CHAPEL END CHARLIE

We live in a wonderful country that is marred only by the fact that nobody has as yet found the cure for Jamie Oliver.

Like just about every other societal group immigrants are both the perpetrators and the victims of crime. Those who choose to focus their attentions on just one side on that equation do lay themselves open to accusations of bigotry - whether that be their intent or not.

The subject is as complex as it is uncomfortable. However, men (of all ages) becoming sexuality attracted to teenage girls is not all that weird or uncommon a form of behaviour I think. All humans are to some extent ''programmed'' to find youth attractive as youth, health and fertility are obviously connected. Society may tell men that fifteen year old girls are considered ''out of bounds'' in this day and age, but from a strictly biological perspective many of them are in fact quite capable of childbirth - more so now than in the past perhaps as good nutrition brings the age of puberty forward. Indeed, in the not so distant past many societies would even have deemed girls of this age (or even younger) to be suitable marriage subjects - as is still the case in some places I understand. Clearly that base animalistic instinct to procreate with the young has to be resisted and adults are - of course - expected not to take sexual advantage of the young anymore. But let's not pretend that your average Human male has become such a highly evolved life-form now that he can pass a pretty teenager in the street and not even notice how attractive she is. I certainly don't approve of this players behaviour and he must face the consequences of his actions - but I can't honestly claim that I find him to be an exceptionally ''weird'' individual in that sense.

Statistics are a notoriously tricky subject of course. However, if France does indeed boast a superior healthcare system compared to the UK, then that may well be because the French opt to spend rather more than we do in this area: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-care-spending-compared

I see that Sally Wainwright's gritty crime drama ''Happy Valley'' is back for a second series. That has to be a good thing because the first series was dynamite and already it looks like this new story too will prove to be a ''cut above'' the usual standard for this type of thing. And what a refreshing change it is to see a such a strong cast - led by the wonderful Sarah Lancashire - full of relatively ordinary (i.e. real) looking people rather than the collection of inordinately handsome male and female actors who normally dominate our screens so. This series methinks may well be the best drama airing on our screens at the moment - so whatever you do don't miss it! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p03fvwrr/happy-valley-series-2-episode-1 Speaking of great TV, did anyone else see ''Earth's Greatest Spectacles'' on BBC2 yesterday? This outstanding natural history programme charted a year in the life of the remote Svalbard Islands in the Arctic Ocean. For nearly half the year these islands are left in utter darkness as the tilt of the earth's rotation denies them the sun. Even during these unbelievably harsh and desolate conditions wildlife still somehow endures - as it seems to almost everywhere on Earth. The sight of a great Polar Bear patiently awaiting its prey - immovable like some statue - over a hole in the frozen pack-ice will long remain with me. And then the sun returns and these once bleak islands miraculously explode into abundant life. How utterly beautiful our fragile little planet is, and how utterly terrible it would be if mankind ever ruined it all ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b070p5yw/earths-greatest-spectacles-2-svalbard .

Few I suppose really want to work on Saturdays if they can help it - I certainly don't. But I can't be the only person on here to have noticed that your average local NHS hospital comes pretty damn close to resembling a abandoned ''ghost town'' during the weekends. The thing you need to remember about the medical profession is that they are both a extremely conservative (small c) bunch in the main and one of the last bastions of union power too. Unlike many other comparable groups this profession has managed to avoid serious reform so far because it skilfully plays on the public's natural sympathy towards those who help them so in their hour of (medical) need. Our politicians well understand, and indeed fear, that widespread sensibility. However, that perfectly understandable feeling can only go so far methinks and the need for reform seems clear enough given the published stats re weekend mortality. Needless to say our Doctors perform a vital role in society of course and few would question their sense of duty or commitment. However, they are also well paid professionals at the end of the day who enjoy a enviable level of job security, career progression and a level of pension security in old age that many other British workers can now only dream of. In return all for that it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to ask that the NHS should not become a truly modern 24/7 operation does it? Remember if the government of the day hadn't faced up to ''doctor power'' in the past then the NHS - as we know it - wouldn't even exist anyway.

