CHAPEL END CHARLIE

This attitude is too calculating for my tastes. If MUFC will this game 2-0 and it will be forgotten as quickly as last year's final was. Should Palace nick it on the other hand - like we did back in '76 - then it means something and becomes a game that will live on in the memory. Once you remove dreams from the game then what are we left with?

The FA Cup is a hell of a lot more important than which stage of the Europa League we happen to start in. So, come on Palace because the proper fan ALWAYS supports the underdog at Wembly ... unless they happen to be playing us of course.

Jimmy Hill: A Man For All Seasons. A little while ago we saw the dark side of football when the BBC broadcast that devastating 'Hillsborough' documentary. But our game can be a wonderful experience too and one of those who did so much to transform football into what it is today was the extraordinary Jimmy Hill. This is a immensly warm, effectionate and above all funny tribute to a man who was all that and more. If you have not yet seen it then find a spare hour and catch up - I promise you won't regret it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07c6mvq

The biggest (immediate) effect on our housing market that leaving would have is more likley to be what effect that outcome would have on interest rates. Predictions that the international money markets will force a old school 'run on the pound' post our retreat from the EU are legion - forum 'head in the sand' types who doubt this need only spend a minute or two Googleing the matter. HM Tresury has reportedly been preparing for a new Sterling crisis, but there is only so much they can do I think before being forced into significantly raising interest rates. That in turn would obviously increase mortgage costs for millions of British people which will further damage our economy as they have less money in their pockets.

Is that our entire political class is comprised of nothing but venal self-serving types, or can it be that people end up with the politicians they deserve? A bit of both maybe, but one thing I can tell you beyond all doubt is that this voter is sick to death of referendums. The Scottish Independence question was to open up old wounds and divide our nation in ways that may take decades to heal. This EU matter too is likley to lead to a outcome that (according to the latest polls anyway) is so close that whichever side losses you can almost guarantee half our nation will end up feeling cheated. In both cases I doubt the result will be as conclusive as originally intended - indeed speculation about another Scottish Independence Referendum started the very moment the last result was annouched, and weeks before the EU referendum has even been held we can already see Nigel Farage (for example) refusing to accept a narrow defeat for his cause - should that eventuality occur. It seems to me that there is no better form of government than the representative democracy our nation has evolved to become over time. I say it is those we the people elect into power who are best placed to make these difficult and often complex decisions acting in the national interest as they see it. If in the fullness of time it turns out that we the people don't much like the decisions our democratically elected representatives are making then we vote the buggers out and put in a new bunch who may prove to be more to our tastes. If this nation goes another forty years before another referendum is called then that would still be too soon as far as I'm concerned.

You appear to be confusing a allegation with a established fact. But please carry on anyway.

Yeah? It seems to me that the apparent lack of ANY self-awareness in someone who continualy opts to depict others as being "bone-headed" or "arrogant" for the umpteenth time, but then complains bitterly about how poor old innocent Wes Tender has become subject to vile personal attacks is deliciously hypocritical. Speaking for myself, I do struggle to find much respect for those who enjoy insulting others, but run away demoaning the unfairness of the world whenever they receive the inevitable 'return fire'! But enough of all that and back to the issue at hand. On what do you base your opinion that the so-called "risks" of staying in the EU are somehow comparable with the (very real) economic danger of leaving? That is arrant nonsence methinks, as Mark Carney showed so very persusivly last Sunday. As for your claimed concern about the fate of the British people and their wonderful old nation - I can only say that the brand of patriotism you display is a rather strange and bizarrely inconsistent one. How can it be that someone who chooses to 'wrap themselves in the flag' on the EU issue can simultaneously be so very indifferent to the continued existance of the United Kingdom as it is now constituted? You have never stated it, but is it that you are only really bothered about England rather that Britain? Again, I don't understand how you can profess to care so earnestly about our young while displaying such a brazenly cavalier attitude towards their welfare. I might also ask why does Boris Johnson impress you so? It seems to me that a man who would betray his wife - and then lie about it - might also betray his country if he thought for one moment that doing so would further his shamelessly unprincipled political ambitions. Indeed, why should anyone believe a single word that he says on this or indeed any other subject - should we not look for more than just being funny on TV in our statesmen? If I were to believe the above post then it seems that you don't want to talk to me anymore and I may therefore never recieve a proper answer to any of these questions. To be frank about it this is something else that I doubt somehow.

