pap

So you're naturally a Farage man then?

Mods; where's the poll? PS. Please add Bearsy's choices. Shocking that the Indy didn't include them, really.

Sir assumes he had it to begin with. In other news, anyone wanting out of the EU is an extremist. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/david-cameron-voters-extremist-anti-eu-message-elections On his visit to Israel, he called himself a proud Zionist.

Had to Google her, tbh. Seems a very political animal. Professional politician and married to Neil Kinnock's nipper ( candidate for Aberavon in 2015 ).

Who is your favourite world leader? The (Russian-owned) Indy poses this very question on a poll. Farage is partial to a bit of Putin. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/poll-nigel-farages-favourite-world-leader-is-putin-whos-yours-9226480.html Mods: can you set up a poll with the same options as the Indy one please? I think a local take might be rather fun.

You must have a top personality

If we're going to be this unrealistic, can we splice Pep Guardiola and Alex Ferguson's DNA to produce some unholy but effective ultimate manager? We can grow them in the same vats they use to produce local commercial DJs.

Hodgson deserves credit for picking them. I agree with Melmacian about the quality of the players we've had in the England squad, and their motivations once they get there. Hopefully the mould has now been broken and the national team will be built on quality and desire, instead of the back pages. Having said that, can't help feeling that the media have helped us in this respect this time out.

Seriously, mush. The longest topic on this messageboard and it's about them, FFS. The problem is you're all in too deep to make a dignified exit now. You poor, poor bastards

The plane had enough fuel to make the trip. The direction of travel doesn't invalidate anything; it may have needed to circle due to other traffic, etc. I am still amazed that no-one bothered following it up. At the very least, i think we can agree that it is in the ballpark.

Not like this, then? http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/18/flight-mh370-residents-on-remote-island-in-maldives-saw-jet-matching-missing-malaysia-airlines-planes-description-4640688/

Good question. Any answer would be speculation. Plane could be avoiding known locations of installations/ships. I don't think this invalidates the sighting.

Is it not possible to avoid radar detection by flying low?

I'm not even close to positing a theory, unlike many others who have already done so. I don't know where you are getting your full day from, sir. The time of the sighting is relatively consistent with the travel time it would have taken to make the flight. There is a margin of error of about forty minutes. Let's recall where we started out here. Three possible outcomes; crashed, shot down or landed. There is as yet, no corroborating evidence of a crash. There is no wreckage, and international bodies that claim that they are very good at detecting these sort of things did not detect this sort of thing. You call me out for latching onto every conspiracy theory going, but look at the theorising people have done to fit their established facts, the inexplicably irrefutable Inmarsat findings. 1) The pilot went mad and decided to fly the plane on a southerly direction into the middle of the Southern Indian Ocean to crash him and his passengers. If that's the case, why not ditch as soon as you've taken off? 2) The pilot was negotiating for the release of his friend, and therefore flew around for several hours, negotiating with the Malaysian government before realising he'd failed, then flew the plane into the middle of the Indian Ocean. Again. Why bother making the trip? 3) Major malfunction on the plane, which then continued on auto-pilot for several hours before crashing in the Indian Ocean. The most plausible crash theory so far. 4) The perfect ditch theory 5) The Iranians on false passports hijacked the plane, which ended up in the Indian Ocean. 6) Shot down theory. Any crashed or shot down outcome conflicts with the UN's stated ability to detect large aircraft hitting the sea. Maybe they're over-egging their capability, but large organisations are usually reasonably guarded in what they release. Landed is the only outcome, if you take them at their word. Anyway, the Maldives story has been repeatedly ignored by the authorities and the media. Despite several eye-witness accounts, it was never part of the SAR area - despite that 40 minute margin of error. When considering conflicting evidence, what's the best way to resolve it? The cumulative weight and corroboration of lots of pieces of evidence, or the slavish insistence that one piece of data is crucial, uncontestable and irrefutable despite what you might know elsewhere? Everything you're arguing is predicated on the accuracy of those Inmarsat findings, which were released days after the sighting. I'm not suggesting any foul play on the part of Inmarsat - they could be acting entirely in good faith based on bad data. There is no corroboration with other pieces of MH370's telemetry because the rest wasn't functioning. What if the real Inmarsat equipment on MH370 was switched off and they were following something else?

What i want to know is, if we're okay searching for things based on satellite images and bleeding-edge analysis, several good ol' eye-witnesses should be ignored. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-airlines-mh370-low-flying-plane-seen-maldives-081339501.html#Tbss13A

Except the one in the Maldives

It's a load of crap. I'm Southampton born and bred and have a lot of Saints fans as family or friends. Most of them just aren't arsed about Pompey. One or two are obsessed, to the point where it's all they go on about. The Pompey Takeover Thread is an embarrassment, imo.

Some people don't really hate anyone, Griffo. You'll probably hate them.

Nice to see it followed by most pointless reply ever.

I probably have much wilder views than you. The entire search is based on the INMARSAT analysis, and predicated on the idea that the plane must have crashed. The UN didn't detect MH370 hitting the water or exploding, despite assurances that they say then can detect this sort of thing. There's presently no physical evidence to support crash theory, and as I've posted many times before, there are people in the Maldives that claim to have seen a jumbo jet, with seemingly no follow up apart from a disputed denial. If there are governments/agencies covering aspects of this up, it's probably fair to ask who. For me, the Malaysians don't seem to be deriving much benefit from this; their international reputation has turned to shít. They'd need to be getting something huge out of this if they were somehow complicit in its disappearance, because they're going to spend the next few years having to suck up to the rest of the world. China? The plane was going there anyway. Doesn't work for me. Russia? Possible, but it'd require the complicity of multiple governments if MH370 was en-route to somewhere in the Russian Federation. Tim made a point about FiveEyes earlier in the thread. I think that pertinent. Heard this clip on No Agenda. There's a bit of commentary going on. http://pap.centelia.net/noagendaclip.mp3 Really trying to find the original source.

Fark off, sonny jim. I'll take any of the c**ts now Dickens is dead.

Maldives resident furious after authorities concluded his claim false. http://www.maldivesfinest.com/maldives-eye-witness-furious-mh370

I was sent the image today. Gareth Google, innit? You've asked him for worse.

Sorry for interruption, boys. Please review below image and get back to me.

There are more examples of planes landing without leaving any wreckage