pap

Brand may or may not have solutions of his own, but acts as a lightning rod for some pretty interesting people. He often has guests on his Trews shows that are advocating some kind of policy change.

He was mental to take the Reading job in the first place and if the reports of mega cash are true, then he swapped his medium term future for a bit of lucre and continuing status as a Premier League manager, at a time when he had the sympathy and respect of the footballing world. All he had to do was bide his time and he might have landed a job at a club that wasn't plummeting out of the league. We of all people know how difficult it is to bounce back up. Accordingly, NA gets a ton of respect for the tremendous back-to-back promotions we enjoyed. I've seen the flat track bully argument, that anyone could have steered Saints upward given the resources at the club's disposal. Interesting, but ultimately pointless. NA did achieve it, and I'll be thankful to him for that forever. His next choice of job will be interesting. Rightly lauded at Scunny, but reached his level. Did very well with us, but was out of his depth in the Prem. I just hope he takes a wee bit more time deciding, although his options are going to be nothing like the ones he had after getting bounced out of here.

This one makes me laugh. I blame directly elected Police Commissioners. The unwanted f**kers have to justify their 10% turnout existence and real crime is hard to eliminate. A proud copper standing over large bags of weed and a set of scales looks great in the local rag. Especially if you're stoned.

Merry New Year!

Dan Carlin did a very decent series of podcasts about them. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. Episodes are called Wrath of the Khans ☺

History is less about blame and more about cause and effect. When the Mongols were attacking China, it was around three of four largish states they went after, and much of those were not destroyed to the same degree. The Mongols considered the whole world their empire by divine right. Surrender or die was their mantra. Some surrendered, some died. Some surrendered and died anyway, particularly those foolish enough to not make good on their promises to fealty. As it went, the Mongol conquest of the Chinese states allowed them to take to the field against medieval Arabs and Europeans packing gunpowder, augmenting what was an already impressive setup. The expectation at the time was that there was nothing that would stop the Mongols from getting to the Atlantic, and they were never stopped. Western European nations have providence to thank for their existence. If not for the deaths of Khans, and the ensuing succession crises that tied them up internally for years, they might have conquered the world. You don't even have to go that far back. Take the 1953 coup in Iran as an example. Democratically elected president decides to nationalise the oil companies, and is subsequently taken out in an MI6/CIA-led operation. A brutal regime is in place for 30 years, only to be toppled by a fundamentalist regime that exists to this day. How far would Iran have got in the last 60 years if not for the effects that Western intervention in 1953 had caused? What-ifs are always interesting. Those are examples in the Islamic World, but I do think there is a bit of validity in your point. Countries need to be resilient, and you could perhaps point to nations like us or France as examples of success. Despite losing generations of potential, we're still here, right? But not without cost. A hundred years ago, Britain and France were both first-rate powers with overseas possessions in a multi-polar world. In 2014, we're bit part players having to share military resources with each other. That is a shocking dip in the graph there, and it may be that in a couple of hundred years time, the Chinese will be discussing our decline on their football forums. "They were the first power in the world! They had time to invent football and kick our arses. Now we're on top". Shít, they could legitimately say that today if you forget those troublesome human rights and non-lethal employment environments, although to be fair, the Tories are trying their best to achieve parity

There is one word which explains much of the beginning of the decline. Mongols. Steven Dutch writes of the Mongol sacking of Baghdad: To be fair to the Arabs, the Mongols completely f**ked over any Europeans they met too. Ukraine, Hungary, Croatia and Romania were all trounced. The reason Belarus has its name it that it's the one part of the Rus lands that the Mongols didn't get to. Then you look at the last three hundred years history. Most parts of the Arab world were under the influence of a colonial power, and when they were given notional independence, Westerners decided the frontiers of their lands, often locking in a degree of divide and rule through the lines of demarcation. You only need to look at the plight of the Kurds to see that one in action. One people in five separate countries. Spin forward to today, and we've the spectacle of Western states propping up the dictatorships you loathe, turning a blind eye to stuff like slavery in Dubai, invading countries that won't comply and conducting drone strikes with 95% collateral damage in countries that we think may hide terrorists. You were wondering why Islamic nations haven't got as "far" as we have.

I've got lots of dealings, thanks. A good part of my extended family is Muslim. I've never been over myself, but many of my family have, and many of our family from Pakistan have visited here. We also knew many of the other Muslim families in Southampton, including Iranians, etc. One of my pals during the early 2000s was a Libyan chap that I used to drink down the pub with. I don't appreciate your points because there is absolutely no meat on them, halal or otherwise. It's like watching someone walk in to a room and say "cows can speak French, innit" with absolutely no f**king explanation as to why that might be the case. The facts are that you've made a number of claims you've been asked to back up, and instead of doing so, play the inverse limited experience card. Not good enough, sir.

Sorry chaps, you'll have to point me to any of your posts where you've merited the ability to credibly take the píss. Batman's content is almost never substantiated, and gives the continual air of a man who just cannot be arsed, not even when starting a thread. Forgive me if I treat his derision with something less than seriousness. Whitey is capable of being alright, but I'm not impressed with any of the arguments made on this thread, which just amount to a baseless fear of the other and an attempt at dehumanising Muslims by claiming they don't use "Western logic", whatever the f**k that is. We don't know, because Whitey couldn't explain it when asked to. Seriously chaps, I don't like to overtly insult, but I feel its justified when people are dishing it out. What the pair of you know about this subject, combined, I could write on my cock in biro. I am not a big man.