The problem with all this talk of ticket price reductions is that although the Premier League is indeed awash with cash our clubs are very bad indeed at holding on to it. For example, mighty Arsenal and Liverpool combined made a profit (before tax) of just £6m in 2013/4. If you want to see prices come down then wait until our clubs decide to get a handle of their costs.

They say that travel does broaden the mind but I'm too poor and can't be bothered anyway. So here be two travel programmes that I have much enjoyed recently - from the comfort of my armchair: Greece with Simon Reeve http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p03gk743/greece-with-simon-reeve-episode-1 The presenter may be annoyingly young and handsome but this programme is nevertheless a rather good effort. Greece of course has been in the centre of the news recently as its ongoing economic disaster is now rivalled by its new status as ''Europe's front line'' in the current immigration crisis. Both subjects feature strongly here of course as the appalling state that many poor Greeks have now been reduced to is graphically depicted. Some unfortunates are now reduced to living in old shipping containers and scavenging from rubbish tips in order just to survive - like millions of poor Africans do I suppose but it's something of a shock to see this situation pertaining in modern Europe. The bizarre juxtaposition of wealthy tourists enjoying the outstanding natural beauty of the Aegean islands alongside hordes of desperate Syrian refugees attempting to flee their situation is also powerful, and indeed, heartbreaking stuff. But strangest of all perhaps was the (oddly backward) island of Crete, where a very un-european USA style gun-culture is in unchecked existence and a wartime hatred of Germany and the Germans seems almost undiminished by the passage of time. A island lost in time it seems. Great American Railroad Journeys http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06zzfy5/great-american-railroad-journeys-1-manhattan-grand-central-to-broadway Gentle and rather undemanding 30 minute ''travelogue'' television it may be, but often a surprisingly humorous and informative series methinks. Our genial host, ex Tory politician Michael Portillo, has for once abandoned the British railway network and his beloved ''Bradshaw's Guide'' in favour of the grandest of all awaydays out to New York State in the good old US of A. It turns out that New York - both city and state - is in places a remarkably beautiful and historically interesting place that looks well worth visiting if you can. Especially impressive was his trip to the notorious World Trade Centre site in Manhattan where, alongside the utterly splendid new tower that has replaced the fallen structures, Michael also discovered a brand new transport interchange hub under construction that must be quite the most stunning building of its type to be constructed anywhere this century ... oh and the old Grand Central Station ain't too shabby either!

Do we elect right of centre governments so often because of our predominately right of centre press, or is that to put the ''cart in front of the horse'' and our press merely reflects a somewhat right of centre British electorate? In any case I doubt it matters very much anymore as increasingly we obtain our opinions from all kinds of sources. For me that is mainly the BBC which - in accordance with its charter - thankfully makes at least some effort to present the news be as objectively as humanly possible most of the time.

Everytime I watch Mark Clattenberg in action, the decisions he makes and the way he conducts himself on the pitch, and I can help but think that here a is egotist who is seeking to be the centre of attention at all times and may even see himself as more important that the players are. Indeed, I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn that deep down he once wanted to be a top player himself but doubtless lacked the required talent. None of that would really matter very much if he were a brilliant at his job - but I'm far from convinced that he is. As for our Victor, the expression ''he needs to have a good hard look at himself'' comes to mind. So the purchase of some kind of mirror would seem to be in order then ...

I first came across this sublime recording of Edgar Allan Poe's ''The Raven'' many months ago and such is its power it keeps drawing me back somehow. On each visit I think I understand a little better what Poe was trying to say - although being such a remarkably poor student the end of my journey is not yet in sight.

