Ken Tone

Unless of course one of them, and I'm not making this up, has a pet cat.

Sorry to intrude in the argument which is really about Iran and Israel, but you brought up the Falklands, and you can't just write stuff that over-simpified and have it go unchallenged. The only real 'legal' claim Argentina has to the Falklands is effectively based on the Pope 'giving' all of South America to Spain in the 15th century , when he divided up the entire western hemisphere between Spain and Portugal. The River Plate province was a Spanish colony and when it gained independence it claimed the Islands, because supposedly they were part of the Spanish Papal declaration, though not named as such, because they hadn't even been discovered by then! First settlement on the Islands is disputed. There are also claims of much earlier English landings. Any selling of the Islands by France to Spain has no legal basis; France did not have sovereignity to sell. Most histories imply more that the few French settlers were frightened off by Spain. The River Plate settlers were there only intermittently (coming after both French and British settlers) and the last lot were finally expelled for piracy on their seal/whaling ships by the Americans in 1820 something. (Bear in mind that America was NOT an ally of Britain then. In fact we'd been at war with America from 1812-1814) English settlers have lived there continuously from 1833, with earlier settlements dating back to before anyone from the Province of the River Plate had even claimed the Islands. All this took place before the country of Argentina even existed. Modern Argentina does include parts of the old United Province of the River Plate, but then so do Uruguay and Bolivia. The wikipedia entry is surprisingly good, and relatively unbiased if you want a potted history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands I imagine Argentinians and current Islanders have changed it back and forth so many times, that it has reached an uneasy compromise statis.

The question is, if he doesn't get thje job, who will he blame for that? "Well I thought I stormed the interview in the first half, blew the opposition away, but -- and I know I'll get in trouble for saying this -- the chairman just gave it away for me, with his crazy decisions in the second half. What do I have to do to get a fair job offer?"

Rationally of course that's right. The concern with somewhere like Iran is that rationality goes out of the window when religious fanatacism comes in. If you really believe that if you die in a holy war you will go to heaven, why would you care about retaliation for a nuclear strike? The 'rules' that have made the nuclear deterrent remain a deterrent and not a used weapon for the last 50 years or so, do not apply to Al Quaeda etc.

Sorry mate, but that bit in bold and underlined is simply wrong. It was the cuts that she had announced in 1981 that were the problem. I know you're in the Navy and the cuts are a sore point for you, and I know too that Mrs Thatcher has taken on an almost saintly image in the Forces since 1982, but actually it was her government that decided to make the cuts just before the Falkands war. It was also on her watch that the retirement of HMS Endurance was confirmed in spite of appeals and warnings that this was a dangerous thing to do, and it was also then that the Argentinan's increasingly martial noises in the UN etc were ignored ... and as I said the Nationality Act was passed, which basically said to Argentinian ears, "we don't really want the Falklands any more". She had been in power for some 3 years before the Argentine invasion remember. Any u-turn on funding for the forces (from the lady who was not for turning) was as a result of the Falklands war, making her change the decisions she had made. Several military commentators have said that only a year later, as the cuts bit, we would not have been able to react to the invasion. Even as it was, it was pretty close run thing. See for example http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/the-john-nott-1981-defence-cuts-revisited/ (my bold type in the extracts below) "In 1982 the Secretary of State for Defence had just implemented a Defence Review the previous year. It was conducted in the context of economic problems, a Thatcher-led desire to slash budgets, and a Soviet build-up during the era of ‘reaganomics’. Nott’s solution was to concentrate almost solely on Britain’s role in NATO. The purchase of Trident was confirmed. The British Army of the Rhine, although the centrepiece of British defence within NATO, was to be limited to 55,000 men. The Royal Navy was to lose one fifth of its 60 Destroyers and Frigates. .... The upshot of the Falklands War was that almost everything that had been offered up as savings was rescued at the eleventh hour."

Actually, a common view at the time was that a major trigger for the Argentinian invasion was the reduction in British defence forces by Thatcher, and in particular the removal of HMS Endurance from the Islands. The Argentinians took this as a sign that Britain had stoped caring and wouldn't defend the islands. Thatcher's goverment also passed the Nationality Act in 1981 which removed full British citizenship from the Islanders. You may recall that Lord Carrington resigned over these issues, effectively taking the fall for Thatcher.

