pap

How do we know that the Royals do not exercise their convictions? Sure, they might not come out with them publicly (Charles excepted, ofc), but one would think that there is a reason the PM heads over to the palace once per week. If, as you say, the Royals exercise no power, then why even bother soliciting their opinions?

While it is true that our system has many positions of power, you're wrong to use that to justify the Queen's special status along those lines as there is a massive difference in how people come to inhabit those roles. Normally, this involves years of developing the skills required to exercise that power appropriately. Further, the suitability of those candidates to perform said functions is constantly under scrutiny, with the powers to remove them if they are doing a bad enough job. Contrast that with the Royal Family. They are given massive constitutional power because they belong to a specific family. The monarch holds the position until death or abdication, and in normal circumstances, cannot be removed, irrespective of whether they are good at the job ( there is no real job description to measure against, handily ). I've heard all the arguments about the Head of State being above party politics. To be honest, I find them laughable. Are we to believe that our Royals go to the best schools and Universities this country has to offer, only to emerge with no political convictions whatsoever?

What about the argument that no UK citizen can ever be the head of the state they live in? Or the notion that one family is not only 'better' than all other families in this country, but is entitled to large amounts of tax-payer money purely on the basis of bloodline? I find common ground with a lot of what you post on other subjects, Chapel End Charlie. On this, we're miles apart. I have immense trouble resolving meritocratic ideas with the ongoing maintenance of a family that some venerate above all others. There is nothing intrinsically special about the Royals, save the environment we put them in.

At least on that we are agreed. I don't wish Israel any harm but equally, I recognise that the approval of the West, tacit or otherwise, is a destabilising factor in the region, and I think it is wrong that they are able to foment so much trouble without consequence, and without any real pressure to make the compromises needed to secure lasting peace in the region. I wonder if the Israeli people would be so ardent in their views if their get-out-of-jail-free card (unqualified backing from the US) was ever in question.

Phil - you make some very good points, and I agree with some of the issues that you have enumerated. Unfortunately, some of the issues you list just aren't up for public discussion. However, I don't think that this represents something immutable. The world changes every day, and with the debate expanding past traditional media, people are exposed to ideas that aren't being espoused in mainstream media. On your last point, do you think it correct that Israel is able to exert such a disproportionate amount of influence?

This is on the Jordan Rhodes thread, but thought I'd reproduce here as it is actually about Gary Hooper. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/01/18/southampton-make-final-bid-to-tempt-celtic-hitman-gary-hooper-south-as-they-offer-to-treble-striker-s-wages-86908-23705411/ Reckon Celtic will go for the 6M? Well aware of Lennon's 'valuation'.

Got a few more for you:- a) Put pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestinian question b) Respond to the semi-regular overtures from Iran for better with relations with better relations, rather than put them in a group called the "Axis of Evil" c) New American government with a less interventionalist approach d) Remove any oil/gas from Iran. Honestly, Phil - you do yourself no favours by framing these scenarios in the way you do.

They would have nuclear power and nuclear weapons already, and the West probably would not bat an eyelid.

Framed like that, of course not. There is a difference of opinion in what constitutes 'defence' though. For me, that would involve defending the homeland. For the Israelis, that can involve anything from killing civilians in or around its borders, to storming an aid flotilla. I can see how keen you are to remove Israel from the equation here, but really, the feelings between them and Iran are central to the tensions in the region. All this rhetoric really achieves is to divert our attention away from the elephant in the room by making out there's a country of demons just over the water. It's pathetic, simplistic, and judging from some of the responses on this forum, highly effective.

Or, alternatively, stop backing Israel to the hilt on its disgusting foreign policy and human rights record, another point I made ages ago. You assert that the only way to stop an Iran/Israel conflict is to apply pressure to Iran. We need to be a lot firmer with Israel, and let them know that there are some paths that they will need to walk alone.