On the scale of atrocity how highly do we place what occurred at Auschwitz compared to (for example) the ''Rape of Nanking'' - where the Japanese Army used innocent children for bayonet practice - or any number of other examples of humanity's manifest capacity for inhumanity? Is there a league table for this type of thing somewhere... I suppose what makes the horrors of the ''Final Solution'' stand head and shoulders above the run of everyday murder for me is not only the sheer scale of this unspeakable crime, but the cold industrialised nature of the slaughter. Thousands of years of civilisation and we had finally reached the stage in our evolution where for the first time we could conceive of something akin to a murder factory in which our fellow human beings could be reduced to fat useful in soap manufacturer, or piles of valuable gold teeth apt for recycling ... and all achieved with a unprecedented degree of efficiency. What a ''piece of work'' is man eh? As for what remains of the Auschwitz site, I find myself torn between two competing reactions. Part of me would dearly love to see the whole hellish place raised to the ground and that cursed earth itself seeded with salt. On the other hand, I well known that we as a race need to remember what happened there because the day will come when our children start to doubt that something like that could ever possibly have happened. And the final lesson I personally take from the final solution? I saw a Jewish survivor of the holocaust interviewed once - a young man who had survived by working for the Nazis helping to process of all those corpses - and they asked him how he had possibly done such a terrible thing? He answered that only when you find yourself in such a situation will you come to understand that your average Human Being will do absolutely anything to live another five minutes. In there somewhere lays our damnation ... and our only hope too.

It seems to me that you are conducting this debate in a highly partisan manner without a proper degree of respect being shown towards the historical facts of the matter - for example your implying (inaccurately) that no real violence was displayed by the Argentines during their invasion operation. That might reasonably be called trampling over the historical truth methinks. I have already addressed the practicable problems associated with imposing the ''leaseback'' proposal on a unwilling population and a sceptical parliament. So I see no real purpose would be served in repeating those points again. You may feel that this putative deal would have been the best outcome for all concerned, with 20/20 hindsight you may perhaps even be right in that view, but those most directly concerned in the matter - i.e. the islanders themselves - seem to have held a very different opinion on that subject. This is the key point here is it not? Every democratic principle that I am aware of says that those placed in a position of power must take into account the expressed wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. Article 1 of the UN Human Rights Charter enshrines the basic right to ''Self Determination'' in international law. Therefore, in electing to reject Argentinian sovereignty claims over the islands the Falklanders were exercising that human right as they are entitled to. What might seem to be a expedient decision from the perspective of the Foreign Office (or a university lecture hall) may be viewed in a entirely different light from those remote islands where the local population may (quite properly) be more concerned with the fate of their children and grandchildren rather than smoothing the UK's trade relations with Latin America. Drawing a analogy between the Falklands and Hong Kong is a interesting enough debating point I suppose but the two situations are very different. While the ''New Territories'' area had to be returned to the PRC as the 99 year lease in force had expired, the remainder of the colony was voluntarily ceded back to China as a result of a negotiated settlement being agreed. No such agreement was achieved with regard to the Falklands of course and the subsequent Argentinian invasion has effectively scuppered the possibility of one being reached for perhaps a century to come. Setting aside the problems of water supply provision and the sheer impracticability of the UK militarily defending the colony from the PRC's armed might, the difference that ''dare not speak its name'' between the Falklands and Hong Kong is that the population of the former colony are ethnically of British origin, while the Hong Kong population was always primarily of Cantonese extraction. Now if you want to argue that racial considerations should not effect policy decisions then - in principle - I might agree with you. However, we live in the pragmatic world not a perfect one alas and ethnicity is still a important factor in the minds of men. As for asking why ''we'' sacrificed so many lives, again I can only return to the fact that ''we'' were the victims of foreign military aggression here and not the perpetrators. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the casualties incurred - on both sides - lays more in Buenos Aires rather than in Westminster. In expelling the invasion force it seems to me that the UK was surely acting within every nation's internationally recognised right to self-defence. Finally, let me put a theoretical scenario to you. Say the UK had granted the Falkland Islands full independent nation status prior to the 1982 war, as we had done with so many other former colony's. If that were so, would you be on here now defending Argentina's right to invade and conquer that virtually defenceless little state, or do you think that such a act of naked military aggression should be viewed as unacceptable in this day and age?

