Micky

She got life - but I don't know what that means in this day and age.

That is an absolutely horrific case. I honest fail to understand how, in this day and age, that a child so young can be so endangered and nobody knows anything about it. It just beggars belief that this woman could subject any child, let alone her own, to this level of cruelty. But what annoys me most is how the signs were missed, and there must have been signs, I wonder how many 'what ifs' are going around in peoples consciences now. And the father? Nowhere to be seen? Sorry, but where kids are involved, especially this level of cruelty, neglect and evil - it just makes me puke.

That is an absolutely horrific case. I honest fail to understand how, in this day and age, that a child so young can be so endangered and nobody knows anything about it. It just beggars belief that this woman could subject any child, let alone her own, to this level of cruelty. But what annoys me most is how the signs were missed, and there must have been signs, I wonder how many 'what ifs' are going around in peoples consciences now. And the father? Nowhere to be seen? Sorry, but where kids are involved, especially this level of cruelty, neglect and evil - it just makes me puke.

Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, ELO, Hall & Oats, Led Zep, The Beatles, etc, etc, etc - for me, its one of the impossible questions.

You can shove you mil where the sun dont shine.

It's quite a good question actually. When you sit and think about it - would you really give up a lifetime of supporting your favourite team for half a mil. It's a lot of money (especially in the current climate), but to never be able to go to a game again or even be remotely connected to Saints. Somebody before me said that life comes first - and that is probably true - but then again.... Dunno - naturally the missus will be screaming take the money - me, I'm firmly on the fence.

Not his greatest fan to be fair - but liked listening to him go off on one. Lately though all of his post match interviews were about the oposition, how good they were, what good players that had, the quality they had on the bench. Should of talked his own lads up a bit more. Not a surprise that he has gone to be honest. Steve Keane - don't know how he is hanging on - perhaps the owners have no money and therefore can't attract better.

Shyte draw. Was never a red card, nor yellow. Wasn't even a foul. Abuse (alternate opinion) from those more qualified to: micky@iknownaffallaboutfootballandamnotaqualifiedreferee.co.uk - thanks..!

Why did you want to kill him?

Ohhhh nooooooo, please, cannot abide the man - total and utter beeellllllleeeeennnnnddddddddd, the absolute lowest of the low - how on earth does he get airtime - dispise him.

Perhaps Alps, because contrary to what you might think, it really isn't that simple mate, honestly.

Tend to agree with Adriansfc, at his time of life this is a pretty basic goalkeeping error - therefore hard to see him making drastic improvements in this area. It's one of his weaknesses - if anything I would be addressing it by getting our defenders to be aware of it and staying on their toes - hopefully bailing him out more times than not. Unfair maybe to expect somebody else to cover for his weakness, but it's a team game, players should be aware of teamates strenghts and weakness'.

Well if you really believe that we will never get into any other major conflict after we withdraw from Afghanistan where ground forces might be required, I can only say that I think that is naive in the extreme. But I do agree that politicians will have learned serious lessons from both Iraq and Afghanistan and will probably be a little more selective over where they choose to fight the next major campaign.

I have kept up mate, for the last 30 years or so - believe me.

Thats political - has absolutely nothing to do with soldiers. It maybe time for change - but until that change comes, what do you want us to do. It's all very well saying we shouldn't be there, but the fact of the matter is we are. Therefore we need to deal with it.

Oh right - so you would aspire to having a Navy and Air Force that can operate globally, but an Army that is used purely to defend the shores of the UK. I don't really understand the concept.

But the fact of the matter is that our Forces are designed to operate in the world arena - not 'our island' arena, hence we have to have forces commensurate with that task. I can tell you now that I have been associated with the Army since 1974 and as far as I am concerned they have never been more stretched than they currently are. Cut the numbers if you wish, but you'll need to surface your sub more often because you will be needed for ground duties mate - grab your gun and bergan, your patrolling Kandahar for your shore leave...!!!

Exactly - so why do you want to have ground forces that are capable only of operating at home...???!!!! Edit: Sorry - did you mean only Naval interests are the world over by the use of 'our'?

So in short, a UK defence force. Smaller Army, Navy and Air Force, confined to the shores of UK territories, with commitments to no other countries. You could - but a highly, highly dangerous strategy. We would have no military allies - we would have to be solely self sufficient in the whole of the defence arena. Don't forget this is not just about providing manpower to the 3 forces, but also equipment, resources, R & D, production and above all military expertise. If we adopted this route, probably one of the most reverred set of military forces would decay within years. We would find ourselves miles behind countries who remain in strong allegiance with each other - in short, our Armd Forces would decay to the point of probably being unfit for purpose. Even to defend just our own UK shores, god forbid any support to British dependancies. Ultimately, going it alone, is...... don't know - really wouldn't want to try it.

