pap

As crazy as this sounds, I don't want every episode to be like that. The books have a massively anti-consumerist in message. The idea is that it takes the world to be ruled by the dead before people actually learn how to live again. As long as Kirkland keeps that in the back of his mind (should do - they're his sentiments), we'll be ok.

First off, K - you're doing yourself a disservice by assuming that my account of my Latvian housemate is the only evidence I have to go on. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Eastern Europeans have a harder time with race relations than the rest of Europe, including incidents like the Serbia game. Don't know if you remember this at all, but there was a documentary just ahead of the Euros which illustrated the scale of racism in Eastern European football and the way it manifests itself at games. If you want to get specific on Latvia itself, the country has a problem with racism. Perhaps one of the biggest issues is the lack of legislation aimed at tackling it. Until recently, there was none. Now, the only legislation that exists is for inciting racial hatred. A lot of racially aggravated crimes still aren't being processed as such. In 2005, the US warned its citizens not to go to Latvia following a spate of racially motivated attacks. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has had their eyes on Latvia for some time, reporting every year. The latest report, published in 2011, indicates that Latvia still has a long way to go in this area. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/latvia/LVA-CbC-IV-2012-003-ENG.pdf The only person who has gone off on a tangent here is you. You wanna conflate one personal account into my whole worldview of racism in Latvia? That's fine. I'm happy for that reality to exist in your own head. Have fun. In future though, might be worth crediting people with a little more sense than you can ostensibly attain yourself. xx

In lieu of any genuine facts, my working theory is that it is a falling out over a game of conkers in an unlicensed competition (where frowned upon practices such as "baking" or "vinegaring" are freely practiced). Neither can go public on the details for fear of a lifetime ban from the World Conker Championships.

I'll say this for you, dalek2003. I know where you stand on an issue

If you can't pin him down on specifics, why not ask him to pick something on a scale (nicest at top). 1) Selflessly donates own organs (that he might need) to help others awaiting transplant surgery 2) Gives up personal ambitions and desire, devoting oneself to lifelong service to others - in destitution if need be. 3) Sacrifices significant portion of life to helping others 4) Would give up seat on bus for old lady 5) Inspirational role model, driven - but not especially moral 6) Would snarl at old lady on bus and make slapping motion with hand in air as she approaches. 7) Cuts people up in traffic. Blocks lanes. Taxi driver, in all probability. Participates in minor acts of nastiness, such as p!ssing in people's petrol tanks or delivering dog-sh!t through a letter box. 9) Amoral gangster. Ruthless streak a mile wide. Access to automatic weapons and conventional explosives. Not arsed about using them. 10) Moriarty on an ecstasy comedown. 10) Global megalomaniac, controlling 60% of nation states behinds the scenes. Nukes badgers. Gasses gerbils. Known as "General Genocide" in most parts of the world. Can you ask Matty where Cortese fits on that scale?

C'mon Matty! Dish the dirt. I want to know what Nicola has done to earn your ire.

Fair play to Teresa May for standing up to the Americans on this one. Can't deny that McKinnon's acts were criminal, but the US officials were way over the top with their "see him fry" rhetoric. Extradition treaty needs sorting.

I doubt that there is anything religious about the intolerance anymore. It's mostly mindless tribalism in Scotland and in Northern Ireland its more about sovereignty and the inherent conflict between nationalist and unionist positions. I doubt that many theological arguments are being had.

That ungentlemanly conduct rule is a p!sser, my ursine friend. As a neutral, I enjoy a match with a good bit of needle as much as one with beautiful football. I think it is finally time for Speedball.

Nice one, btf. Vicarious immortality more than achieved!

I just like arguing, particularly when someone else starts it. Amazed that forum stalwarts haven't picked up on that yet

But it's been to Southampton, hypo! It has been named after our Queen!

Blimey, don't get ahead of yourself, Special K. Since you asked though, I proceeded from the assumption that your entire post was sarcastic nonsense, then answered it as if it wasn't. I'm not sure where self-esteem and living life vicariously come into it. It's possibly an indication that you need to:- a) get a dictionary b) if a) already accomplished, read the dictionary.

Glad to hear it. Thinking was never your strong point. It takes a big man to admit that, but I respect you for it. I am happy to think for you, and will forward you your new positions on racism, sarcasm, and the effect that Internet forums can have on common civility in due course. I suggest we address future "blanks" on a priority basis.

Alps, if you care so much about ships, why do you live in a landlocked country?

Hutch, you little devil. I see what you're doing here; trying to get poor old pap to jump arse first into a nest of racist vipers! As to your question, I'm not saying all Latvians are racist, but many certainly have strong views about anyone who is not Latvian. Probably doesn't help that the Latvians were under the jackboot of Stalinism for so long, or that many of them willingly signed up for the jackboot of Nazism during WW2 ( which probably didn't amuse Stalin that much ).

A lot of Eastern Europeans, including our Latvian friend, have attitudes to race that would be termed backward here. I'd like to say it's purely down to ignorance, but even when told basic stuff like "you shouldn't use n****r to refer to a black person", some will merrily continue to use it, knowing how offensive it is. Latvian lad that shared my digs being informed that my grandfather is Pakistani:- "You are not.... one hundred percent?" On Poles: "Bad peoples. They are not nice peoples" An indication of what you're dealing with here.

