CHAPEL END CHARLIE

But British & US assistance to the Mujadidin was itself a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. So therefore it you lefties who are really to blame for everything then. This is a fun game

Beck: Buried Alive - BBC iPlayer More Scandinavian crime drama (I just can't get enough) this time featuring the adventures of the Swedish detective Martin Beck. A leading District Attorney, and then the leader of a 'Hells Angels' style biker gang, are murdered, their (suffocated) bodies discovered in crude wooden coffins after they were buried alive. Other corpses soon turn up and as Beck investigates the case the unknown serial killer contacts him - but the only clue offered as to the motivation behind his frightful crimes is the enigmatic message that he intends to 'add sense to the punishment' ... I'm starting to wonder if one of the reasons I enjoy so much this veritable wave of Euro crime drama that is starting to appear on our screens is that the very act of reading the subtitles actually helps me concentrate on the plot sometimes and thus become more immersed in the story. Be that as it may, although somewhat derivative, this is typically well crafted, dark and highly satisfying Scandinavian TV with some very nice plot misdirections thrown in that show a distinct 'Silence of the Lambs' influence I think. There are apparently quite a few of these 'Beck' stories out there, and if they are nearly as good as this one is then I'm in for a treat. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06chkmk/beck-buried-alive

Well chaps and chapesses, he was always going to be expensive - good players often are - but methinks Stoke City's ''outstanding'' Jack Butland is doing a pretty darn good impression of being the best young keeper in the Premier League at the moment. So with all the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, does he go now down as the proverbial 'one that got away'?

I have little doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is a principled, humane and unusually honest man. His heart is in the right place I think. Above all he is certainly NOT your usual Westminster politician. All those things will no doubt make him popular with many on the left, perhaps also among certain other sections of the electorate who are looking for something different after so many years of professional 'career' politicians being in charge. Unfortunately for Labour, and more importantly for this great nation, he is also wrong about just about everything. Dreamers are the most dangerous of all politicians because the road to hell is paved with their good (or otherwise) intentions. I started this thread some weeks ago asking the question whether his (then potential) leadership would result in the 'death' of the Labour Party as we know it. In all honesty tonight I still can't answer my own question because the British public are obviously a capricious bunch, and after this stunning result who would dare predict with any degree of certainty how they will vote at the next election? What I will say is that moderation is not a 'virus' that needs to be eradicated and that one of our great political parties lurching this far to the extreme left is I think a profoundly dangerous development that could one day damage this nation in ways that many of Corbyns young supporters are too politically immature to possibly understand. It may be that you have to be old enough to really remember what happened to this nation back the 1970's before you fully realise the dangerous waters we may be heading into ...

I almost hope he becomes Prime Minister - the sight of Jeremy Corbyn cycling up to the White House to lecture the US President on why he should be nice to terrorist groups would be one to savour ...

Twin Towers: The Missing Evidence (Channel 5 Friday) A rather interesting programme this I thought in which a new theory is put forward to explain the sudden and unforgettably dramatic collapse of the two World Trade Centre towers on the awful day back in 2001. Put simply, the steel structure of the towers should not in theory have been weakened sufficiently by the post impact fire in the hour (or so) before they collapsed to fully explain what happened. Therefore, official explanations as to what exactly occurred in the towers on 9-11 are inadequate. The programme postulates that what occurred is that 30 tons of melted aluminium (from the crashed airliners) seeped down to a lower floor and came into contact with pooled water from the towers' sprinkler systems, causing a violent explosion which precipitated the collapse - molten aluminium and water in combination are apparently highly reactive. This theory nicely explains the numerous eye witness reports of explosions occurring moments before the towers fell. It must be stressed however that I'm no scientist and this idea remains very much a theory at this time because no evidence has yet been found to prove it beyond doubt. US officialdom also rejects the idea, claiming the aircraft wreckage was far too scattered to cause this effect. Nevertheless, I for one found this theory to be a persuasive one, and one that may well be lot closer to the truth than any of the inevitable conspiracy theories out there are. http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy-the-missing-evidence/episodes/twin-towers-the-missing-evidence

I couldn't agree more. A majority of MP's in Parliament may have decided that they know better than those who elect them, I for one however I'm not so sure that they do. A recent opinion poll on this very subject showed that a overwhelming 82% of those asked were in favour of Lord Falconers' proposal. http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/press-release/poll-assisted-dying/ I don't suppose for one moment that I'm only person on here with direct personal experience of this difficult issue. Based on that, I well know that what often happens as a person nears the end of their life is that treatments (such as anti-biotics) are withdrawn to speed their passing. At the other extreme, sometimes so much morphine is administered that your loved-one soon becomes more or less 'out of it' in effect - something akin to a form of living death if you will. This can prove to be a 'merciful release' for everyone involved. Not being the religious type I don't see some huge moral divide here between withdrawing all treatment or alternatively massively over-administering drugs, or on the other hand simply providing some quick and effective means for a person to end their own life painlessly - if that be their wish of course.

You foolish person. If there is one lesson that life teaches you it is that NOTHING lasts forever, neither the good stuff or the bad. As for republicans such as yourself being the 'silent type', your continued attempts to shout down anyone on here who happens not to share in your particular point of view would seem to prove that is nonsense. As for the absurd notion that people can or will ever be 'born equal' in this or any other Human society ... well this is akin to attempting to debate philosophy with a not very bright five year old. Grow up man.

