CHAPEL END CHARLIE

While some on here seem to have become fixated on the religious and racial aspects of mass immigration into Europe, there is another basic factor at play here that may be in danger of being overlooked in all the hubbub - gender. The stats show that the large percentage of asylum seekers arriving in the continent recently are indeed young men aged under 35 years old. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics International studies show that, for a variety of reasons, in any society where young males start to significantly outnumber the young female population then some increase in recorded criminality can be expected. Young males in general - whatever their background - are more liable to exhibit criminal behaviour. The other side of that ''coin'' is that from a strictly economic perspective the influx of all these young men will also have the (broadly beneficial) effect of increasing the supply of so-called ''working age'' people available in the economy - a vital demographic group that had beforehand started to go into relative decline in certain EU-28 states. Naturally, no one is saying that gender considerations alone can explain, let alone excuse, the terrorism/criminality we see happening in Europe today - far from it. But just in case there is anyone left on this thread who may be interested in understanding the issues we face then this factor too should perhaps be born in mind.

Well you must have read at least part of my post - but it seems have somehow completely misunderstood it. Well done.

To interrupt the squabbling for just a moment. Just in case anyone missed it, there was a fascinating documentary broadcast last night charting the earlier 'Charlie Hebdo' wave of attacks on Paris that occurred a year ago now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06vkdxw/this-world-three-days-of-terror-the-charlie-hebdo-attacks I should warn you that this is a harrowing programme to experience, but still well worth watching as those personally involved tell their stories from their own perspective. I was especially moved by the account of a TV journalist who happened to work next door to the Charlie Hebdo offices. This poor man recounts how the events of that terrible day haunt him still - how he is tormented by thoughts that (with hindsight) he somehow might have acted differently at the time and perhaps saved some of the victims. It seems to me that he too is a victim of terror, even if he does not carry the physical scars to show it. In the midst of all this inhumanity how very human his reaction is I think. Another thing that struck me was that - unlike the November attacks - all three gunmen involved here could easily have killed far more people than they actually did. The two brothers who committed the Hebdo attack seem to have seen their journalist victims, and the police that responded, almost as if they were combatants in war. Therefore other French citizens they came across afterwards were spared because - they claimed - they were acting within their own perverse 'code of honour'. The lone terrorist who attacked the Jewish supermarket also had ample opportunity to kill many more hostages than he actually did. Indeed, all these terrorists seem to have spent more time talking to the media rather than actually employing their weapons - a fact which is quite telling I think. I sometimes wonder where the border lays between extreme religious fundamentalism and that ''15 minutes'' of fame that Andy Warhol predicted of all those years ago ...

That's the spirit - surrender before kick-off

While in this country you can be arrested and charged with an offence for even joking that you have a gun on you in a airport, bizarrely thanks to so-called ''Open Carry'' legislation passed in Texas last year, it is now apparently perfectly legal there to walk into a airport with a gun on your person - carried in true ''wild-west'' style plain sight! http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Texas-law-now-allows-open-carry-at-airports This thread is over 12 months old now - with methinks the vast majority of (sensible) contributors agreeing with President Obama that the USA urgently needs gun control reform in order to stem the remorseless tide of bloodshed we see on both their streets and in their homes. Indeed, I suspect many on here would agree with me in thinking that the very limited measures he is proposing don't go nearly nearly far enough to address the problem meaningfully. However, it seems to me that this perverse 'gun-culture' is now so entrenched with huge swathes of the US population - however appalling the consequences may be - that there is no solution to the problem possible anymore. Some go so far as to predict that should the Federal Government ever try and remove firearms from the population one day then a virtual civil war would ensue. Somehow the USA has worked itself into a situation where each instance of gun violence in turn seems to begat more widespread gun ownership - because so many Americans seemingly don't trust the forces of law and order to protect them anymore. This is a truly 'vicious circle' if ever I saw one and a damning indictment of America's political system and the cult of individual rights before collective responsibility. So perhaps the USA is indeed doomed to suffer ever increasing levels of gun violence far into the unforeseeable future because there is just no way out of this impasse that this great nation can collectively accept. If that is so .. well we can only pity them I suppose.