It's not really a case of "allowed" to create them, is it? India and Pakistan didn't have special dispensation to create their own nukes, yet they have them now and no-one is really making a large fuss about it. The problem with UN involvement is that we create a massive double standard. It's okay for Israel to flout tons of UN resolutions, effectively practice apartheid and have WMD. Why is okay to ignore Israel's contempt for the UN and then use the self-same organisation to apply sanctions to Iran?

I agree, and further, would argue that some component of Iran's power in the region is the direct result of US-led intervention. In invading Iraq, they left Iran as the big boys in that part of the world. Not only that, but the amount of death wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq creates a lot of anti-US sentiment, amplifying the noise coming out of the Iranian regime even faster. I wonder what sort of noise the US would make if a foreign power invaded Canada and Mexico. Whatever. If we're briefly able to slip out of our Western viewpoints, and judged each country on the basis of who has been more dangerous to humanity at large, there is absolutely no contest.

Speaking of Gove and his rather questionable view about what should be publicly funded, news in today concerning the Michael Gove King James Bible Vanity Project. He has been told to seek private funding for this thunderer of a notion too. Thousands of copies apparently sitting in a warehouse abroad, according to claims in this Guardian article. Sitting there until a private benefactor can be found to finance the project. Reading between the lines, Gove has already spent the money, and after the fiasco with the Queenboat, the Government can't be seen to doing stupid Gove things with public money, hence the requirement for a private financer.

That is the key thing, really. If they wanted it to happen, all of the other considerations you list would be swept aside. They'd sort it out somehow.

Using that logic, Rooney would never be on the bench either. Different teams sometimes call for a different starting line-up. Your point is well made in general tho'. More the exception than the rule. The point I was inexpertly trying to make is that every player needs competition.

The government of this country is a joke and has been for as long as I can remember. Michael Gove in particular, is a disaster of an Education Secretary. Appreciate that your generation was taught to defer to authority, and that some of you actually bought it. The generations that followed haven't been so keen.

Disagree. We need new attacking options. A big reason that Lambert is on for the full 90 is that we don't really have anyone who can come in and do the job. Who do we have on the bench right now that is better than Lambert?

Don't dispute that all of these are unnecessary. However, I feel that inviting Celtic and Rangers would be a positive move and would probably end up curbing sectarianism. Years ago, Everton used to be referred to as the Catholic club while Liverpool FC were known to be a Protestant outfit. Not many modern fans of either club would even know about this, or choose one club over the other on the basis of religion. Over the years, we've rightfully ignored all that and judged them on their input. One of the few places that would choose Liverpool or Everton based on religion would be Northern Ireland. Of course, the really amusing thing is that the Catholics often get it the wrong way round, mistakenly assuming that Everton are the historically Protestant club based on little else apart from the fact that they wear blue as their home kit, same as Rangers.

Can we take this as evidence of the Echo/SFC feud dissipating?

Might be guilty of pap-maths here, but you don't get a new agent if you're not planning on a pay-rise. Given the noise surrounding Hooper, and the overtures about wanting a new contract (going back a month) I find it amazing that Celtic actually put off contract talks until the end of the year. Little timeline here: Dec 17 - Hooper states he'd like an improved contract Jan 15 - Hooper states he's happy at Celtic Jan 16 - Lennon announces that new contract talks have been put on hold Jan 17 - News reports surface about Hooper wanting new contract to be on parity with top earners. Ultimately, I think it'll depend on whether Hooper is happy with waiting for a new deal. Problem for Celtic is that it doesn't look like he is.

I completely agree with this. My youngest daughter is into those One Direction twerps. She went to see them in concert on Sunday night. The eldest already has decent taste in music, so I am hoping that this is merely a phase. I don't like paying any money to Simon Cowell and the like.

I don't think the Hooper saga is over. Not saying we'll get him, but I'd imagine his agent wants a pay-day this window.

I care, and they'd better show a lot more of Southampton this time around. No more of this Brighton malarkey, except to say how bad they are.

I've been consistent in my criticism of Diane Abbott on this thread, starting at post #4 where I labelled her comments racist. So nice try, Alps - but I'm fairly sure that things I've actually written trump your imagined view of what I might think.

Yago Falqué, apparently. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2579341,00.html