pap

Er, no. I'm referring to what the people have said themselves in their own "confession" videos. Kind of makes the rest of your post a load of strawman sh!t, doesn't it?

You are doing exactly what the EDL do; cherry picking from all of Islam to make your point, when we're talking about UK extremism. UK involvement in Islamic lands, particularly its enabling role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has fueled homegrown extremism. All of the people who have committed atrocities have said that Western involvement in Muslim lands was a motivation for their actions. I'm not sure why you're trying to widen the argument EDL-style.

Can someone do me the honour of enumerating the specific "points" the EDL have? That we're at increased risk of Islamic fundamentalist acts? Yes we are, but we've done most to create that situation. Two unjustifiable wars and it looks like we're possibly heading into more. The Downing St dossier signed off the death of a million Iraqis. I'm not sure the US could have gone to war without this "independent" verification from the Brits. It was horsesh!te, and I keep repeating the stat, but a million people died as a result of that lie. Ok, we'll never know if the US would have gone in anyway, but the UK would have retained some moral authority, much like all the EU states that kept out of Iraq. The Blair government cannot be called mere supporters of US action in Iraq. They were enablers. The biggest joke of all? Tony Blair as Middle East peace envoy. People need to get some perspective in all of this. The amount of people killed in all terrorist incidents is dwarfed by the number of people that have been killed by this Western adventure in the Middle East. If the EDL really want an end to Islamic extremism in this country, perhaps they should petition our Government to get out of Muslim states.

Shortened that for you.

I'm sure that "plenty" of armed forces types ( such a beautifully unquantifiable term, isn't it ) signed up because they wanted to kill brown people. They are probably a subset of the EDL supporters.

Yeah, I know. Wouldn't be my first.

We've seen many depictions of the Dark Knight over the years. For me, the most authentic actor to play the role is Kevin Conroy, who took the reins for the animated series. After that, Christian Bale is probably your best Batman, even if he is a bit raspy. Michael Keaton was a good mix of warmth and darkness. Val Kilmer phoned it in a little, George Clooney's batsuit had nipples on it! Nipples! Even Adam West, who most people admire for his work on Family Guy, was a bit of a joke when evoking the tortured orphan avenger. All of them are better portrayals than SaintsWeb's Batman. I wonder if the real one solves crimes like that. "There's a bank robbery in progress in downtown Gotham, Robin. Suspects are caucasian". "Holy racial profiling, Batman. Does that mean..." "Yes, Robin, all white people are evil". Can't see that selling many copies to be honest.

Shame the mods chose to shut that thread down, rather than actually moderating. I visit other forums where that actually happens. Doesn't seem that hard; whenever stuff is clearly getting abusive, a moderator steps in and deftly gets things back on course.

I bumped into a Kelvin Davis rumour today. Seemed positive about the lads, especially Luke Shaw. Don't know why KD would choose to be on holiday when he could be in Sainsburys. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

That might just about wash with UKIP. Spend any time searching their hashtag on Twitter and you will very quickly get the opinions of some of their more colourful supporters. They get away with it because Farage has enough charisma to paper over the cracks. The EDL though? Nah. I look at their leader and am unimpressed. I don't buy the agenda he purports to serve, and he's picking a la carte from a global menu of extremism to characterise what he claims is a British problem.

You are such a tart, bletch. How long did it take you to find the special flat hat version of the a? Or are fatwās the sort of thing you issue often, and therefore have in a clipboard shortcut?

Good article on the failings of modern films, and in particular Lindelof's writing on Star Trek Into Darkness. They are not letting him write Star Wars, thankfully. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2013/may/24/star-wars-trek-jj-abrams?INTCMP=SRCH He does now have a record of writing really dumb sh!t for movies. Prometheus nose-dives the moment the woman says "hey, this is breathable air!". Matey takes his helmet off right there, despite the fact that they're on an alien planet, inside an alien structure, with all kinds of potential intergalactic bacterial nasties about. That's bad enough - you can chalk it up to one over-excited nutter. But then they all take their helmets off! FFS.

Hopefully the pups will be let out when you do this?

Galloway has managed to "get one over" on a lot of people. In fact, you can buy a collection of his best performances on iTunes for £7.99. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2013/may/24/george-galloways-finest-moments-itunes His remit is slightly wider than racist housewives.

Perhaps Candy Crush is the gateway to world peace.

A lot of the blame lies at the feet of the writers too, I reckon. I've been watching TNG this week and it feels like Open University by comparison. Red Letter Media's review is very good. They make the point that it's almost as if the gigantic set pieces are dreamed up first with the script merely used as an adhesive afterthought. Trek needs to be on telly. It's the only format where the characters are really able to develop, the audience spends years gaining affection for them so that when they do finally get on the big screen, you not only get to see them nailing the roles, the big emotional stuff actually means something. A lot of the crap they pull in this movie makes no sense to anyone but the audience.

That's fair enough, so I did some checking, and Nero's timeline begins in 2233. Your point about the birth of Kirk being affected by Nero is spot on, as is mine about the other fella. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nero

I'm not talking about Kirk, rather the villain of the piece. He claims to be from hundreds of years in the past, well before Nero's encounter with the USS Kelvin.

I can't actually remember. Probably. Anyway, my point was Vulcan is a big deal in Trek, even if it is mostly rocks and Spock's . The first film took a creative risk by blowing it up, whereas this one just tries to hit beats of other films, at times beat for beat. Decent vid review of Into Darkness here. http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

I find your response illogical.

Timeline changed with Nero's ship arrived in the first film. Events before that would have been unaffected, including a lot of stuff that was referenced and changed for this movie, including the colour of a certain person's skin. It's clear that they have no confidence in themselves when they are just retreading familiar ground. JJ Abrams will be better suited for Star Wars, but if he approaches it anything like as meekly as he did this one, the whole film will be characters saying "I've got a bad feeling about this". Shame really, because the first film really did show some balls in creating its own universe. I'm still slightly floored every time I see Vulcan destroyed.

I might deface the Guardian again.

Even so, they're not going to get much smarter anytime soon. I found the notion that people were running scared of Muslims a bit of a laugh. If anything, I think its the other way round at the moment.

Well, the woman at the end who was calling him a traitor was the self-appointed leader of the women's branch of the EDL. They're easy to shoot down because they're not making cogent arguments, specifically about Muslims in Britain. They got pulled up several times for mentioning things that happened outside of the UK. The EDL picks the worst of extremism from around the world when trying to justify its case against religious extremism here. You can do the same with anyone, or anything. They tried to have a pop at Galloway because he personally doesn't believe that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, despite it being listed as such by many Western governments, including the US and the EU. They're not looking any deeper than the dictionary definition. My personal view on Hamas is one of enforced indifference. I'm not sure I'm entitled to comment because I haven't had to go what they've gone through. No problem for the EDL. If the government says someone is a terrorist, they're a terrorist. None of "other man's freedom fighter business" for them. It's probably fitting that they see things in such black and white terms.

Listening to Football Weekly this week and discovered that Lewandoski is on 20K a week. Sign him up on 21K, I say!