, or even force ultimately, plays right into the hands of all those who seek to break this nation apart. At least that is my take on the situation.

In reality if the Scottish Parliament votes to hold a second Independence Referendum then there is very little Westminster can do to prevent that, that is prevent that without appearing to be a authoritarian 'foreign' power imposing itself on a proud nation - whatever the legal technicalities of the situation may be. Indeed, those on here who still lay claim to maintain a functioning intellect really should be able to comprehend I would have thought that the one thing Westminster can do that would GUARANTEE the eventual break-up of our ancient nation would be to deny the Scottish people a second vote on the issue if they want one - a priceless gift to the SNP. Even if the PM manages to avoid that obvious trap the prospects of the UK surviving the coming storm, in its current form, still look not better than 50/50 at this time. Now some (loons) on here seem to think that the ruin of our nation would be a good thing for some reason - yet another opinion in Brexit Britain that I would heartily disagree with.

If Serbia - a nation let's member that was at war with its neighbours not so very long ago - can be allowed to formally start the EU accession process then surely Scotland's place cannot be denied indefinitely. That is not to say that Scottish EU accession would be immediate of course.

Do you really believe this? It seems to me overwhelmingly likely that that a independent Scotland would eventually gain EU membership in the fullness of time - regardless of the Basque issue.

Well yes, even in these 'strange days' I don't really see how any Conservative and Unionist Party leader could possibly survive presiding over the destruction of the United Kingdom as we know it. But the fate of any one politician's career, or even their Party, is as nothing compared to the fate of our nation. As for the possibility of the breaking of the nation eventuality derailing the Brexit process itself - well all I can say is that nobody really knows do they?

Very much as predicted it looks like Brexit will indeed trigger a second Scottish Independence Referendum - as soon as next year possibly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/nicola-sturgeon-could-derail-brexit-scottish-referendum-demand/ It is as difficult to predict the outcome of this coming referendum as it was the last I think. However, if the past is any guide then support for the SNP cause rose substantially during the course of the campaign, from what was at the time a relatively low base. Today I understand that Scottish public opinion is apparently (more or less) evenly split on the issue - which should be quite enough to worry anybody who genuinely cares about the fate of our old and remarkable nation I would have thought.

My dear Les "he" is a she actually - welcome to the 21st century old boy.

Well as it happens one of my relations is a Barrister, but please remind me when and where I have ever claimed to process some level of legal expertise?

In today's news we learn that Brexit Secretary David Davis is to go back to the House of Commons and ask MPs to reject the recent decision in the House of Lords to amend the enabling bill that is currently going through Parliament. Apparently guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living here in law, and ensuring that our Parliament gets a meaningful vote on the outcome of the coming exit negotiations, are both bad ideas - for reasons that are not immediately clear to this observer of events. Furthermore, we are told the reason why so many senior Tories are now briefing against their own Chancellor of the Exchequer is that they fear he may just be a little less "Jihadi" in his enthusiasm to leave the EU than they are. Oh dear. The press are also reporting that MPs are rather concerned that we have no "Plan B" in place, should we end up crashing out of the EU and Single Market without any acceptable exit deal being agreed with the remaining EU 27. This dangerous "dereliction of duty" being a distinct possibly many fear given the Prime Minister's uncompromising hard-line approach to the matter. On the other hand I understand that the cabinet is apparently "confident" that some kind of mutually satisfactory trade deal with the EU can be reached - why on earth they are so very sure that this can be achieved, given the extreme difficulty of the problem, is another one of those little mysteries we should probably not be asking awkward questions about. Elsewhere it seems that Turkey being allowed to ever gain full EU membership is becoming a ever more distant possibility given recent events in the Netherlands and indeed Turkey - so the shameless scaremongering that a million Turks were about to descend on our shores turns out to be the utter bilge some on here said it was last June. All in all just another weekend in the brave new world of Brexit Britain then ... .

Or put another way Brexit supporters only post stuff that they feel support their argument.

As I expect many will already know, today's statistics from the ONS show that net immigration in the UK is now falling - I understand in large part because the number of foreign students choosing to study here is declining. While no doubt some will welcome this development, I'm thinking that this is rather bad news for UK PLC as foreign students actually represent a valuable source of income for our further education sector. To state the patently obvious, business activity such as this has in recent decades gone some way towards replacing our now (largely lost) traditional heavy industries. It seems to me that fewer foreign students will almost certainly hurt our economy to some extent - for the hard of thinking on here that would be a bad thing. The next question is to ask WHY are so many foreign students suddenly 'voting with their feet' and deciding to study elsewhere in the world? We might also wonder why are unprecedented numbers of foreign born EU nationals living and working here in the UK opting now to apply for official documentation proving their legal status here? The most probable answer to both questions seems clear enough - i.e. rightly or wrongly Brexit Britain has acquired for itself a reputation as a insular - if not outright xenophobic - place that no longer welcomes foreigners as it once did. I suspect that this too will be a matter of little concern to some reading this.

As any student of the great man and indeed of British history generally should understand, Winston Churchill was both a ardent imperialist and a committed internationalist too. It is a matter of record that at one point early on during in his first premiership Churchill actually proposed that a form of political union between Great Britain and France be created. This bold concept, a child born of wartime crisis, was I understand to be a "complete and indissoluble union". In many ways this alliance would have far exceed the ambition and scope of the EU today. Before the usual suspects chip in with their 'two penneth worth', for quite obvious reasons May 1940 was not exactly the ideal moment in time for this revolutionary notion to be expanded from a bilateral Franco-British affair to the rest of continental Europe ... The subject is a rather controversial one, but there is some reason to believe that this now almost inconceivable idea was covertly resurrected by the postwar French Prime Minister Guy Mallet in the 1950's. Had his tentative plan not been rejected by more conservative forces - on both sides of the Channel - then joint citizenship arrangements may have been introduced and HM Queen Elizabeth could actually have achieved the ancient ambition of so may British monarchs before her and become the Queen of France too. One of those intriguing 'not to be' possibilities that history does throw up from time to time.

Whoosh ...

The Mirror? I could have sworn that you were the Daily Mail type