Get back to junior debaters club, sonny.

Think that's the best of the lot there. Go on. Call me thick again. I could do with more comedy in my life.

Did you hear this bit? And if so, what did Farage say that was better? Or was he just relying on his UKIP plant to sort Brand out? Almost worked.

I'm making a general point on the qualities of Question Time. I suspect the main reason that torture wasn't discussed last night was because Russell Brand was handing Nigel Farage's arse to him. Good work on your theorising though; it's really coming along.

Nah, just quoting song lyrics. The way this game is normally played is someone picks up on it and says "nice reference, pap". Sometimes it's just too damn obscure and that's ok too. You've ruined it now, so just enjoy the fecking song. On the QT thing, the program's validity is always going to be in question for various reasons. It purports to be an armoured vehicle, with weapons that allow members of the public to shoot any question at prominent public figures. It isn't that. They ask potential audience members what they'd like to discuss up-front, there is obviously some degree of selection in accommodating the questions. It's not usually recorded live to prevent "nutters" like me from pretending we want to talk about parking fines in Dorking and then dropping the conspiracy bomb. However, there have been occasions where it has gone out live, which is why I qualified the description with "rarely".

Both great films, Bear. Hugely influential too. I set traps for burglars when I am home alone and have never looked at a microwave the same way after Gremlins.

Ooh. Nice thread. I'll go with something left-field for starters; guitar solos are normally all about the rock, and this solo is performed by a rock musician, but it's for a pop song. Beat It, by the late Michael Jackson, performed by Eddie Van Halen. Cannot exclude the great Slash from proceedings. Gotta go with Sweet Child of Mine, which is probably the greatest rock ballad of all time. I'm a late fan of Metallica's black album; only managed to live with it in the last decade. One of the things that swung me was the guitar solo to Unforgiven, ably demonstrating one of the finest things in rock music; order to disorder, and then back to order. The bearded boys of ZZ Top get a mention for their bluesy work in Sharp Dressed Man. Others have mentioned Free Bird, and rightly so. It's fantastic, and I love the fact that the album cut just fades out. You imagine the bastards in a room somewhere, still doing it after thirty years. I don't really listen to them anymore, but I really enjoyed Richie Sambora's solos from the Bon Jovi albums. Wanted: Dead or Alive has some fine work. Speaking of the general work of bands, you can't not include AC/DC. So many good solos. I'm a real fan of their bluesier stuff, but if I had to pick a couple for fine work, it'd be Whole Lotta Rosie and Let There Be Rock, both of which are basically songs full of solos. Almost done. Even Flow, Pearl Jam. Finally, this is pretty much all lead guitar. Hendrix gets a lot of cred for making his guitar talk. Check out little Stevie Vai.

It's that magical time of the year again. Snow. Birth of Jesus. Massive and seemingly endless consumerism. It's Christmas. Inspired by the wonderfully named and fantastically festive Good and Sh*te X-Mas songs thread, I thought a separate thread on Christmas movies might be a decent shout. For me, Die Hard remains at #1. Die Hard 2 is also pretty Christmassy. It has snow, anyways. This is a f**king low bar to clear, people. What are your favourite festive films?

I moved out at a young age and learned to cook then. ms pap claims I am the best cook in the house and that I should cook more often. The only part of that I believe is her wish for me to cook more often. I do pizza from scratch. Easy really, bit of dough making and blind baking for the base, bit of alchemy and not-so-secret ingredient for the sauce, but people are impressed.

Don't rile him, TopGun. He's not happy. Cooking is a noble art, btw. I don't know why he gets so angry when it's mentioned. Probs because he's Chief Petty Latrine Licker or something.

"Only approved questions get answered. Now stand your ass up for that national anthem". Question Time is rarely live. The fact that it was the Brand vs Farage show last night probably didn't help.

Hey man, this is Christmas music! (I paraphrase Argyle to get Die Hard on at Christmas)

That last line is classic.

Don't really see how you got that from my posts. Read the one about root cause again.

Based on what? A dream you had? The product of your lunchtime leisure? There are demonstrations happening all over the country for various "not in my name" causes, and I think you're probably guilty of projecting your own lack-of-arsedness onto everyone else, probably because it makes you feel better about your own lack-of-arsedness.

Your point doesn't really work if you add context. First, there was a culture of fear and propaganda. Second, there's the fact that incumbent governments only really get unseated when enough folks are at the end of their tether. Third, Labour got their majority on 40% of the vote, due to the fúcking shít-fest electoral system we have. Finally, there are people that'll vote for other policies that Labour are putting forward. They may not like the war on terror, but they still feel it is their best option. Remember that Labour were up against Michael Howard, and also remember that turnout was only 60%. Oh, and there wasn't a credible party running anti-torture policy either. You're essentially arguing that the 2005 general election victory = general assent for torture. It isn't.