Well I for one don't at all mind seeing preconceived historical ideas being challenged or contradicted on here. However, that revisionist approach has to both objective in its ambition and supported by some actual evidence in order to be taken very seriously. We must respect history and not trample all over it. Of course the partisan populations of Argentina and the UK are almost bound to hold diametrically opposed - and equally earnestly held - views of the subject of the Falkland Islands and their disputed sovereignty. What can't be meaningfully disputed is that the (unelected) military Junta in control of Argentina back in 1982 decided to abandon diplomacy and launch a military invasion that ran contrary to the expressed wishes of the indigenous population and counter to the UK's long established de facto sovereignty status over those islands. You may like to see yourself as a ''independent thinker'' but it seems to me that you are yourself thinking very much within what might be depicted as a traditional leftist ''British imperialism is to blame'' mindset. This itself is just another established (and rather rigid) world-view in the final analysis that is as open to question as any other.

Sad news of course. Few could dispute that he was a broadcaster of much charm and wit. To be honest I also think that you could, on occasion, detect the iron fist of ambition artfully hidden within that velvet glove of charm. Nevertheless, he will be much missed by his many fans I'm sure.

What exactly occurred at Moody Brook Barracks is a matter of some dispute. It is certainly true however that the Argentine invasion force was under orders to minimise British casualties as far as practicable. Nevertheless, all published accounts agree that during their invasion (''Operation Rosario'') the attacking force and the small Royal Marine garrison did indeed exchange live fire on several occasions - both in and around Port Stanley on the night of the 1st/2nd April 1982 and a day later during a fierce little fire-fight on the island of South Georgia - where a Argentine navy corvette attempted to bombard our troops with its main and secondary armament before being forced to withdraw. The record shows that one of our Royal Marines was wounded in action during this engagement. The real explanation as to why there were no more serious British causalities incurred at this time seems to be a combination of mere good fortune and the fact that the Falkland Islands Governor - Sir Rex Hunt - rapidly ordered his tiny garrison to surrender in order to prevent further bloodshed.

Well I dare say that few would disagree that the 1981 Nationality Act was not a particularly wise piece of legislation. It was however just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw and the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic may have been just as - if not more - significant. If you examine more closely the terms of the 81 Act you will soon learn that by no means all Falklanders had their full UK citizenship status revoked because many of them had UK born parents or grandparents. Needless to say there is nothing either explicit or implicit in this legislation that indicates that the UK was committed to ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina. I fear your grip on the realities of the early 1980's British political scene may not be as secure as you think it because the prospects of the ''leaseback'' arrangement being successfully imposed on a unwilling local population and a highly skeptical Parliament were very poor indeed. You need to remember that at the time Margaret Thatcher was a deeply unpopular PM due to the severe economic recession the nation was then experiencing. A significant number of backbench Tory MP's would almost certainly have opposed this notion as did the Labour Party - led by the (then) Shadow Foreign Secretary Peter Shore MP. Regardless of any of that, I seriously doubt that Thatcher herself would have been very keen on this Foreign Office idea anyway - she doesn't seem the type does she? Ultimately it was the (deeply unsavoury) military Junta that had seized control of Argentina that decided to invade the Falkland Islands and initiate a war - a move primarily motivated methinks by internal factors within Argentina that I will not go into at this time. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the subsequent war lays with them rather than in Westminster - however incompetently our politicians may have handled the matter. To excuse the Junta and blame British politicians instead for the Falklands War is akin I think to arguing that poor old Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were fully responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War while a certain Mr A Hitler of 77 Wilhelmstrasse Berlin was entirely blameless!

Rivers of London by Ben Aaronovitch. A very strange, and at times rather wonderful, novel this in which London's Metropolitan Police Force are - alongside everyday Human criminality - also covertly engaged in combating ''magic'' or supernatural crime that occurs in our nation's capital. In this world of the author's imagination ghosts, vampires, even ''Old Father Thames'' etc are all very real (more than Human) characters who exist alongside we mere mortals. It turns out that London is under attack from a deranged serial killer who can't be apprehended by the Met because he actually died centuries ago. So it falls to the enigmatic ''Inspector Nightingale'' and his naive young apprentice PC to stop the mayhem and restore law and order to the streets of the metropolis ... I can't in all honesty say that I found this book to be truly ''unputdownable''. However, if you prepared to buy into the premise you will discover here a refreshingly different book compared to your average piece of detective fiction. A novel furthermore that taxes the reader's imagination quite admirably I think.

