CHAPEL END CHARLIE

^ Re food imports: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/06/more-than-half-of-uks-food-sourced-from-abroad-study-finds .Even on your 40% number that would still obviously represent a very significant proportion of UK food supply. As for the other points, the rise in inflation (and lower growth) we will almost certainly experience in the months and years ahead has only just begun of course. So your seeking to down play this effect as being somehow insignificant is premature at best, misleading at worse. Furthermore, clearly not everyone receiving what might reasonably be described as a low income were on the former legal minimum rates. Pay is a spectrum.Therefore any suggestion that poorer members of society collectively received a "7.5%" pay rise as a result of the introduction of the Living and Minimum Wage legislation is also highly misleading. I take it that is your aim here. Surely the principle purpose of the various minimum wage rates that have been introduced here is that the poor experience a real rise in their living standards and a removed from benefit dependency to some extent. Should that rise in real living standards be lost amid a sea of (self inflicted) inflation then that benefit would be lost would it not?

The matter in hand was inflation/prices. Again, there can be no dispute that the fall the the pound's exchange rate will inevitably impact negatively on the prices we pay for food - most of which is imported by the way. Furthermore, as oil is traded in Dollars the cost of transport too will - indeed has - already risen. Talk of these various effects somehow magically "balancing" for everyone is economically illiterate because overall inflation is especially pernicious because it effects the poorest in society more severely than those better off groups to whom food and transport costs represent a relatively less significant part of their weekly budget. Now clearly as one of those on here committed to seeing the referendum result only as a positive outcome these truths will be unwelcome. Unfortunately there are nevertheless true.

This match will be my (and little man's) first visit to St Marys for far too long. So I do hope that those ST types on here who might be quite satisfied with some dull 1-0 victory will understand that some of us are hoping for a rather better outcome than that! If only a football match ticket came with some kind of guarantee ...

The referendum's impact on the food prices the British people must pay has moved beyond the 'remains to be seen' category and into the world of cold hard fact - as anyone who is even remotely aware of the Tesco v Unilever story in the press this week really should know. That but is but one early sign of the shape of things to come I think. Even our more notoriously 'fact averse' contributors on here will be hard put to deny that as the Pound falls price of all UK imports must rise - presuming that have some minimal grasp on basic economic theory.

Ian Hislop said the other day that (after Vlad the Impaler) Donald Trump was quite the worse candidate in electoral history. Now to be fair that was a bit of a exaggeration - as far as I know Vlad never stood for election and Germany voting for that Hitler bloke did not end well. But he had a point because Trump is clearly ENTIRELY unfit to hold high office. I must say that the fact that some on here are seemingly blind to this obvious truth is something of a eye-opener. The thought occurred to me the other day should the Human Race have regressed so far as to allow this Neanderthal to lead them then would the president's 'Secret Service' bodyguards still be prepared to literally throw themselves in front of any assassins bullet heading towards him? Yes I know it is all about respect for the office rather than the man ... but would you?

I wonder if there is any level of pay which might trigger fans to start thinking that enough is enough? If the time comes when Saints players are getting not £70k, but rather £700k a week, would it still be okay if they were to demand even more just in order to match what someone else is getting? What is the point of any game when so may ordinary fans are effectively priced-out by greed? It is absurd that any player should think that they are somehow undervalued or poorly paid when in reality they are receiving a pile of cash every week that many of us would take a number of YEARS to earn. And yet that inherent absurdity has become so accepted now that it hardly seems worthy of comment anymore.

I've been watching and much enjoying the new Billy Connolly travelogue series 'Tracks Across America' - ITV Tuesday. The format is a familiar one as Scotland's greatest export adandons the trike he drove in Australia a decade ago and rides the railroad instead across the vastness of the North American continent, stopping off in various 'out of the way' places to take a quick look at what appeals to his endearingly rebellious and independent spirit. This is all highly entertaining, but truth be told my enjoyment of this series is tempered a little by the sadness of witnessing the heavy toll both age and Parkinson's Disease have taken on our Billy. But while his body may be failing him you can rest assured that wonderful spirit and sense of humour still endure and although in many ways I could hardly be more different from Billy I can think of very few other Human Beings I'd rather spend a hour with given the chance.

