CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Our signing strategy might work wonderfully - it might fail miserably I suppose - but whatever the outcome I'm all for giving it a go. We could build a team (as many others have) based around established Premier League players looking for a last big pay day before they decline, but our way - the Southampton way - looks a better way to me. Virtually every player we field this coming season - Lambert/Lallana/Schneiderlin/Rodriguez - will take to the pitch having something still to prove in the game, this season will be the biggest moment of their careers so far for most of them. An enticing prospect if ever I saw one.

I've almost finished the book 'From a Buick 8' by Steven King - I'm surprised this too has not been adapted for the cimema.

Although I must admit they are not at all scary to a modern audience I do still much admire the early Universal horror movies from the 1930's & 40's - films such as Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, Dracula, The Mummy, The Wolf Man .... etc. I have them all in my collection and often view them as a sort of antidote to the awful slasher films that now dominate the genre. Among other old movies still worth seeing are the famous British portmanteau 'Dead of Night' which is a fine atomsphric old thing to watch in the dark. I have already bored the forum rigid with my three decade long love affair with Jacques Tourneur's 1957 classic 'Night of the Demon'. Anyone really interested in vintage horror should also seek out 'The Skull' (scared me silly as a kid) and the original 1963 'The Haunting' - perhaps the finest haunted house film ever made. More modern horrors that I like include 'Ghost Story' (with Fred Astaire of all people), John Carpenter's highly influential 'Halloween' of course and Nicole Kidman in 'The Others' . I'll freely admit I that both enjoyed and much admired 'The Blair Witch Project' and the 'Paranormal Activity' series of films that it inspired - although I know many think they're rubbish. But if you tortured me into revealing the most frightened I've ever been in the cinema then it was in front of a film that is not even conventional horror film - Ridley Scott's sci fi masterpiece 'Alien' - poor Captain Dallas v the Alien - scary stuff.

I can't match Jillyanne's alarming tale, but many years ago I (and other family members) witnessed a strange sight from a upstairs window. The only way I can describe it was a very bright light suspended underneath a crumpled irregular shape that was slowly descending to ground. A parachute flare or something like it perhaps, but it seemed to me too far big for that. Needless to say I could not find a camera in time to photograph it. This all happened in broad daylight over a heavily populated area, but calls the local paper and the police generated no interest at all.

If we're talking about what are commonly refereed to as 'worm holes' then as far as I'm aware these are only known to exist in theory - and in Science Fiction of course. If they exist at all is it possible for a large object (such as a space craft) to enter them and emerge on the other side intact ? Can you reliably chart exactly where in space/time you are destined to emerge ? Questions, questions ....... There's a easy way to explain to a child what we mean by 'warping' space. 1 - Get a piece of paper and draw two well separated dots on it. 2 - Ask kid to draw a line between the dots that represents the shortest distance between them - a bright child will draw a straight line. 3 - Take the paper off them and inform child they are hopelessly wrong 4 - Fold paper in half and punch a hole between the lined up dots with tip of pencil - you have just warped space. 5 - Prepare for bitter complaints and accusations of cheating !

For a alien species to have visited our 'Island Earth' one has to assume that Einstein was wrong and that practicable faster than light travel is indeed possible - or that our space tourists are a much more long lived/patient life form than we are. For what it's worth given the (unimaginable) scale and age of the Universe I think it overwhelmingly likely that other technologically sophisticated life forms have and do exist - each of them perhaps forever isolated from each other by a unbridgeable gulf of interstellar space/time. Having said that there have been observed phenomena in the sky that certainly defy conventional explanation .... so like all the best questions this one continues to evade any definitive answer.

Dan, Dann, Southampton's man ? http://www.clicklancashire.com/sport/blackburn-rovers-fc/1212937-southampton-rival-reading-for-blackburn-rovers-defender-dann.html

...

Among recent TV series I have enjoyed were the BBC's 'The Strange Case of the Law' which was a fascinating programme charting the long history of the English Common Law from its earliest Anglo-Saxon roots right up to the present day. Our guide was a (unknown to me) QC with the gloriously unlikely name of Harry Potter - but when you stopped giggling it very soon became apparent that this chap really knows his subject inside out. When our Mr Potter concluded that the story of our law is the story of England, he was so on the button that it almost sent a chill down the spine of this old History enthusiast. I also much enjoyed 'Prophets of Science Fiction' on Quest at the weekend. Not groundbreaking programming perhaps but a informative enough look back at some of the most significant authors of the genre - for instance the first programme deals with the formidable body of work that Issac Asimov produced during his long working life. Like all good TV it leaves you wanting more. Recommended viewing for anyone interested in Sci Fi. The same can't be said however for Sunday nights new series of 'Wallander'. Now I'll be the first to admit that I love the new wave of dark Scandinavian crime fiction more than most I guess, but this is just turgid nonsense that the BBC should have strangled at birth.

...

His face was his fortune I suppose, but not really a personal favorite of mine in all honesty. But thinking about it I can't remembering him putting in many bad performances - gwad knows he was in some terrible films - but he was pretty good on the whole.