For someone who told me that he didn't know how much responsibility for the 1982 war should be laid at the door of the aggressor, I must say you seem remarkably certain in assigning guilt here in this country. As for the Foreign Office imposing Nicholas Ridley's so-called leaseback sovereignty deal on the Falkland islanders - you should understand that the Minister reported back to Cabinet that any such deal would of course require the support of both the islanders and of Parliament. Therefore, your notion of HMG imposing this arrangement against opposition is not only highly undemocratic in nature, but put simply a ''non starter'' politically - as both Conservative and Labour leaders at the time acknowledged. Ultimately methinks that none of the various Foreign Office manoeuvres - efforts that date back at least as far as Harold Wilson's first government in the 1960's - to dispose of this problem at all justify the 1982 Argentinian invasion. Indeed, this line of argument surely comes perilously close to a ''blame the victim'' mentality.

Trite

If you understood the first thing about the Falklands and its history then you'd know that no pitched battles were fought, and no natives suppressed, in order to establish British sovereignty over those islands. Before 1982 the only significant military action ever to take place there was when a Royal Navy force destroyed a German naval squadron that was attempting to attack Port Stanley during WWI.

Whether you want to admit it or not, responsibility for that war clearly lays with the military dictatorship that initiated the conflict. The Foreign Office may have harboured various schemes at one time or another, but when did any British Prime Minister - let alone parliament - approve any transfer of Falklands sovereignty to Argentina against the wishes of the local population?

For a start please bother to address the point about where responsibility for the casualties lies. Then you can try to comprehend that many British people would not find it all ''acceptable'' that their government should allow a foreign power to ride roughshod over international law, invade territory that is legally under UK control, and then not respond to such a outrageous provocation. As for members of our (all volunteer) UK armed forces objecting to being instructed to eject a foreign army of occupation from our territory ... well I can only presume that you clearly have never met many of them.

The above question is quite absurd. I don't know about you but I'm not in the business of selling our peoples rights whatever the cost may be. I might also add that the responsibly for the casualties incurred in that war lays principally I think with the foreign military dictatorship that started it.

The ''Really'' channel specialises in cheap (and often not very good) TV that it mostly imports by the yard from the USA. Indeed, I sometimes think that a question mark should be included in this channel's title so dubious is much of its programming. But, against all the odds, I may just have discovered something that is worth watching amid all the dross - a series called: ''The Ghost Inside My Child''. Before you dismiss this as just more supernatural rubbish of the type this channel specialises in, instead of the proverbial ''things that go bump in the night'' TV you often see nowadays this series recounts the stories of young children - some little more than toddlers in fact - who seem to recall intimate details of ''past lives'' it seems highly improbable they could possibly have come to know about ordinarily. For example, one little boy recalls being a naval aviator in WWII who was killed in action while serving aboard an obscure warship. When the details of this little lad's story were checked out by his sceptical parents a perfect match was found with a actual airman who died in the Pacific campaign - the boys previous name, the ship he served on, even the type of aircraft he flew could all be matched with a real person with some basic research undertaken. Furthermore, when taken to meet the long deceased pilot's still living sister this (normally somewhat shy) young boy seemed instantly at ease with the old lady that he'd never met before - almost as if he knew her. There are plenty of children's stories featured in this series just like that one. The connecting factor between them seeming to be that the ''past lives'' the children appear to recall all ended in very traumatic circumstances. Many of these children also appear to be suffering adverse psychological effects as a consequence of these difficult ''memories'' they are unable to cope with. So the obvious question is then, do these accounts amount to evidence that reincarnation may be a reality? Well some young children certainly do exhibit very active imaginations (think of all those so-called ''imaginary friends'' some of them have) and plonked down in front of a TV for hours on end who knows what their immature brains soak-up and what effect it has on them? We might also suspect that some of the parents involved here may have their own, less innocent, agendas to promote. People also do (frequently) lie of course and the cynic in me suspects that there is money to be made from selling such stories to the media. But when you watch these accounts it certainly does make a chap think more deeply about the subject and start to question perhaps his own perception of the true nature of what our lives really are.