But if that is the case - why not configure our Air Force and Navy in the same manner - let them patrol only our shores and airspace.

I don't actually want to get into any protracted debate on this, but fwiw - my views, and some are quite radical. Many have posted that the death penalty is not an effective detterent. I don't care, I don't even think it's relevant, it's like saying any prison custodial sentence is not a deterent. Is an ASBO or Tag a deterrent - no, probably not. So why (in part) do I agree with Alpine? Simply becuase I want a form of punishment that fits the crime and I want justice (you can call it revenge too if you like - I wouldn't argue against it). I know that if any heinous crime were committed against any of my children or family, I would want the very, very worst for the perpertrator(s). A man in a Manchester street is enjoying a night out, a complete stranger walks up to him and shoots him in the head for no apparent reason. If the stranger is found guilty (without doubt) then he should be taken back to the street and shot in the head. I care not if he is a drug addict, if he comes from a poor background or whatever - the basis of right from wrong is known to all. So in short, I agree with Alpine - there is a place for the death penalty. I agree with Delldays & Turkish - use when there is no doubt (selective). I agree with Duckhunter - current sentencing policy for serious crimes are pathetic. And just to add to the controversy, once fair trial has been conducted, I would allow the victims to decide the ultimate fate of the perpertrator. If they want to forgive and grant clemency - fair play, if not then sobeit.

Granted they do. So if you take the Army out of this particular conflict - how much more fire power will you in the RN and RAF have to provide. I'm not knocking any of the services commitments or role, far from it. By the very nature of most modern conflicts, it is obvious that the Army will bear the brunt of committment in terms of numbers required on the front line. Do you really believe that it would be better that we withdraw our ground forces to a wholey home guard role, while expecting our navy and airforce to remain fully committed? Would it make your life (or that of the RAF) that much easier operating purely with foriegn nationals on the ground with no experience of UK force doctrine? When I think about it, Alpines plan would've made my 25+ years probably a whole lot easier, but seriously if you think it would work, you'd just as well go the whole hog, get rid of the Regular Army altogeather and perhaps let the TA take over.

I can (sort of) understand you point - but most of this is quite idealistic in the grand scheme of things. What people tend to forget is that we need NATO as much as NATO needs us. Yes we do appear to give a whole lot more than we take, but as you have pointed out - we are an island and as such, in major conflict we would be quite vulnerable. Look back at the last war - without US intervention, who knows. Interservice rivalry will always exist, it was only a couple of years ago that amalgamation of the RAF into the Army (or even the Navy..!) was being being seriously considered - probably none of the 3 services wants such drastic action. As for your tactics, of providing air or naval power only - well, having 'been there, seen it and etc etc...', it wont (and shouldn't) happen. What you are extensively saying is that we decline to join you at the sharp end. With the expertise that we have in both our RAF and Navy, we can (and do) win superiority in many hostile areas, but if you don't put troops on the ground you only have that advantage for as long as the shells are falling or the fighters are flying. Without committing to ground troops our resolve to being part of NATO (or any other defence force) would be, quite rightly, severely questioned. Slashing the Army in half, and basing your global commitment to air and sea power only is fine, so long as when the shyte hits the fan either here in the UK or one of it's protectorates you don't expect too much outside assistance.

I disagree with Alpine - to an extent. As somebody who served in the Army for over 25 years and who still works with the Army - there is absolutely no way that it can be termed as anywhere near 'excessive', given current operational commitments. Perhaps if we disassociate ourself from world affairs and renege most of our NATO commitments (as other national forces do), we may be left with a UK defence force that could be termed excessive. Operational tours of duty are now more frequent than at any time since the last world war, soldiers are spending more and more time on both Operational training and deployment in operational theatres. This is affecting both morale and retention rates. With all due respect to our other arms and services, who do a fukin great job, many of the Army personnel are literally in the front line - exposed to very real danger every day. I work largely in Germany, during my last visit before Xmas I came across one young soldier who had recently been casevaced from Afghanistan having only been in theatre for 2 weeks and was caught in a double IED blast. Luckily he sustained only minor shrapnel injuries, although who knows of the mental scars. Our Armed Forces are stretched, make no mistake about it - but believe me - the Army certainly is no better off than either the RN or RAF.

Only two, god Im getting old.... Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk