CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Yes he didn't hold back did he! Presidents coming towards the last stages of their presidency are sometimes free to express their true opinions far more openly compared to those newly elected and looking towards the future. I have the nothing but greatest respect for President Obama but I'm not sure how much impact his comments will have as the more hard line eurosceptics don't seem to be listening to the argument anymore. I'm pretty sure however then when he wrote in the Telegraph this morning that the USA had bought the right to express itself on European affairs with the blood of its young men in two world wars he had a reasonable point.

Two uncertain futures? Well maybe, but one of them is a hell of a lot more uncertain than the other.

• HM Treasury forecasts show a significant downside economic risk in our leaving the EU > any fool knows that forecasts can sometimes be wrong don't you know. • Voting to leave the EU may well result in the break-up of the UK > let's not talk about that now and anyway the Jocks are annoying. • The Govenor of the Bank of England states that our departure would represent "the biggest domestic risk to our financial stabilty" > that's just his opinion. • The evidential record indicates that nearly HALF of UK international trade still goes to the huge EU 'Single Market' area > yeah but it used to be a bit more than that. • The experience of other nations shows that there are significant drawbacks and soverengthy implacations in establishing forms of 'associate membership' arrangements with the EU > well Michael Grove assures us that because we are mighty Britain we can somehow achieve a more favourable deal than anyone else ever has. • The CBI reports that British industry overwhelmingly supports our continuing EU membership > but look we have found some employers who disagree with that majority opinion. • BMW & Airbus senior management advise their UK based workforce of the potential consequences to their future employment prospects of leaving the EU > how dare foreigners interfer in our business! • US Treasury officials add their warning re the potential dangers to the UK economy here > but they're just Obama's puppets and therefore a bunch of shameless liars. Look - few of us I suppose can in all honesty lay much claim to being truely neutral observers of the argument as we each have a distinctive point of view that we are seeking to get across on here. Having said that, it seems to me the underlying truth is that the 'Leave' camp just don't want to listen to the evidence because most of them made up their minds on this subject many years ago and don't intend to allow the mere facts of the matter to alter that fixed opinion one single iota. Furthermore, if this coming decision of ours were a court case, rather than a referendum, then it seems to me that any impartial jury would probably conclude that our EU membership has - on balance - benifited our economy and that it should therefore continue. Indeed, as we are making this vital decision not just for ourselves, but for future generations as yet unborn, then taking a risk of this magnitude would appear to be a fundamentaly rash and irresponsible move. .

Well slap me on the bottom with the Women's Weekly! What a genuinly talented lady and what a sad loss. At her best I can think of few funnier or more original comedians. Although not everyone's 'cup of tea' I suppose methinks that 'Dinnerladies' was a work of near genius and perhaps the best sit-com of its era. Victoria wrote and starred in it of course, but he way she made sure her co-stars in that wonderful ensemble cast got most of the best lines speaks of a generosity of spirit that is rare indeed. And if you didn't laugh at her iconic 'Acorn Antiques' then there's just no hope for you.

So I see the opinion of a group of (highly distinguished) US Treasury officials is yet another piece of evidence you intend to stuff into the bulging "inconvenient truth" file then, along with anything else you don't really want to consider properly. Please explain why you feel that the difference in scale between the UK and Swiss economys should result in our getting a more favourable trading arrangement from the EU when the PRINCIPLE of single market access would remain the exactly same regardless? Then you might also answer the point raised earlier regarding Switzerland and her financial services sector having to move en masse to the City of London in order to gain unfettered access to EU financial markets. Is not also true that Grove more or less conceded yesterday that in reality the UK leaving the EU would indeed mean that we were excluded from the EU Single Market Area and that therefore HM Treasury forecasts of a significant negative outcome for our economy in the event of Brexit are highly plausible?

