Sheaf Saint

Sorry but I disagree with that. Yes it appears there were warnings associated with his hiring which were ignored, but the fact remains he was contracted to a private company rather than the armed forces, and therefore he should face the justice system in the country where the crime took place. Just as it should be for any other civilian.

I've stopped using Firefox anyway because I've found the recent versions of it to be even slower than IE and it crashes a lot. Use Chrome now - much better.

"It's Not About the Bike" No, clearly not.

Yes, I agree. But I made the comparison because a lot of the discussion at the time was along the same lines and a good number of people I spoke to assumed he was guilty.

There was more than one complaint against him IIRC, which is why a lot of people started to believe that there must have been some truth in them.

Well yeah, there's always that. This whole thread is reminiscent of the kind of discussions that went on among Saints fans when the allegations against Dave Jones came out... Too many cases to be a one-off, no smoke without fire etc...

You didn't. My comments were aimed at this bit of the OP...

I don't doubt it for a second. And I don't believe anybody is making excuses for them either. Their actions are loathsome and inhumane. BUT... It's important that people make the distinction between the Taliban's perverted version of Islam and Islam in general, because when you make out like the religion itself allows for this sort of thing, as the OP appeared to be doing, you are doing the extreme right's leg-work for them by spreading myths about Islam that only serve to perpetuate irrational fear and mistrust.

Indirectly, yes. But my point being that the people who carried out this attack have been indoctrinated by Taliban leaders whose political views are based on their own extreme and twisted version of Islam, rather than either of the mainstream Islamic sects. So to claim that it was done 'in the name of Islam' is misguiding. It would be more accurate to say it was carried out in the name of the Taliban, and it is important to make that distinction IMO.

Not really, it doesn't actually state that in the article. It is part of the doctrine of the the Taliban to oppress women and prevent them from getting an education, and it is a very radical and twisted version of Islam on which their doctrine is based, but to claim this individual action was done in the name of Islam is a little misleading. I'm not normally one to speak out for and defend religions, because it is my personal belief that they are all based on delusions, but your opening post appears to be criticising an entire religion for the misguided actions of a tiny minority.

It's just their way of life in that region of the world, and has been for centuries, regardless of the religious aspect. The brutal oppression of women is not exclusive to Islam.

Yeah but she's only still a celebrity in the minds of a handful of magazine editors, so she doesn't really count.

You must be devastated

What kind of f***ed up world are we living in where people are legally able to buy cocktails containing liquid nitrogen!? What are the people who buy it thinking? It's liquid nitrogen FFS... not lemonade!

And if he had stayed on and we had lost, what then? Would you now be complaining that Nigel didn't make any changes that might have won it for us? It's all ifs, buts and maybes.

Regards your first point about not knowing his best 11, I really don't see how you can judge that when he hasn't at any point so far this season had a fully fit squad to choose from. Secondly, it's all very well claiming his subs are costing us games but the only one I can think of where this can be the case is Man U. I didn't see many people complaining about his changes in the Villa game. You and others are complaining about him taking off our best player, but SRL was far from that yesterday - he was having a poor game by his standards and Adkins decided that a change was necessary, and although I have been a critic of his in the past I thought Guly was very effective when he came on and I actually agree with NA's decision there. With regards Puncheon... Again, he was lively but he was going nowhere. He showed a bit of pace at times but his control and first touch were poor and he was constantly giving away possession and leaving Yoshida exposed at RB. Again, I totally agree with NA's decision to replace him with Chappers who was more effective both in getting forward and in tracking back. Nigel's hand was forced with the early loss of Fraser and the need to put his 1st choice CB to a position he clearly isn't comfortable in, and replacing him at CB with his 3rd choice. Had that not happened it would have been a different game, so I really cannot see how people can state with such authority that it was Adkins' tactics that cost us the win. If I had to choose just one aspect of yesterday's game that was the primary reason for us not winning it was the failure to take our chances in the 1st half whgen we were in command of the match.

Yeah but Pardew's sacking wasn't a knee-jerk response to a bad run of results.

Yeah cos panicking and sacking the manager is a policy that has always worked out well for us in the past isn't it. Oh, hang on....

Pickings are very slim round my way this year. Went out foraging this morning and found loads of Blackthorn but very few actual berries. The two trees I normally go to, which have yielded far more berries than I need in recent years, are practically bare. And it's not because somebody has already had them either. Must be a result of the crap summer we had. Still, it's a good thing I found a bumper load of damsons a month or so ago. I tried a little of the 2 litres I made the other day and it's great stuff already.

Why the hell did we wait until we were 2-1 down before we started playing!? So infuriating. Fulham were poor and there for the taking, and we nearly gave it to them on a plate.

They've all been a bit harsh IMO - especially Hooiveld's.

And again given away so so cheaply by Jose

So far Fonte has managed to find a Fulham player with just about every clearing header today - even when under no pressure. It's like he's deliberately trying to give the ball away. It's only a matter of time before we concede IMO. Better pray we score another one or two because 1-0 won't do it.

This ever-sensitive issue has provoked some thoughtful responses regarding the overall rights and wrongs of abortion. Not being a parent myself it is difficult for me to hold any real strong view about the legality of it, but I do believe the current legal limit of 24 weeks does need to be addressed. The reason being that a few years ago some friends of mine had a premature baby at 23 weeks - he was no bigger than my mate's hand at birth - and legally the medical team could have chosen not to resuscitate him at less than 24 weeks. It was touch and go for a long time and he needed an oxygen ventilator for the first couple of years because of his under-developed lungs, but he has grown to be a perfectly healthy boy. Going back a few years, this would not have been possible. The hospital would not have had the skills or the resources to care for him and keep him alive following such a premature birth and he would have been simply allowed to die, but his case is not unique by any means. More and more babies born at this term are surviving now thanks to advances in medical technology and understanding. So this is why I believe that the law allowing a mother to terminate a pregnancy at a stage where the baby could be born, survive and go on to lead a perfectly normal, healthy life needs to be urgently reviewed.

You think? I've been to both and I thought Chill Factor was better.