There has been both evidence and advice presented in this debate. For example, when the OECD or the IMF etc state that leaving the EU represents a substantial risk to the future health of the UK economy that is not some kind of wild guess is it? No, it is a conclusion based on serious calculation and expert knowledge. This referendum is not a legal trial held in court, but that does represent what amounts to the equilient of testimony and can therefore be reasonably regarded as a form of evidence. As you are transparent to me you are about to opine yet again that opinion is not evidence for about the hundreth time. In reply I tell you for the hundredth time that when not one, but a whole series of expert witnesses all state the same opinion then any judge, jury or voter is perfectly entitled to act on that information. On the other hand when the senior management of first class international companies (such as Fujitsu today) warn their UK employees of the abverse consequences of leaving the EU and its huge Single Market, then any moderly bright schoolchild should be capable of comprehending that this is advice. But if you are still struggeling to understand the difference between evidence and advice then I stand ready to explain it to you as often as required. I would not claim that everybody who supports 'Vote Leave' is careless about our younger generation and their future because I know some who are honest enough to admit that there will indeed be consequences if we vote to leave the EU. As long as people accept and understand this truth then as a democrat that is fine with me. As for the likes of you however, I can only say that 'talk is cheap' and the fundamentally reckless attitudes and approach to evidence you continue to expess on here lead me to doubt your sincerity. Indeed, methinks that with the comfort of a secure pension income ahead you care little more about our younger generation than you do about the existance of the ancient nation state they live in - i.e you are really not all that "bothered" are you?

If your continued obsession with spelling is some kind of not very subtle application to be my proof-reader then you've got the job shipmate. But I must warn you now that the hours are long and the pay terrible As for the fairy-tale like consequence-free future you see for the UK should some collective madness overtake this nation and we vote to leave the EU in a few weeks time then I have to inform you again that almost ALL the evidence we have points in the opposite direction. As you have been shown time and time again on here that is afterall the broad consenus of political, economic, financial and business advice the British people have received.

So you feel then that UK employees of important business such as BMW, Airbus, Fujitsu etc would somehow be wise to ignore their management's advice as to the future prospects of these business here in the UK because you question their sincerity and motivation for some reason? How very easy it is for those who find themselves contemplating the prospect of a happy retirement (and their oh so comfortable pension arrangments) to preach utter nonsense to the younger generation who might reasonably want to bare the small matter of feeding their families and keeping a roof over their heads somewhere in mind!

Try reading the link.

The Chairman of the largest Japanese employer in the UK - Fujitsu - adds his voice to all the other business leaders who caution the British people about the potentialy adverse consequences for us all of voting to leave the EU: Fujitsu chairman adds voice to pro-EU push - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36329178 The pro forma reply to this kind of thing is that these damn foreigners should mind their own damn business of course. But when you think about it that is precisly what he is doing.

The above is factually incorrect I'm afraid. In reality the situation is that HM Treasury does not actualy have to send the nominal £18bn to the EU as our £5bn negotiated "rebate" is in effect a instant one as it were: https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ Other EU funding in the UK (such as support for agriculture for example) would probably have to be replaced by a broadly equilient ammount of national spending were we to leave. So the claim in my 'EU Referendum Guide' that leaving the EU might result in some £350m a week being freed to spend on building a new hospital every week or (absurdly) hiring some"600,000 nurses" is nowt but bullsh1t.

Proof that Boris Johnson is not always quite as "well argued" as some on here seem to think: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair 3 minutes well spent watching that utter shambles methinks

Did anyone else see that young copper breathalyse his own mum on Channel 5's 'Police Interceptors' this week? I was simultaneously appalled, impressed and not a little amused

Just in case anyone on here wants to question the notion that the 'Vote Leave' campaign's "£350m" number is one HUGE whopper then here be a independent analysis from Channel 4 News into the facts of this matter: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-sending-350m-week-brussels/21733 It seems to me that if someone were trying to sell you a can of beans with the tin covered in misleading claims then they would soon find themselves in deep trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority. But 'Vote Leave' on the other hand using state funding to lie to the British people en masse is apparently perfectly in order it would seem. 'tis a funny old world we live in and no mistake ...

^ Well I've already seen it and (as expected) this film is no more sincere and objective than your average Party Political Broadcast is. In the post this morning I recieved my copy of the 'EU Referendum Voting Guide' published by the independent Electorial Commission. On page 5 of this leaflet I again see the 'Vote Leave' campaign repeat their claim that we pay the EU "about" £350m a week. The implication is also made that this some of money could/should go to the NHS instead. I must say it more than a little surprising that a important official document should repeat a claim that has been established now to be at best grossly misleading, at worst an outright lie. But there you go - this is how this debate is being conducted.

A competition too far for Rooney perhaps, but it's really not a bad squad overall I think. However, you could have said much the same thing about England many times before on the eve of a big competiton and we all know what invariably follows. The obvious lack of a Tony Adams/Sol Campbell type bruiser at the heart of the defence is a big problem, but if the likes of Stone and Smalling etc can raise their game a notch (or three) then we have a chance of doing well. Young Rashford has methinks done enough to earn his 'wildcard' inclusion - an exciting prospect.

