Robsk II

Yes. Was that the bloke who always went on about 'knowing the Krays' and **** like that? Made out like he was a proper gangster in the day, all that ****? Total sh*t-talker? if so, he was a c*nt, and good for you.

I still don't quite understand this. Mike anda few others, Sunday morning matches or whatever, totally understand. But there seem to be a lot that have just stopped bothering.

No, no word of lie today Denzil. I dont' drink in Romsey much these days due to living in Southampton. I've been known to have a few pints in there, though, certainly. Not that sold on it or te olive tree to be honest, but a drinks a drink.

Actually, I'll second that. Most often seen it kick off in that particularly delightful venue.

Oh. This is ****. Should we seriously just scrub round the whole thing for the winter? I don't want to be keeping Sunday evenings free for this shambles. Or do you think it'll settle down into some consistency at some point?

Lol

Are your other chaps coming? if we have enough, we could book..?

I'm a misanthrope too. At least we agree on that.

I think that's a little harsh. Surely some people might well have read the title and genuinely misinterpreted it? I mean, it's clear that many have been quite sarcastic about this, but other may have been serious.

Worse still, it could have been Tiggs.

Yeah Whooooosh! LOL!

Not compelling. Although it's funny if she did buy poppers

If enough people turn up, no-one just goes home again. It's the same for all of us.

Stanley, I would never conteend the fact that in part, traditional cultural configurations and values play and have played a part in some of the problems in some parts of the world. Any 'loony left' would be stupid to deny this categorically. The thing is, this would never have been an issue had other factors not impacted. Take Congo, Rwanda - Left to develop 'naturally' - by a slow osmosis etc, perhaps - tribal patterns would probably have developed the nations. As it is, colonial powers did, they drew the boundaries. This has always been a problem - the Belgians simply decided that the Tutsis were more beutiful to behold, more 'evolved' and so on than the hutus, and decided they were the upper caste. As such, they were allowed more roles even when Belgium was a colonial overlord, and when they left, Tutsis were given the priviledged positions. It is partly due directly to this colonial god-playing that tribal tension and resentment grew to breaking point in Rwanda in 1994. The thing about multinationals getting all a country's assets is huge, seriously - I suggest you do have a read into that one, because whatever else may be going on or have gone on in the past, it's been something that's kept countries poor. Some of it is just down to the timeline of history. In an age of global capitalism, it was always going to be hard for anyone to jump on board without a head start. China will be OK because they were protected by their political system and isolation, largely. They are integrating slowly and did also develop, even if it was state controlled at the time. In Africa, conversely, all the biggest companies are Western because they were free to come in and buy out any profitable fledglings - this is because any loans the African nations have got from the world bank have been coupled with "hmm, yes, ok, we will bail you out - IF you privatise your national assets.". It's appalling, honestly have a read about it. In hindsight, we should have given back empire countries in a much better way - more slowly, controlled, considered - but it's too easy to say that. What was done, was done. Our intent may have been good, but being there at all and doing what we did had already impacted. I'm not even blaming us, really, because that was the way the world was then, and at that time, we did bloody well. Yet we should try to understand the lessons. Look at Iraq. I believe in democracy, but forcing it upon people used to different ways of doing things - whether they would eventually believe it is the best or not - is a minefield. many Iraqis are probably moderate, and advocate peace, democracy etc. After a brutal dictatorship, and in a highly charged religioudly-divided tribal climate - there are always going to be those left who A) think theocracy is better, the 'right way' and B) those who got so used to looking out for themselves under Saddam. Ultimately, even if our sole goal was to bring peace and deomcracy etc to the world, without any agenda, it would ebe damn hard to do, especially when many of our targetted converts would simply not believe our way was right.

I for one have no problem helping other people out if they cannot afford it and we can - which we can. we have a much higher standard of life than billions, and I for one care about my fellow human beings, black, white, yellow, whatever. We don't need our Wiis and DVDs and designer labels more than others need food and medicine, and frankly, if you really don't give a sh*t, then in my opinion, you're simply a bad person! I don't feel I have to give all my or the countries money away, but regardless of fault or blame (though I for one see that the West is directly responsbile for a lot of problems or exacerbating them), I would not idly stand by and not care at all if I saw someone dying in front of me if for even a years pay I could save them. Talk about Samaritans. I think you're on pretty thin ice about racism - I am pretty sure you're implying that these countries fail because they are black dominated. You mention white countries, then black countres as failures. If there are poorer countries, it is do do with social, political, economic and possibly cultural factors. These have nothing - nothing at all - to do with race, as such. Racist is a perfectly appropriate word to use to describe many, if not all, BNP supporters. That is a fact, pure and simple, regardless of any other legitmacy or members who simply appreciate their policy making for other reasons. Many sympathise with the BNP on some issues, but still more veer clear of them because too many of the die-hards are quite unsavoury - despite the veneer of respectability and Griffin's attempts to moderate. Not wanting more migrants is not racist. Starting to hate people of other nationalities as a result is. Patriotism - well, we've discussed this. While rallying to flag and country were valid reasons that many fought for, even then, the government and media pushed the 'helping others' agenda. WW2 started because we said we'd defend Poland. Not because we'd profit from them, but because we recognised their sovereignity and had our honour to uphold after signing up to protect them from German aggression. Many so-called patriots would fight to protect their own land. I think a British person who truly takes pride in what this country used to represent would also fight to save anothers rights and life. I am proud of this country and to be British, but only the bits worth taking pride in, and always with an eye on common sense. Even exploitation and empire should be recalled with pride - but only in that context of the time, for now we are enabled to see clearly, to understand human cost and so on. Balanced view is always the key, but most people seem to be myopic beyond belief. I can't be ****ed to answer all this properly now Stanley, but it is so, so flawed in so many ways. Using logic can get you from A to B, but if you've got lots of letters in the middle you miss the meaning. In short, there are hundreds of reasons why other countries are less rich and so on - an awful lot is to do with our continued and historical exploitation of them. I can back that up entirely; if you read any genuine study or literature on this area at all you'd have a far more informed basis upon which to comment. Western companies own a whole lot of production means etc - unlike in the West, virtually all profit flows straight out of most African nations. How the hell are they to be expected to develop further, economically and politically, in a climate like that? I can't believe you know words such as infrastructure and yet totally ignore fact. Totally. A few individuals often hold most of the power in African nations, and multi-nationals hold the rest. Usually the two are in cahoots for a mutual benefit. Corruption etc is rife, but it's not because the Brits aren't there. It's because we've imposed systems on countries and cultures that haven't naturally developed them, and so when we left, shoehorning went awry. It was down to us, not down to them left now. Mugabe is not a **** because he's black, Mugabe is a **** because he's a ****. Even here, I can be objective. By some measures, empire did directly impact positively on native populations, raising life expectancy, literay, numeracy, etc - India has been a good example of this over time, generally. Yet the damage we have done is huge - though I'm not one to believe in all this apologising for the past business. I do think we have a duty to the rest of the globe to do better in the future though, to learn the lessons of the past. I could write a damn essay on this, but to be honest, nothing I could say will sway you, even though my comments on this are not 'liberal clap trap'. The things above are pretty much agreed on by academics from both sides of the political spectrum. It can all be backed up pretty well, and no, it's not a communist conspiracy. You cannot claim to be objective if you see this evidence and shun it anyway. If only more people bothered to be at least vaguely informed on real issues with a bit of depth before wading in with over-strong views. This is the thing about respecting other peoples views, even the BNPs - everyone does have a right to a view, but frankly, 90% of this country has the view of a total braindead idiot, ill informed, ignorant, lazy of thought, prejudicial - in short, retarded. Everyone has a right to a view, but I sure as hell won't respect or give the time of day to those without basis, whether that's the BNP's thinly-veiled dubius hyperbole or brainwashed Islamic fundamentalism. Feel free to continue to resort to you 'loonie-leftie' and 'PC gone mad' sureties if it makes you feel superior. The thing is, I know the above is true, because I care enough to try to understand it fully. If you wish to argue it, I suggest you get informed or don't bother.

Stanley, I'm asking you to forward people and support their case. Seriously.

Yeah.. but WHAT IF HE WASN'T? I'm wasting my time here with you, right? Also - OK, tell me why Leon Crouch.

Fine. Still, if Crouch was not an option, what then?

Hypothetically, let's say that's not convincing. Who else? Any financial input? Etc.

It is tough, I agree with that. Yet even if it is Lowe's fault, it's hard to withdraw funds that could actually help out - I mean, if we got 25,000 a week over the last three seasons (unlikely, maybe), then perhaps things would have been very different.

There's just as much anti-Lowe vitriol flying around as ever, proving as divisive as usual. I'm not his greatest fan, but I can't honestly say I considered the iterim lot to have done any better at all, certainly not in taking the club any further forwards - in some regards, the opposite was true. Either way, one question remains in my mind about all this, as it did last time. If not Wupert - then who? Who has the savvy, experience and know-how to unite the fans behind them - at least most of us - and put an end to this culture of major splits regarding the club heriachy? Who would bring people together, and who could make a genuine impact to allow the club to get results, become financially solvent and away from continual concern in financial matters, and become, in short, a genuinely well regarded chairperson?

*parasitical Also, to be fair - I'm no fan of lowe, at all. But surely you can see the point, that we need to be able to seperate Lowe from the players? We have to support the players, at least atfer performances like today.

Please re-read the first post you plonkers pwned

Sorry, but that's just a load of ****, simple as that. Belittling the BNP for their beliefs - or the hardcore members - does nothing to make me like them. Deploring racism is much more acceptable than deploring other cultures and races based, generally, on very little, or sweeping assumptions at the very best. I simply don't see prejudice of any kind as a valid basis for belief, and that applies to Islamic extremism as much as anything else. How the hell do you intend to back up your statement that any moderate religious people would do anything for their faith? What you apparently entirely fail to realise is that many of them see their faith as very different to what extremists do. Isn't that entirely evident just by existing on this planet for a few seconds? Some christians in time have felt it is god's work to kill heathens; should I assume that ALL modern day christians feel the same and shouldn't be trusted, ever? it's simply a stupid thing to say. As it happens, I don't think people should lose their jobs for being in the BNP - unless they signed up to something in the first place saying they wouldn't be in it. Then it's their own fault, so why shouldn't I laugh? I also think 'outting' them was a bit harsh, as were some of the phone calls and intimidation they got. The fact is, though, that many of them would most likely have been the first to do this in another age with gays, blacks, etc, so it's hard to have too much sympathy. You say some are losing their 'lives' because of this, but I can't see any examples of that to date - but I can think of MILLIONS of lives lost due to persecution of minorities based on ethnicity, sexuality, religion, intellectualism, political alignment etc. THAT is what these so called namby-pambies seek to avoid, and that is what I see the BNP as being a whole lot closer to than myself. Some of them are probably less extreme, I'm fully aware and I accept this - I moderate my opinions on them accordingly. This is something you would find useful to do yourself. You cannot label ANY group so casually, whether that's BNP members, Muslims, blacks, gays - whatever you want. You'll never be able to form a cohesive and compelling argument if you stick to over simplifications and sweeping statements if you don't consider the issues in depth and have the ability to back up your points.

You weren't actually involved, though, were you.