From the nether regions of my DVD collection I unearthed a semi forgotten a copy of that 1983 horror classic 'Christine' last night, and I was instantly reminded of just why I've enjoyed this fine piece of hokum so very much ever since it was first released nearly 30 years ago. The script (a very competent adaptation of a Steven King novel) can be summarized easily enough: the purchase and restoration of a dilapidated - but inherently devilish - 1957 Plymouth Fury alters the character of a nerdish American teenager. The malevolent influence of this evil car transforms this awkward lad from your stereotypical high school 'loser' into a independent and sexually confident young man ... oh and heaven help anybody who decides to cross him or his satanic motor. Funnily enough we were only discussing John Carpenter films in the Sci Fi thread the other day, but to my shame I'd totally forgotten he made this one of my favorite films ! But having a director of his caliber on board does go a long way towards explaining why it is such a bloody good movie.

How about we sing "we're only here for a year" like the Northam did back in 2006/7 .... one hopes not of course!

Well penalties are generally taken by confident footballers (England players with the first name 'Ashley' excepted) and although the newcomers will have trouble taking penalty kick duty away from Sir Rickie, having players who we know can keep their heads under pressure must be a good thing looking at the scale of the task ahead of us. In a similar vain I wonder if our latest signing will benefit from being at Rangers and automatically winning so very much Scottish silverware as a result. Does being constantly told in effect that you're one of the best players around give you such a ego boost that you become a better more self assured player than you might otherwise be, or are the best cakes only baked at the higher temperatures if you know what I mean ? Well we are about to find out I suppose.

Football is a very well paid, but bloody hard game is it not ? Players come here because we want them, they do their level best for us and they play a big part in getting this grand old club two successive promotions. The reward for all that honest endeavor ... well if Dean is reading this it's being told by mugs like me that you're no longer good enough before you've even had a chance to play at the pinnacle of the English game. But the hard truth is he probably isn't the type of player who could make much of a impact in this league. They often say there's no room for sentiment in football - in this case 'they' are almost certainly right I'm afraid. Sorry Dean.

Well we take all that lovely Sky money and they take our beloved Saturday 3pm KO's away in return. I don't much like it in all honesty, but that's the deal I suppose.

I finished 'Innocent' by Scot Turow last week, which is a sequel to the same authors highly successful novel (and film) 'Presumed Innocent' 'Rusty' Sabich has rebuilt his career following his sensational acquittal in the Caroline Polhemus murder trial is he is now a senior appellate judge running for election to the State Supreme Court. Then his troubled wife Barbara suddenly dies in what soon become suspicious circumstances, and his old adversary Tommy Molto gets yet another chance to shine a light into Rusty's murky love life - and the evidence against the judge starts to mount up ....... If you like courtroom drama anywhere near as much as I do then the Scott Turow really is your man - I actually think he's a better writer than his more successful and prolific contemporary John Grisham. I find it difficult when reading a book that features characters you have already seen in a film not to picture in your minds eye the actors cast in the original film. I can't help but see Sabich as Harrison Ford of course, but in particular ace defence attorney Sandy Stern will always be Raul Julia to me. What superb performances Julia delivered in every single film of his I have seen, and what a tragedy it is that he died so relatively young.

Jamie Mackie rumour resurfaces: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/05/robin-van-persie-manchester-united?newsfeed=true

Well we seem to have come full circle and have returned to recycling familiar 'they started it' type arguments. It would seem that Christopher Hitchens was indeed right afterall - while that last veterans of the Bomber Command are still with us, it is almost impossible for this country to have a truly "grown up" debate on this emotive subject. For the record I'm very far from being some sort of left wing pacifist, nor do I have any hidden agenda against Sir Arthur Harris. As ever I merely attempt to speak the truth as I see it. But engaging in the usual SWF slanging match with those who hold a different view seems undesirable because such a argument would inevitably descent into becoming disrespectful to the memory of the 55,000. So I'll leave it here and ask anyone reading this to believe me that disrespecting the memory of the victims of area bombing - either aircrew or civilian - is very last thing I would ever seek to do.

Arthur Harris was a man of enormous power and influence, the ultimate 'Bomber Baron'. Attempting to portray him has a mere functionary passing on orders from above is a gross distortion of the historical truth. The power a military man wields is not always a simple matter of the rank they happen to hold. Nominally Harris was under the direct command of Air Chief Marshall Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of the Air Staff. However the relationship between these two senior officers was problematic to put it mildly. Harris had the 'ear' of the Prime Minister - then as now those with direct access to the seat of power can often possess a level of influence and independence of action far above that which their rank may have otherwise entitled them to. Harris would do his damnedest to run his Command as he saw fit, and if Portal ordered him to pursue a course of action that he happened to disagreed with, he was not above going over his superior officer's head. Just two examples how he regarded Bomber Command as his personal fiefdom was his extreme reluctance to abandon the failed Battle of Berlin in order that Bomber Command might participate in the preparations for Operation Overlord - he only gave way when the Supreme Commander (Eisenhower) insisted at the highest level on the maximum level of bomber support. Later in 1944 even after the USAAF Strategic Bomber force had conclusively proved that precision daylight bombing was having a dramatic effect on German oil production, he still virtually ignored a direct order and only half-heartedly joined in with this profoundly important mission. His bombers had more important work churning the rubble of ruined (and virtually defenceless by this stage) German cities of course. The picture of Arthur Harris I retain in my minds eye is of him sitting in his office at RAF High Wycombe selecting (at whim almost) which target city he was going to devastate that night, this is not the image of a minor official only following orders. The truth is nearly always a shade of gray rather than simple matter of black and white certainty. It is true that the AOC Bomber Command was certainly not solely responsible for the policy of area bombing, but Sir Arthur Harris as the hapless victim of history? I don't think so.