I wonder if there is something personal laying behind your obvious dislike of this player, or do you just find his evident success in reaching the heights of the PL to be a cause of some embarrassment?

Obviously.

Why do you nearly always react so strongly to opinions you don't happen to agree with? This state of semi-permanent outrage must be a very tiring attitude to maintain.

Some Crimbo and New Year telly I liked and disliked: And Then There Were None (BBC 1) A splendidly entertaining 3 part adaptation of Agatha Christie's famous old mystery yarn. Wonderfully cynical, very hard-edged in the modern style and usually faithful to the source material too. In a very strong cast Charles Dance was in quite superb form I thought. Dickensian (BBC 1) A rather strange concoction where various Dicken's characters, such as the inevitable Ebenezer Scrooge and Miss Havisham for example, are taken out of their original context and lumped together in a new (but very derivative) Dickens style melodrama. A badly misconceived idea I think - at least it really didn't work for me anyway. The Last Journey (Talking Pictures) A ancient - 1935 - black and white relic of the British film industry where a deranged steam locomotive driver finally goes completely mad and attempts to crash his train because he is being forced to retire and he also suspects that his wife is having it away with his fireman! Great fun this - full of fascinating period detail and kinda like a proto 1970's 'disaster' style film made a mere forty years before its time. Sherlock (BBC 1) Set for once back in its proper Victorian setting I so wanted to like this as I'm a huge Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle fan. Unfortunately, despite its great cast, try as I might I really couldn't warm to it at all. Just like recent episodes of Doctor Who, the producer (Steven Moffat) seems much more interested is being self consciously 'clever' than he is in simple storytelling. A utterly wasted opportunity. Downton Abbey (ITV 1) A overdue farewell to a old fashioned series that was once nevertheless very watchable - but perhaps, like a Xmas guess who lingered too long, made the grave error of outstaying its welcome.

Although it is never a good sign when football managers start to publicly criticise individual named players, this thread is nevertheless still highly speculative and I for one see little real sign that the manager is about to ''walk out'' on the job mid-season. However, form as retched as ours currently is is quite enough to put any manager under a degree of pressure in this game - that of course ''comes with the territory'' as they say. Unless your name happens to be Sir Alex Ferguson methinks that managers are kind of like players in a way - i.e. even the best have a finite career ahead of them before 'Old Father Time' decides that they are finished in the game. At the age of 52 its too early to say that Koeman is past it now, but with the obvious exception of the Arsenal game, we've been stuck in this same dismal slump for months now and whatever the Koeman brothers are doing to try and arrest our slide just isn't working as yet. With this squad I still fancy our chances of avoiding relegation this season whatever the current form guide may say. I don't get to as many games as I'd like to anymore but we are I think still playing some decent football. But the situation is indeed worrying and the manager's future is by no means as assured as it was at the start of the season.

This is one of those very rare ''I told you so'' moments for yours truly because I said this lad would play at a high level one day and (eventually) he's proved me right. So take that Turk you mug! If only Joseph ''fish'' Mill's career could be resurrected from the nether regions of League 1 then I could change my username to Mystic Meg ...

I too have just gotten around to seeing the much anticipated 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. This is yet another of those films that left me feeling rather ambivalent towards it because, despite its manifest popularity and the widespread critical acclaim it has received, I for one left the cinema experiencing a distinct sense of disappointment. The main problem with this movie I think is that it comes so perilously close to being scene-by-scene remake of George Lucas's original 1977 Star Wars film - now known to all and sundry as Episode IV 'A New Hope' of course. We even end up with a climatic attack on a another (very 'Death Star' like) planet destroying war machine that absolutely everyone in the audience, be they young or old, must have been eerily familiar with. Could they not have thought of something more adventurous than that? So it seems to me then that 'The Force Awakens' doesn't really make much of a effort to move the story on from its 1970's origins. Instead the extent of the Disney Corporation's ambition appears to be limited to recouping their substantial financial investment and to 'reset' the story so that we can all go on the same (highly profitable) ride yet again. Yes I well know that nearly all films are designed to exploit the audience to some extent, but I for one feel that Disney have gone too far down that 'safe' commercial route here and that the more demanding Star Wars fans have been short-changed. Now I'm not saying that 'The Force Awakens' isn't a enjoyable entertainment because it certainly is. While the script may be something a humour-free zone, the outstanding special effects, the utterly epic physical sets and the performances on offer from the cast are all impressive enough - indeed just like the 1977 film it is a enjoyable space romp within its (self imposed) limits. However, I can't help but think that history will rate JJ Abrams as little more than a competent director of commercially successful action films, rather than a truly visionary film maker to be mentioned in the same class as James Cameron or Ridley Scott for instance. Indeed, on reflection perhaps all this time and money might have been better spent on a more ambitious concept that might have dared to risk showing the audience something new, rather than simply ushering us all right back to the beginning of the very same 'ride' again. I might even go so far as to say that the 3 'prequel' Star Wars films are actually better movies I think - if only Pap were still here how enraged that statement would make him ... 7/10.

Actually ginger terror is a growing problem in society that is often overlooked: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ginger-terrorist-plotted-shoot-prince-6493183

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/21/formula-one-channel-4-bbc-deal

I don't own a house alas, so petty bourgeoisie concerns about property values are of little interest to me frankly when put against the national interest here. However, I do live not very far from the largest on-shore oil field in the UK - i.e. Wytch Farm on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset. Yes Wytch Farm is not a fracking site, but I can assure you that the impact this significant operation has on a area of what is genuinely outstanding natural beauty is absolutely minimal. Indeed, you could almost drive past the site without noticing that it was even there. I see little reason to believe that fracking - with suitable safeguards in place - represents any great danger to local habitats and every reason to believe this potential energy source could prove a useful element in our future energy mix. Can you please explain what part exactly of the Shale Gas extraction process concerns you so because my understanding of the facts of the matter leads me to believe that the risks of seismic disturbances and contamination of ground water ... etc are almost certainly greatly exaggerated.

I dare say that we all want the innumerable advantages that electrical power generation offers us. Indeed, most people will obviously consider this facility absolutely fundamental to civilised existence in the 21st century. However, when it comes to the messy business of actually producing the energy required to generate that electrical power it seems that many British people literally don't want to know anymore. For perfectly good environmental reasons many now favour that so-called 'low carbon' alternatives to fossil fuels be adopted. Okay then, that I think is a perfectly reasonable point to make in this day and age. But in modern Britain the truth is that whenever anyone actually tries constructing wind turbines, a new hydroelectric dam perhaps, or even one of those (oh so horrid) nuclear power plants then mass outrage will inevitably ensue because we don't much like any of that happening in our back yard do we? How often do you see voters slating politicians for treating the electorate like a bunch of idiots when the hard truth is that WE THE PEOPLE so often act in this utterly irresponsible - almost childlike - manner? If rather than addressing our upcoming power generation problems in a sensible and planned manner we instead retreat into this virtual 'state of denial' about the reality of the modern world then if one day the lights do finally go out on us then the blame will lay mainly with us methinks. It may well be that nations end up with the political class they deserve. I say this new 'Fracking' technology, in combination with the other greener power generation sources we have today, almost certainly offers the UK a valuable opportunity to reduce our increasingly worrying reliance on imported energy and therefore provide us with important boost not only to power generation, but to our key national security interests too. Therefore, we should press ahead with moves to secure our energy future with all possible speed and tiresome 'nimby' concerns will have to take second place to the wider national interest.

Despite being distinctly unimpressed with what has come before, being a masochist I've just gotten around to seeing the concluding episodes of the 9th series of Doctor Who (BBC 1 Saturday). The penultimate episode, penned by series producer Steven Moffat himself, is entitled 'Heaven Sent' and to summarise the plot after the rather moving death of his assistant Clara in 'Face of the Raven' the Doctor is transported by the Time Lords to his own personal version of hell where - literally for millennia - he is endlessly tortured in a effort to force our hero into revealing the secret of the Hybrid - a supposed mix of two warrior races that will one day stand in the ruins of Gallifrey apparently. So millions of years of pain for the Doctor then, but it was also 55 minutes of pure suffering for the viewer too because this one story represents just about EVERYTHING that has gone wrong with Doctor Who under Moffat's leadership. Remember that what Doctor Who was originally founded back in 1963 to be a relatively simple adventure series aimed primarily at a (child centric) tea-time family audience. Although that concept was to provide a solid foundation that has served the series well for many decades it has now entirely disappeared from view to be replaced by a incomprehensible piece of inward-looking 'fan fiction' that no modern child could possibly be expected to endure - my 9 year old has certainly lost all interest in it at a age when I loved it beyond all reason. Without any hyperbole, imagine the Tardis has landed inside the head of Ingmar Bergman somehow and you will have a pretty good idea of what watching this dismal crapola was like. But see for yourself - if you dare: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06rhv99/doctor-who-series-9-11-heaven-sent Admittedly Doctor Who has had its fair share of low points over the years (Bonnie Langford comes to mind) but I've seldom seen such pretentious bilge generated in its name before. Moffat obviously wants to invest the series with a level of epic/mythic grandeur that interests him personalty. What a pity it is that in striving so earnestly to achieve that ambition of his he has lost sight completely of what this lovely old series has always been about. Worst of all I understand that, despite its apparent decline in the ratings, this producer is signed up for another series for some reason. Can my beloved Who possibly survive yet more of this I ask myself and why can't anybody at the BBC act to save it before it is too late? PS - I see that the terminally annoying 'River Song' character will return for the Christmas Special. That'll be good then...

And with good reason because he was playing very well. Injury has taken a toll unfortunately, but at the right price, and if the manager fancies his chances of getting him back to that level, then of course he would be a extremely valuable addition to our (somewhat labouring) squad. I sometimes think that there are those on this forum who in their heart of hearts don't really think that ANY player or manager is really good enough for SFC. Indeed, if we were told that Messi and Pep Guardiola were on their way here then I expect some would soon be moaning about it.

It turns out that Jeremy Corbyn has an amusingly 'mad professor' type a older brother - Piers - who interestingly also happens to be a leading climate-change sceptic. While I'm not qualified to comment meaningfully of the scientific merits of his arguments, which basically seem to be that solar activity is a much more significant factor on our climate than any CO2 derived man-made effect, it does seem the Corbyn family is itself worthy of further study.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 So after having endured the sweet frustration of waiting an entire year since 'Mockingjay Part 1' hit the screens, we game fans have finally gotten the chance to see 'The Hunger Games' series reach its suitably climatic conclusion. Those who have read the (excellent) books will already know how the plot unfolds because rest assured this is yet another faithful adaptation of Suzanne Collins massively successful dystopian vision. Indeed, the atypical degree of respect Hollywood has shown to the source material here is admirable. So while I'll keep it secrets for the benefit of those who have not read the books, I can say that few great achievements are ever realised without sacrifice of course and young Katniss is destined to pay a terrible price if she is to put a end to these awful 'games' she detests so ... As our teen triumvirate of Katniss, Peeta and Gale battle their way through the capital's exceptionally vicious defences this final instalment at times inevitably becomes much more of a war film in style, rather than the beguiling mix of combat and science fiction we saw back in the original film. However, although I may be a tad prejudiced I don't detect much sign of creeping 'sequelitis' here because all 4 HG films follow a logical and perfectly satisfactory 'story arc' that justifies their individual existence I think - even if the additional money-making potential of splitting the final book into two films cannot be denied. It will be interesting to see how many of the (mostly young) 'Hunger Games' cast go on to enjoy long and successful acting careers. I can certainly see Jennifer Lawrence at least going very far in the business - if becoming that type 'Victor' is what she really wants that is. [video=youtube;n-7K_OjsDCQ]