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination. Would you want a say on whether they leave the union or not? Should the Spanish have a say in whether Catalunya gets to leave Spain? In cases like these, the larger whole would often like to keep the entire country intact. Self-determination is the guiding principles in cases like these. The whole point is that on questions of sovereignty, external influences are excluded. In the case of a group of people seeking independence from a larger nation, opinions of the larger nation don't come into it, and rightfully so. Should the smaller nations that popped out of Yugoslavia have sought Serbian approval to exist? Self-determination is the standard that we expect others to abide by; we can't credibly abandon it when it doesn't suit us.

I'm almost caught up. Before this series started, there was much talk of turmoil in the production. Frank Darabont quit as show runner and reports of the budget being massively cut. Needn't have worried. Much of the show is about the tense character relationships anyway, and the show did a superb job in establishing scale in the first season. Don't feel like I'm getting anything second-rate, that's for sure.

Walking Dead time, in the early part of season 2. Never real comfy watching this, spend a good deal of time cacking my pants or feeling grossed out. Excellent show.

The demand for Louis' address was an immediate power play. All very strange. How does a man in the public eye, an chick magnet of massive proportions in his day, get to the age of 82 and end up unmarried, living in a flat in Scarborough? The man didn't even have a cooker in his kitchen. I bet that booze was all his too. The mention of legal action ties into reports that he silenced people seeking to out him before. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is what he says when asked about emotion. Savile has claimed not to have any emotions in interviews before. "The truth is, I'm very good at masking them". Some might argue he was just an old man talking crap, but my shout is that Savile's performance was a lot more candid than most realised. That out-take featuring his comments on Glitter seem to support this. Why would Jimmy Savile, a relentless self-publicist and attention-seeker, make up feelings of support for and try to downplay the offences of a convicted paedophile? They might have been mates back in the day, but those statements were pure kryptonite to pretty much everything he was interested in ( barring his penthouse sh!thole in Scarborough ). Would not be surprised if he had taken legal action or editorial privilege to keep that footage out. The glare of publicity would have made him persona non grata around kids, charity cash or not. Very creepy.

I don't share your appreciation of the law being inviolable. Law changes, and even when it doesn't, pragmatism kicks in for all sorts of reasons. Not in the public interest, questions of enforcement, different priorities on limited budgets. The perceived victims in these cases have the same protection under Romeo & Juliet laws. If there is a complaint - it's a crime, but only if there is a complaint. Under UK law, the perceived offender is on the sex offenders register for life even if the girl consents. Also, we send people to Parliament every five years specifically to change the law so that it meets the needs of the society it serves Age of consent is aligned with marriageable age here, but it doesn't always correlate. Spain's age of consent is 13, yet it only permits marriage at 16 with parental consent, or 18 if the parents think the bloke's a tosser / girl not good enough for our prince. It's difficult to know what to make of that chasm in age difference from this British vista, where such things are aligned. If I had to guess though, I'd say they consider marriage to be a bigger deal than sex, and that they feel their child protection and sexual offence legislation can cover cases of abuse. I might be wrong though - they could just be a nation of raging paedos frequently visited by Messrs Glitter and Savile. Romeo & Juliet laws would have a difficult time getting through Parliament. The debate would have to be framed in the right way, but for me it comes down to this. Juvenile delinquents can go on a crime spree and if they behave in later life, can pretend it never happened. The justice system recognises that teenagers are a special case - a lethal cocktail of adult brain, raging hormones, somehow knowing it all despite having bugger all experience, limited only by their imaginations and pocket money. The courts bend over backwards to keep them out of jail and to prevent them from getting a permanent stain on their records. I like the "hey, teenagers can be d!cks - let's make allowances" part of our justice system. A lifelong entry in the sex offenders register for a 16 year old sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend seems a massively disproportionate sanction, especially when compared to the smorgasbord of second chances on offer to habitual ratboys who can't get laid. For the record, and for the benefit of the 2+2=5'ers:- 1) all models in the distinctly unimpressive "pap's sexual odyssey", spanning 21 years, running time 48 minutes*, were UK legal at the time of filming. 2) I am not on the sex offenders register * I jest. 49 minutes.

I don't think that the legal age of consent is off the menu here. Egg has been pretty hard line on the age of 16. While I think it correct, I do feel that there is room for interpretation to prevent the gratuitous criminalisation of young kids. I'm also surprised to see the "it's the law" trumpeted out as an argument. Just because something is in the statute books, doesn't mean it is perfect or indeed, enforced. We already turn a blind eye to a hell of a lot of victimless crime. Texas law is:- If there is no complaint from the perceived victim All parties are over 14 The older partner is no more than 3 years older ...then it isn't a crime. I think that's fair enough, and I think it's worth bringing up when people raise the "anything under 16 is terrible", even in a debate on Savile's perverse proclivities. Savile was a predator and paedo; a far cry from a fumbling teenager and his girlfriend.

Staff at Stoke Mandeville hospital told young girls to "pretend to be asleep" during Savile's visits. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600123/Jimmy-Savile-did-ward-rounds-at-Stoke-Mandeville-to-find-young-girls-to-abuse.html

Thanks for this Tokyo. At the time, I'm sure the baffled public thought "Good old Jimmy. What an eccentric he is. Bit random though". Watch it with the mindset that "Jimmy might be a sexual predator and paedophile", and it actually makes sense. Louis might have had some sleepless nights recently.