Yet more denials and a repeated 'joke' that wasn't remotly funny the first time around I see - my advice to you is that light comedy really isn't your thing old chap . By focusing on the marginal impact EU immigration has on the NHS etc you distort the wider picture here. But that comes as little or no surprise because distorting the truth and denying inconvient evidence seems to have become your raison d'etre on here of late. Where is your evidence that (often quite poor) immigrants have made some big impact on our housing market? I once knew a Polish lad who was living in his car and many others seem to exist crammed into low quality shared accommodation. Yes it is self evident that more children will require more classroom places, but a younger population profile benifits UK society in the long term in ways that I doubt you possess the intellect to comprehend frankly. Setting aside your predudice for the moment it seems eminently reasonable to conclude that the large majority of incoming EU citizens arriving here to find work are overwhelmingly young and healthy individuals. Therefore, these people are unlikley to impose any special burden on our health services. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the NHS could not even function adequately without foreign born staff of all sorts. You have also singuarily failed to properly address the point raised on here that young people (as a group) contribute significantly more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Another inconvenient truth you seek to avoid. Furthermore, you don't seem able to comprehend that immigration is in fact very much a 'two way street' in the EU. For your information the 3.3 million foreign born EU citizens currently living in the UK should been seen in relation to the 1.2 million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU - another group one presumes whose fate you are not very "bothered" about. A large number of this emigrant group are I suspect retired elderly British people whom, had they not been legally entitled to move adroad in the EU, would presumably have stayed here and imposed a significant additional workload on the NHS as a result. As reaserch shows that the average person makes by far their largest impact on healthcare services during the last few weeks/months of their life, it may well be that (in effect) 'swapping' elderly UK citizens for much younger EU immigrants actualy benifits our NHS rather than burdening it. As for trite comparisons between the various ambitions Adolf Hitler harboured for his 'Third Reich' before and during WWII and the EU today, I think you and your like underestimate how deeply offensive many of those who have good cause to remember the horrors of Nazism will find this - like Lord Bramall for example and others of his generation. But I suppose we will just have to add that offence to the bizzare assortment of other stuff you are seemingly "not bothered" about in this debate. .

But you chose to highlight the negative aspects of human population growth without any consideration of the other side of that coin. So my post seems to fall into the 'fair comment' catagory however vehemently you object. You make a (half-hearted) attempt to defend Boris Johnson and his intantile comparison of the EU with the evils of fascism when this view has been widely critiqued from all shades of opinion within this nation. Have you not read what Lord Bramall thought of this tactic? Depicting such nonsense as "not helpful" is to resort to weasel words methinks. As for the Prime Minister that you (not me) helped to elect going too far the other day when he warned of the national security implacations of leaving the EU then you may well be right to some small degree - although I don't recall the term 'World War III' forming any part of the speech in question. You must have read that in the Daily Mail.

I have little doubt that were tickets prices less expensive then attendance would increase - I would certainly come more often. It seems equaly likley that even at today's prices additional seats would often sell as fans like to sit with their friends and family and this becomes virtualy impossible whenever St Mary's is even nearly full. However, whether a 'build it and they will come' policy makes financial sense depends on the costs of expanding the stadium, our abilty to cope with the inevitable disruption this process would cause, and how prudent assuming that SFC will retain its current PL status for years to come is viewed by the owner. So hard to say then. However, if we are really serious in our stated ambition to grow the club then a risk worth taking perhaps?

I've just told 'the boy' that Pompey are now condemned to yet another season playing at the arse-end of English football. The look of sheer joy that instantly appeared over his little face on hearing this news was both wonderious to see - and not a little frightening all at the same time. I think it is safe to say now that at the age of 9 he is already a fully paid-up member of the 'Southampton 'till I die' fraternity - God help him.

And we all know how very keen you are on trying to avoid it. So basically the line you are promoting here is that Human Beings are a bad thing and there should be less of them. This reminds me that you forgot to tell me what you thought of Boris's latest bombshell comparing the EU with fascism. I must say it is rather uncharacteristic that you should suddenly become so very shy.

But we already do allow immigration from all over the world. In fact the record shows that MORE immigrants arrive here from outside of the EU than from within. Furthermore, history shows us I think that attempts to control and direct the economy from the centre very often end in dismal failure.

So you want to allow in only the highly qualified - people who could potentialy earn a decent living for themselves in their homelands - while excluding everyone else. The problem with that argument is that our economy requires ALL KINDS of labour in order to fulfil the needs of the job market. Yes foreign born doctors and nurses etc are vital to the NHS. However, it is also true is it not that many British people don't any longer want to work in low skilled/paid employment in our factories, farms and care homes. If British people don't want to do the work then who will? Controlling the supply of labour to all sections of our economy may not be as simple a matter as you think it.