The aggressive nature of your reply is both unwelcome and unnecessary. I don't agree that the EU is beyond reform - indeed some kind of reform is probably inevitable sooner or later as international competition intensifies. The UK is on the right side on the argument and with clear signs of increaaing German support we will I hope pervail. But if you want to talk about who is really delusional in this debate then you need look no further than the nonsense Micheal Grove has come up with today. Apparently we can easily reach a new trade arrangement with the EU in which we get EVERYTHING any kipper (and assorted hangers-on) could dream for without any of the freedom of movement requirement or pesky interferance that others have had to agree to. It is all this straightforward and simple because we're Billy Big ******** Britain and Johnny foreigner will just have to give us what we want don't you know. It all sounds to good to be true methinks ... probably because it almost certainly is. In reality instead of the most amicable divorce in all Human history Grove can make no such as promise because any future trade arrangement with the EU would be subject to a difficult negotiation which the EU has not even begun to contemplate. Put simply, no bugger knows how those negotiations would go and the promises he is making here are little short of a fantasist wish list. I will remind you that the arrangement Switzerland has reached with the EU in regard to their single market access requires them to accept the free movement of workers and (although seldom discussed) even then not being full EU members their banking section has only limited access - that is why you see so many big Swiss banks setting up in London. No one likes the bankers anymore of course, but the prospect of our (huge) banking sector facing similiar restrictions should make even the most ardent supporter of our EU exit think twice. Although judging by some of the utter bilge I read on here 'thinking once' would represent a bit of a challenge for some ...

So, to summarise. On the one hand we have the clear majority of opinion within British industry, every serious financial analysis of the situation that I am aware of and the leaders of all our main political parties - bar UKIP of course - warning of the potential dangers to the future welfare of our economy should the British people vote to leave the EU. Set against all that I see little more than a emotive appeal to our sense of island independence, some (probably spurious) claims about border control coupled with vague talk of Britain doing better on its own somehow. The small matter of the very real threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom - as we now know it - has hardly even been discussed on here as yet. The truth is we have to live with the EU whether we are members of that organisation or not. Those who disapprove of the way the EU currently operates would do better perhaps to concentrate their efforts on arguing for the constructive REFORM of the EU rather than our destructive RETREAT from it. Clearly the only effective way we can influence that reform process is from within rather than without.

Van the Man for me too. Not only he is our best outfield player - by some distance - but methinks he could probably walk into ANY squad in this division. Furthermore, having now earned ourselves a 'selling club' reputation I fully expect the club will have to spend much of the summer fending off the 'usual supects' who will surely want a player of this calibre.

Aristotle also thought that the sun revolved around the Earth and than women were deformed men. But okay then - to clear up any misunderstanding here please explain what you did mean by "the hard way" as this seems unclear.

Good to see someone so persusivly defend himself against the charge that he is aggressive and quarellsome.

Methinks that 'bed' of his only has one side ....

How very upperty of him.

I really don't know why exactly you feel that law adiding European Muslims - i.e. the vast majority of them - are under some special obligation to counter terrorist extremism when they (like everyone else) pay their taxes so that the state can maintain that basic law and order function in society. Furthermore, I must say that statements such as "get rid of the idiots the hard way" come across in English as some kind of call for vigilantism. That may or may not be your opinion, but I for one like to think that most civilised people are quite capable of comprehending just how hideously UNDESIRABLE such a outcome would be in the current tense and inflamed situation. Indeed, if your "hard way" really is a call for more violence then methinks some may well consider that you are a rather strange induvidual. So again, my "solution" to the problem of political violence in society is that the forces of law and order do their utmost to address the issue as effectively as humanly possible and that the public in turn (whether they be religiously inclined or not) keep as calm as possible and do whatever they can to support those who serve to protect us all in this very difficult time. There is a certain irony, that I doubt somehow you are aware of, in that your proposed solution to the problem of extremism is itself extreme. On the other hand, here in the UK we have a popular expression that can be traced back to a famous WWII poster (if you will forgive me yet another 'Godwin') that sums up nicely a sterotypical but nevertheless typically 'British' reaction to adversity.