Good news everybody! It looks like Red Bull will be back for next season, their cars again powered by Renault F1 engines. We can only hope the French up their game and produce a more competitive motor. http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/formula-one/formula-one-renault-and-red-bull-end-long-running-feud

Should we bomb ISIS in Syria or not then? There are some pretty decent arguments on both sides and I for one don't think the question is at all clear-cut. We should also remember that the RAF contribution to current anti ISIS ops is so relatively small (at this time anyway) as to be virtually irreverent anyway. A case a 'much ado about nothing' perhaps. However, what is perfectly clear is that the military situation on the ground is just about as big an intractable mess that you could possibly ever see. It may be that the only prospect of sorting this chaos out is for a substantial NATO army to intervene on the ground - but all the 'mood music' emerging from our political class is that this move (rightly or wrongly) will not happen. Methinks that those who doubt that yet more aerial bombardment on its own is going to resolve anything quickly are very probably right. Above all, decades of hard-earned experience shows us that the key question we should always ask before going to war is; what next? So until some bugger shows me something that resembles a coherent plan here then the best course for this nation to steer may well be to stay well out of it. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.

This latest Labour farrago - with the party simultaneously both for and against bombing Syria - is of course entirely predictable as the gaping attitudinal gulf that exists between the majority of Labour MP's, and the new leader few of them really wanted, remains unbridgeable. This situation makes habitual Tory in-fighting over Europe seem a almost trivial pursuit in comparison. Sooner or later either Corbyn will have to go, or perhaps his 'New Model Army' of grass-roots activists will have to transform the parliamentary party into something than more closely resembles their hard line politics - and that process would surely be a brutal one. The future of our nation may well rest upon the outcome of this battle.

Yes this Bosporus question is a very good point. Although to be honest about it I don't sleep with a copy under my pillow, I do understand (i.e. Wikipedia tells me) that the 'Montreux Convention' gives Turkey full authority to close the straights to transiting foreign warships during wartime ''or at any other time that it feels threatened by aggression''. The underlined part could be significant. Unless a state of war were actually to be declared Russian merchant shipping would however still have a treaty endorsed right of transit from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. The above, along with their NATO membership, would appear to give the Turks two powerful cards to play in any stand-off with Putin's Russia. Let's all hope it doesn't get that far - for what it is worth I don't think it will.

Well yesterday's dramatic volte-face by the Chancellor on his plans to hammer the existing 'Tax Credits' system should come as a substantial relief to the millions who had been facing a big fall in their benefit income. However, ultimately methinks that moving towards a higher wage & lower tax/benefits future still does seem a desirable road for our nation to take - even if getting there make take a little longer now. It will be interesting to see the impact the coming 'Universal Credit' roll-out has because the devil is always in the detail. Osborne is a unusual politician in that you'd think he may well have gotten this mainstay of the last budget through Parliament had he merely scaled back on the scale of his Tax Credit cuts. Instead he abandoned them altogether - which is either a sign of embarrassing weakness or perhaps the mark of a politician looking to make that short, but difficult, move from No 11 to No 10 Downing Street. PS - let's not forget here the hugely significant role our much maligned House of Lords played in yesterdays u-turn. Many seek to rip up our Constitution and replace it with something else. But as anachronistic as having unelected politicians in a modern democracy undoutably is, this incident does seem to show that our ancient 'Second Chamber' does kinda work - in a charmingly illogical British fashion that is ...