No. In fact that's a major part of the point of the test IMO. It's in English (or Gaelic!) only. Immigrants seeking citizenship have to study the facts in English, and have to have a reasonable level of proficiency in the language to be able to pass..... which even someone like me (whom Dune no doubt considers a lilly-livered, wishy-washy, leftie liberal) thinks is a good idea. "Is the test only available in English? The test is offered routinely in English. However, if you are taking the test in a centre based in Wales you may request to take a test in the Welsh language, or if taking the test in Scotland you may request to take the test in Scottish Gaelic. "

Send them back?!

Yeah, right. We all believe you. How far back does your family history go then Dune? Pre Norman invasion? Any Irish or Hugenot blood? No ancestor ever married 'out'? No great-uncle you've forgotten? Because if not, you are just about the only true Englishman here. Oh no, hang on, what about those pesky foreign Romans, Saxons and Vikings? Or are you pure Celt? All Angle? It's a very rare person indeed who has no immigrant/foreign blood anywhere in the past few generations of their family .. the only real variation is how recent.

Why don't you stop pussy-footing around and tell us what you really think?

That's the real point isn't it? Don't really care if Fox is promiscuous, gay, bi-, or a celibate, but what all this does show is that he has really poor judgement, and do we really want a man with poor judgement in charge of our nation's defence?

As the BBC site says, EU legislation was meant to prevent this New EU legislation introduced in July 2010 was meant to prevent so called "bill shock", when customers received large bills for downloading e-mails, surfing the web or using applications on their phones while abroad. Operators now must warn customers once they have reached certain limits. O2 sends its customers worldwide a text once they have spent £20 on data, again after they have spent £40, and automatically caps the data service once users have downloaded 50 megabytes. That talks about O2 , but all networks are covered by the law. Did you get any warning?

There's also the option of embarrassing them, or of threatening to do so. If, as you say this is a large business selling prestige cars, they will not enjoy you walking up and down outside with a placard as they try to sell cars to some other poor sods. Be careful not to cause a breach of the peace or to be libellous in what you write on the placard, -- eg a simple " I bought a car from this garage, and I am not happy with the way they have dealt with my complaints since" is indisputable and likely to make other customers wary. The local TV or radio may well be interested in such a protest.

Err..... actually I agree with you that China may well soon be the major power in the world. It was your strange, lop-sided, view of history and odd ideas about what constitutes socialism that I was querying.

Do you think the Chinese will send a gunboat to frighten us or start a couple of major wars in the UK to protect the opium trade, as we did to China as part of protecting our empire ? As for 'socialist west', do you really think the Chinese consider the west socialist? Where do you get this warped re-writing of history and this weird world view you have?

I sometimes think he must be our punishment for having done something wrong in a previous life. At least, that's what Eileen Drewery would suggest. Still, when we barely scrape into 17th place this season, he can have the last laugh.

Population of Iceland is c 300,000, which as someone pointed out in another thread is about the size of the Southampton, urban area alone. The main question is why didn't several other england players score too?

Now that is a brilliant suggestion. Could help some of them improve their acting skills too ....useful when diving, feigning injury, claiming a throw-in when they've just kicked the ball out, etc

You may well be right and I wouldn't want to write Fox off, but for now Harding is definitely better IMO.

It's just dawned on me. This must have been what Pulis did on match days. After all we never saw Super Saint and Pulis together did we? Has anyone seen the mascots at Aldershot?

I liked Beattie a lot when he was with us and personally would give him a short contract if fit, but I think you're conning yourself if you think he loves the club. Very few footballers 'love' any club. It's their job. Do you love the firm you work for? In Beattie's case , I'm sure he would indeed like to play for us again, IF the wages meet his idea of what he is worth. But that would be mostly because his wife's family live nearby, not because he loves Saints. If the skates offered him a contract I'd be amazed if he didn't accept that, very nearly as willingly as he'd accept one with us.

I have also noticed their absence, but have heard nothing about it, on here or on OS. Can't say they're a great loss mind you IMO.

How the hell would you know that?

Asking where Humberside is, is a bit like asking where Merseyside is. As a description of a locality it is entirely valid and quite commonly used. Even the local radio station is BBC Radio Humberside. Since the poster who made this damn silly point in the first place gives his location as Cottingham, which is near Hull, he knows full well where Humberside is, but is presumably one of the "we're part of Yorkshire" fanatics who got so upset when local government re-organsation made Humberside an official county for while in the 70s. Objecting to the use of 'Humberside' is like objecting to the use of 'Tyneside' to describe an area, or indeed the name 'Radio Solent'.

A sensible attitude Minty, but I'd go even further. I haven't even seen the 2 friends arguing for myself. It's a third party telling me that 2 good friends are having an argument, what is more a third party that has a reputation for exaggerating facts to make a story out of very little.