Reread the OP and then tell me how often Arthur Harris is even mentioned.

From what I've read over the years Bomber Command aircrew held a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards their AOC. Some certainly admired what we might describe as his single-minded clarity of purpose, and his oratory was certainly be first rate at times. A great many others however found him a cold man no overly concerned with maximizing the survival prospects of the young bomber crews under his command. It must be said that although he is best remembered as 'Bomber' Harris in public, it is rather telling that within the service he was often privately referred to as 'Butcher' Harris - a nickname not earned solely for his well known enthusiasm for 'butchering' Germans. But when you write that Sir Arthur Harris was made a scapegoat then I actualy agree with you to some extent at least. Area Bombing was a policy approved of at the very highest (Prime Ministerial) level, so you could reasonably argue that responsibility for it results lay with the War Cabinet or even Churchill personally. Even before the horrific destruction of the historic city of Dresden in 1945, many leading politicians and senior officers skillfully started to distance themselves from the excessive bloodshed that area bombing entailed as they (unlike Harris) could see that - with the war clearly in its final stages - wanton destruction on this scale would be very difficult to justify. It proved very convenient for some to blame it all on Sir Arthur. Having said all that ultimately Harris still comes across as a cruel, inflexible man. A true (almost fanatical) believer in Area Bombing and the misguided theory that air power alone could win the war. It seems quite clear that he was so personally committed to proving that concept that he was prepared to kill any number of German civilians - and even his own men if need be - to prove the point. A psychotic personalty in all probability. History has been very hard on the reputation of Arthur Harris, but it this case the judgment of history seems sound enough.

You know I've carefully read this piece several times now and I can't find a single aspect of it that I can't at least partially agree with. Hitchens has made it quite clear that his criticism is confined to the policies pursued by Sir Arthur Harris, rather than the sacrifice of the aircrew unfortunate enough to find themselves under his misguided command. I'm sure Harris acted in good faith - he thought he was doing the right thing - but the historical record shows he was wrong about almost everything in the final analysis. The truth must be said however painful it is. The culmination of Sir Arthur's disastrous leadership of Bomber Command was the campaign known as the 'Battle of Berlin' when he committed his force to the destruction of the Nazi capitol with the confident prediction that he could (in effect) win the war without the need for the D-Day landings and all that. The campaign started in November 1943 and by the time it was abandoned in March 1943 Bomber Command had lost over 1000 aircraft and 7000 men, the equivalent of his entire force at the start of the battle. Berlin was heavily damaged but remained very much a functioning command & industrial centre, the war would continue for another year. The parallels between the Battle of Berlin and calamitous WWI battles such as the Somme or Passendale are hard to ignore in all honesty. Arthur Harris fought the war from behind the safety of a desk and lived on to the grand old age of 91. If I was you I'd spare my sense of compassion more for the 20 years olds he sent to their deaths rather than the officer responsible.

If it were not for the fact that your kids are getting bigger I'd recommend you try to find a Volvo V70 with the 7 seat option. A much better quality machine than any awful Vauxhall - a proper car rather than a van - and you might even find one with a diesel engine giving you 40+ mpg. But the extra rear seats are only for little ones IMO. So I'd go for a Ford S Max as this is clearly the best vehicle in its class - but they're not cheap.

The quest for the "good" Science Fiction film free from cold war paranoia and bug-eyed monsters was the subject of a long discussion between Arthur C Clark and Stanley Kubrick back in the late 1960's. The fruit of their labour turned out (eventually) to be '2001: A Space Odyssey' of course - which lets face it probably is the best Sci-Fi movie ever made. Chapel End Charlie's five point guide to the essential ingredients of a really good Sci-Fi tale: 1 - Space is really big and it will probably take a very long time to get places. 2 - It is unlikely that Alien species will think like us or share our basic body shape & size. 3 - It is even more unlikely that they will also speak English! 4 - The effects of Zero Gravity on space travel should not just be explained away by a 'anti-gravity device'. 5 - Ignoring the profound consequences of Relativity theory on deep space travel is not acceptable. The practical constrains of good story telling tend to make the really good sci-fi tale a rarity of course. Indeed my beloved Doctor Who & Star Trek formats frequently break all five rules. But bad sci-fi or not, I still love them anyway.