It looks like this mysterious incident is set to become one of those legendary 'Mary Celeste' like events that may never be satisfactorily exlained: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh370-search-likely-to-wrap-up-in-december-428756/ The sea sometimes keeps its secrets ....

Well he dared opine that we might not - at this time anyway - have the players required to finish in the top half of the table again this season. Early days of course, but hardly what amounts to a 'thoughtcrime' methinks.

Mud, Blood and Poppycock. by Gordon Corrigan. Written by a former Army officer this is a ambitious book that sets out to debunk what the author sees as the popular misconceptions that have arisen regarding the British Army's performance in the Great War. When you think about World War I and the British Army what first comes to mind? If the the answer to that question includes incompetent generals who seldom bothered to leave their headquarters, vast numbers of gas attack casaulties and the bloody failure of the Battle of the Somme then prepare yourself for some new thinking because Corrigan argues - often very persuasively - that alĺ those perceptions, and many others, are wrong. It turns out that our army's senior command were often perfectly competent officers who were handicaped by having to manage a vastly expanded conscript Army that was still dangeriously inexperienced in 1916; the effectivness of gas attacks has been greatly overstated and the Somme campaign actualy achieved its stragic purpose of relieving pressure on the French at Verdun. The author mostly succeeds in getting his message across and making the reader actualy THINK again about that war and the misconceptions it has left us with. However, some of the 'myths' Corrigan goes to work on are not ones that I was even aware existed - for example, does anyone really believe that junior British officers suffered a lower casaulty rate than the men they led into battle? You might also wonder how much of a 'success' can the Battle of the Somme really have been if to inflict 400,000 casualties on the Germans the Allies had to suffer 600,000 of their own. Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile and thought-provoking piece of revisionist history that can be read and enjoyed by anyone who is at all interested in the subject.

Well thank you for your insight into the state of race relations in the Netherlands - it does all sound pretty grim. In return please allow me to set out the UK picture as I perceive it. Here I'm thinking that any abuse or discrimination our Homosexual and Jewish minorities might suffer is at least as likley to orginate from what we might call the 'indigenous' white Anglo-Saxon population as it is from our Muslim immigrant community. Our predominetly white working-class game of Football happens to provide a nice illustration of this for despite there being around 4,500 professional players employed in the English game (a significant number of which must be gay presumably) only a handful have so far been prepared to come 'out of the closet' as it were -because they fear the level of abuse or ridicle they would probably suffer. This in 21st century Britain. As for the issue of antisemitism in modern Britain, I would surgest that the average British Jew would probably feel more apprehensive at the sight of a white 'skinhead' approaching them rather than they would meeting your typical Muslim in the street. As it happens, I was passing through the traditionly Jewish 'Golders Green' area of north London only this week and I didn't notice any perceptible tension between the many (openly) Jewish and Muslim people who inhabit that suburb. Yes I know my passing impression of London life is hardly scientific or conclusive evidence of anything. You seem primarily to see Muslim immigrants only as a problem that needs to be addressed, rather than as induviduals who might have something to offer. Yes this current wave of islamic inspired terrorism we see in Europe is a very real danger of course. However, it is also true that immigrants make a positive contribution to society too. For example they enrich our cultural diversity and gene pool; they work and pay their taxes; they start businesses; they serve in our armed forces, police and health services. Some of them have come from communities that have existed in Europe for centuries.Therefore, it is both a mistake and grossly unfair I think to see this group collectivly as some find of threat when in fact only a tiny minority are so. While it is neccessary that we react to terrorism we must also take care not to OVERREACT because in doing so we risk the values Europe is supposed to stand for. At least that is how I see the situation. Now, if you don't mind, I think I'll leave it here because you and me have been batting this very same 'ball' over the very same 'net' for some time now and I really don't think there is much more new that I can say on the subject.

I have some difficulty accepting the premise that a valid analogy between Europe's religious wars of the past, and problem of Islamic extremism today, can reasonably be drawn. Where is the Daesh equivalent of Martin Luther? Okay some among Europe's Muslim population may I suppose be seeking to bring about Shiria here in Europe. However, I for one struggle to reconcile that objective with those (admittedly few) Muslims I myself know. Your desire that we deal with the recognised problem of fundamentalist Imams preaching hatred has already been addressed here in the UK at least - although it remains to be seen how effective these measures have been. I'm also thinking that the fountinhead of islamic terrorism is more related to events taking place in the Middle East today, rather than some serious attempt to influence the future of European society. The sheer impossibility of such a undertaking (Muslims form around 5% of the UK population) hardly needs emphasising. But European history does perhaps offer us a warning as to the dire consequences of religious intolerance - a old lesson the Dutch are at least as well placed to remember as we British are. History shows us that whenever authority attempts to enforce a set of beliefs and values on a subculture that believes differently then strife will inevitably ensue. So instead of a fundamentaly iliberal approach to the issue of religious freedom - such as banning of the Burka and what ammounts to the state control of Mosques - we might do better to promote our tolerant and liberal values by acting in a tolerant and liberal manner. The French may like to talk about liberty a lot - the British like to practice it. I too have seen the WZB Berlin Social Science Center research and it is indeed a matter of some concern. There can I believe be only ONE national law and it must apply to EVERYONE regardless of their religion. Extremists who cannot accept that had better emirgrate to some Muslim nation where the laws might better suit them rather than resort to terrorism. Almost everything else with regard to religion is a matter methinks the state might better leave to the individual.

You seem confused again - but don't feel too bad because this is to be expected from someone of your intellect.

I do grasp the principle thanks.

You seem to be having some trouble comprehending that in a national REFERENDUM where you happen to live makes the square root of bugger-all difference as every vote counts the same. Therefore, it makes no more sense claiming that Labour voters in the north east "won" the vote anymore than Conservative voters in the south west did. But it is always interesting to see the Klan viewpoint on various issues so please carry on anyway.

Stop confusing facts with opinion. 63% of Labour voters backed Remain: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-7-graphs-that-explain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

I'm sure that we'd both like to see European Mosques follow the example of their US counterparts and become less illiberal and more moderate religious institutions. The question is how do we achieve that aim without sacrificing the liberal freedoms we are supposed to stand for? Answers on a postcard please, as they used to say on UK television. Leaving that thorny question to one side for the moment, regardless of the situation pertaining in the Netherlands I understand that just 6% of UK mosques are Wahhabi (or Salafis) in nature. So evidence of some Saudi organised conspiracy to influence the UK's Muslim population for their own ends is inconclusive at best. I can only repeat myself and say again that any European citizen - regardless of their religious beliefs - is entitled to hold, and indeed express, any opinion they care to as long as they remain within the law of course. The fact that some of those opinions seem overly conservative, or even hoplessly outdated perhaps, to westerners is immaterial when seen from a human rights perspective. You cannot force people into accepting social attitudes they are reluctant to adopt and any effort to do so is likley to prove counter-productive. The crackdown on religious freedom that some seem to desire as a reaction to terrorism is EXACTLY the objective the extremist are seeking because further alienating a population that already sees itself - with some justification I think - as a oppressed minority destablises society and reinforces those who would attack us. In conclusion, as a student of history dancing to a tune played by your enemy doesn't seem to be a terribly attractive option ...

If I recall correctly a signifcant majority of people living in the North East voted 'Leave' in the EU referendum. Well it seems the consequencs of that decision may strike home in Sunderland sooner that some of them might have thought - if any real 'thought' went into their decision-making process that is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37024707

I seriously doubt that your average European Muslim has even heard of the 'Organisation of Islamic Cooperation' let alone have opted to dedicate their lives to following its strictures. For that matter methinks the personal opinions of the Turkish President are surely of marginal importance - outside of Turkey that is. It should also go without saying that so-called 'Sharia Courts' have no legal authority in UK law. I refuse to fall into the trap of seeing the Islamic faith itself as the enemy of the West - Islam has been a part of the West for centuries. Neither do I view your average European Muslim as some kind of threat that I need live in fear of. On a personal note, I happen to have Muslims in my extended family that I can assure you are perfectly reasonable, law abiding and unthreatening induviduals. It seems to me that while some from the older generation yearn for a return to the (largly imaginary) monoculture of their youth, many of our youngsters are actualy getting on with the business of making their way in this diverse and very multicultural world they live in. That is modernity - whether some on here like it or not. Yes terrorism is obviously a big problem in the world today that cannot be overlooked or downplayed by any means. But if the naked racism/islamapobia I see from some on here is to be our only response to that danger then I fear what is already a bad situation will soon become even worse. Much worse possibly ...

Far from being irrelevant somehow the observable historical truth that nearly all nationalities/religions/creeds are quite capable of committing atrocities when it suites them is EXACTLY the pertinent fact here. If you really seek to understand the world better then I fear you will either have to accept this 'inconvenient truth' about human nature - or put up with the likes of me reminding you of it from time to time. Yes it is a straightforward matter to 'other' those who seek to attack us and therefore dismiss them simply as a inhuman enemy who must be destroyed. The problem with that attitude is that it mirrors the thinking the extremists exhibit that has led us into this situation in the first place. This will not do. So instead of endlessly repeating how appalled we are by 'their' violence while at the same time ignoring our own, or like some on here wasting time dreaming of returning the UK to some (largly imagined) point in the past where everyone in Britain looked and thought the same, we would do better I think to accept the complexity of this multicultural world we now live in and ask ourselves WHY some Muslim extremists seek to terrorize the west so?

1 - Everyone has some sort of "agenda" - mine is to explore where the truth lays. 2 - As a atheist it is cetainly not my business to defend Islam or for that matter any other religious belief system. Any implacation that I want to excuse terrorism is of course erroneous. 3 - Whether YOU consider Vladimir Putin to be some sort of Christain is neither here nor there frankly. The point here is whether HE considers himself to be of that faith.

So can I take it then that you are seeking to dispute that Vladimir Putin considers himself to be a Christian for some reason - this despite having been shown evidence seemingly showing that: • He was baptised as a child by his deeply religious mother. • He constently wears a crucifix - except in the sauna! • He opts to regularly attend Christian church services. • He decided to bury both of his parents in the approved Christian manner.

https://youtu.be/u3d_yxJhmjk

Well the mass-murder of 8,000 defenceless Muslim men and boys by the 'Christian' Serbs in Srebrenica is hardly ancient history is it? I suppose you might try to argue that terrorism and war crimes are different things - but they look very much like two sides of the same coin to this observer of events. But from a western perspective there is no denying that the current wave of islamic inspired terror is clearly the biggest danger we face today in the 'here and now'. However, a mere smidgen of research will show you that there is recent 'terrorist' activity linked to the Christain faith in parts of Africa and India too. I use the word "linked" here because the teachings of Christ and extreme violence methinks are pretty hard to reconcile. Much the same could perhaps be said about the other great religions including Islam of course - it all depends on how you prefer to inteript the (often contradictory) religious texts. But broaden the question out and try to look at the world as others see it. Vladimir Putin describes himself as a Christain leader. Would you not say that the many victims of Russian bombing in Syria might not regard him as a Christain terrorist then? It seems to me that if you go round deliberetlly targeting hospitals - or at least activlty support those who do - then that is a fair enough depiction. Rightly or wrongly both sides of the interminable Arab-Isreali conflict see the other as terrorists. Where do you draw the line between war and terror?

I'm not a believer myself, but more than a few of the very best human beings it has ever been my privilege to meet in life have people of faith. So I can't really agree with the above comment.