I found it a interesting, if overly agenda-driven rather than impartial effort. Trevor Phillips attempted to sell his usual doomladen anti muliculterism message much as expected and the whole thing was a slick and easy enough programme to watch - if you didn't think too closely about what it was trying to 'sell' you that is. My eyebrows went into full 'Roger Moore' mode however when I heard this particular ICM poll depicted as pure "science" as this bold claim of scientific impartiality was immediately undermined when the voiceover went on to state that this survey "covered" half of Britain's 3 million Muslim population. That is surely a highly misleading claim as the record shows that ICM actualy interviewed some 1,081 British Muslim respondents to be exact - not 1.5 million! One of the problems I think associated with pollsters claiming that they have somehow indentified a truely representative group to base their findings on is just how truely "representative" are people who agree to spend a hour of their day talking to complete strangers about their innermost thoughts? I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever I see someone approaching me in the street armed with a survey form my first reaction is to tell them to bugger-off. Could it be that people who would agreed to do such a thing are either atypicaly opinionated people, or perhaps the type who have nothing better to do with their time? Polling is not really a true science methinks it is perhaps more a 'pseudo-science' and when I see pollsters claiming that "1 in 5 Muslims think this or 53% think that" then I take it all with a pretty hefty 'pinch of salt' frankly. What really concerns me here is how the pollsters, and Trevor Phillips in particular, employ and intrepret the word SYMPATHY in relation to how Muslims view terrorism. When this programme claims that 4% of British Muslims say that they have "some sympathy" with violent acts that is not the same thing as 4% being supportive of those who extremists who commit terrorist crimes in Europe. We might also ask what do they mean exactly by 'sympathy' and how much is 'some'? I can have "some sympathy" with all kinds of people - the two ten year old boys who murdered little James Bulger for example - that does not mean that I approve of criminality. If this programme's conclusion that perhaps 100,000 British Muslims are to some extent sympathetic towards political violence is correct, then that presumably implies that 2.9 million are entirly unsympathic towards that behaviour - but that's not the headline Trevor Phillips wants to focus on here is it? But regardless of how we feel about the reliabilty of polling data the record shows that I have already freely conceded that British Muslims - as a group - probably don't see the world in exactly the same way as others in our society do - as they come from a very different culteral background to the vast majority of British people it would be a little surprising if they did. However, as long as they obay the law then people are free to think whatever they like as far as I'm concerned - that I think is as good a description of 'Britishness' as anything Trevor Phillips has come up with. Different ways of seeing issues does not mean that we cannot exist together harmoniously in this society. We have already taken action against those who preach hatered in our mosques and elsewhere, but I would hope that we have not quite reached the stage when the orwellian nightmare of 'thoughtcrime' has come to pass in this society. .

^ This is not he first video you have chosen to post here of Muslim fanatics expressing views that I would hope most decent people would find unacceptable. Now if there were some organised campaign on here of people attempting to deny that Muslim extemisism exists then this little past-time of yours might serve some kind of recognisable purpose I suppose. But of that is not true is it - as far back as the first sentance of post #1 virtually EVERYONE on here has freely expressed how appalled they are by terrorist violence and attitudes. So again, does the expression "pushing against a open door" not translate into dutch or what? I suppose if I were minded to I could easily post a series of videos showing that moderate muslims who oppose terrorism are just as real as the terrorists are. But there really doesn't seem much point in doing that as (almost) every contributer to this thread already knows that this too is true - to some extent at least. So instead of just going over the same old ground yet again, why don't you let us know what you would like see done (over and above what we are already doing that is) to address the problem of terrorism in Europe - solutions that are consistant with our liberal values, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and EU law would be nice.

I saw the new sci-fi film '10 Cloverfield Lane' yesterday. By no means a remake of the original 2008 Cloverfield film but kind of set in the same world if you get my drift. After being involved in a car crash a young women (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes to find herself the unwilling 'guest' of John Goodman's character in his sealed underground bunker. But is she the prisoner of a violent and controling psychopath, or has she just been saved from the terrors of a alien invasion? For most of this film there is not a lot of action going on as the plot plays itself out within the claustrophobic confines of the bunker. But that limitation does not mean that this film is at all a dull one as it manages to successfully keep the viewer guessing as to what is really going on until almost the final 15 minutes - when the truth finaly becomes apparent. John Goodman does a very nice line in creepy characters and he is in fine form here, while Winstead makes a engaging counterfoil to his overpowering personality. Not a great film perhaps, but one that I certainly did enjoy.

Well I can only agree now I know how appallingly he has treated this Katie women - the poor little mare has enough to deal with being married to Peter Andre and hauling those enmorous knockers around all day without any of this crapola. Shame.

Generous to a fault as ever my dear hypo. I say shooting is too good for his type

He's a bad man.

You don't have to type more slowly matey as I've just had my broadband speed increased by those nice people at Virgin Media. But thanks anyway for this show of concern for my welfare - we so seldom see this kind side to your nature.

Thank you very muchly. I'm having one of my alarming 'senior moments' here because I don't really know who Katie Hopkins is, let alone feel able to pontificate on her religious beliefs. Something tells me even if I did know her this point is unlikley to get us very far.

Well he is clearly a very dangerous man then who must be stopped

I'd be much obliged if you would please remind me of the gist of this point because if I ever read it I've long forgotten.

But what has any of this to do with the nativity play problem you so astutely raised this morning?

Well apparently some on here really don't approve of any attempt to put the problem of terrorism, violence and intolerance into any type of wider context - presumably because they are simple souls and being asked to think about two things at once causes them some kind of brain ache. But enough of all that stuff - let's move on and discuss nativity plays.