Like it or not, there will no referendum in the UK on the republican issue (in the foreseeable future anyway) because politicians, like turkeys, don't vote for 'Christmas' as it were. Not even that diehard republican Jeremy Corbyn, or even committed separatists such as Nicola Sturgeon, are daft enough to propose such a move because they know damn well that the overwhelming popularity of our constitutional monarchy ensures not only defeat in such a referendum but probable political oblivion for those proposing this move too. Some republicans hold onto the (forlorn) hope that Prince Charles will somehow prove to be a disaster as Head of State and that therefore public opinion will change. Well all I can say to that is that Charles seems to me a perfectly decent - if fallible like the rest of us - Human Being and I strongly suspect he will prove to be a perfectly acceptable monarch to the British people. He has afterall been preparing for the job all his life. I do expect that before very long certain Commonwealth States that still have HM The Queen as their Head of State will eventually change their constitutions and select their own Heads of State. However, I don't personally see that change oversees radically effecting British public opinion anytime soon. We have now what we have had for ages past in this nation - i.e. a vocal MINORITY of malcontent's calling for a republic because they are either jealous of the wealth and position of the Royal Family, or they don't much like the 'Hereditary Principle'. With all due respect to those who express that view, I see not a shred of evidence that they represent anything approaching a majority view in these islands.

Well you as one of our more noisy '17 percenters' on here are bound to disagree of course. Most reasonable British people however would I think consider that being politicly neutral, incorruptible, and less prone to undue influence were all excellent qualities to seek in a Head of State. It is of course the very fact that HM The Queen holds her position in our (unwritten) constitution due to the hereditary principle that ensures that all those qualities are more likley to be found in our Head Of State than they are in many republican states I could mention - or are you telling us that a someone of the calibre Nicolas Sarkozy would do the job better than Queen Elizabeth?

The old 'Civil List' was actually abolished back in 2012. The only royals who were directly funded from this source were: HM The Queen The Duke of Edinburgh The Queen Mother

In reality a monarch who proves to be unsuitable can be removed by the (elected) political class of this country - see the 1936 abdication crisis for details. But the fundamental reason we still have a constitutional monarchy in this country is because the British People will it so. In the last poll I saw conducted on this question the percentage of those supporting a move to a British Republic was as low as 17% - which is quite remarkable result I think. Perhaps we will have a proper referendum one day to make it official, but far from having ''no place'' in a democratic system as far as we can tell the vast majority of the British people are of the opinion that their constitutional monarchy serves them perfectly well and that they wish to retain it into the foreseeable future. So the will of the people prevails, and what could possibly be more democratic than that? Looking back at the historical record of a comparable European republic, such as France of example, its rather hard to argue that their republican system (born in a veritable bloodbath) has generated a noticeably more politicly stable society or that their population enjoy a greater degree of personal liberty than we do here in the UK - indeed history shows that may well be the opposite of the truth.

Well if the UK were a new thing in the world then I don't suppose we would invent a hereditary monarchy from scratch. But this old nation is very far from being a 'new birth' and a part of the national identity we have forged together in these islands over our long history is the monarchy. This is a important aspect of what it means to be British that many of our people still value highly - however illogical you may view it. The heart of the matter here is that all the evidence shows that most British people are perfectly happy for that (successful) constitutional monarchy to continue as it has proved to be remarkably stable and popular arrangement over time. Were that not the case then we would almost certainly have become a Republic centuries ago as our France neighbours did. Now obviously you disapprove of that - but the problem for you is that British republicanism remains stuck in a minority situation that shows not the slightest sign of ever becoming a majority.

Again read what I said. This women could have damaged the monarchy - and her nation - with a single ill-advised remark or undiplomatic reaction. And yet there is little or no cause for complaint against her and indeed to the best of my knowledge every Prime Minister she has known during her long reign has commented on how valuable her counsel has been at times. You may not value that - they seemingly did. When someone not only does a job well, but does well for six decades, then I think most reasonable people would consider that is worthy of praise. Oh and what you choose to depict as ''privilege'' others see as ''duty'' - a duty she has performed admirably the majority of the British people think. But if you name a better Head of State then by all means do so. I await your reply with interest.

63 years as Head of State for not only this great nation but many other Commonwealth ones too and hardly a mistake worth mentioning in all those years. And yet you find this to be a unremarkable record somehow? Bizarre.

So when I said that the most remarkable thing about her reign was not its great length, but rather the manner in which it has been conducted, you found that eminently simple statement difficult to comprehend for some reason?

Try reading what I wrote.

On the 2nd June 1953 this women took a solemn oath to devote the rest of her life to the service of her people. 63 years later I dare say that even the most fanatic republican on here would struggle to argue that she has broken that promise or indeed let her people down in any way. There is something quite remarkable there that goes far beyond the mere statistic of how long she has reigned over us. You sometimes see people say that she's not a very clever person - well all I can say to that is that Queen Elizabeth is obviously quite bright enough to understand that her role is to advise and listen to the elected politicians who really run the country and not to interfere in their plans overtly - although Gods knows she must have despaired at what some of them were doing to the nation. To the vast majority of us she is the only monarch we have ever known and when the time eventually comes when she is no longer our Queen the sense of loss will be a palpable one to millions of ordinary people I think - me included.

In the grand scheme of things nothing that happens on a football pitch really matters very much. In football terms however, I think becoming your country's top goal scorer is surely a (very) noteworthy achievement. For all the criticism on here I'm not seeing any reasoned argument as to why all those England managers were wrong to select Rooney, or for that matter any suggestions as to which alternative English striker would have won us the World Cup.

I find the above post to be neither 'nice' or very 'friendly' for that matter. It is however remarkably churlish and mean-spirited. As for Wayne Rooney, becoming your country's leading goal scorer is a very real achievement by any reckoning, even if winning something would be a more significant accomplishment I think.

If modern Germany is really so very obsessed with portraying itself as Europe's 'Mr Nice Guy' then how do you explain the hard-line (and extremely unpopular with many) approach they took to the recent Greek debt crisis? Could it be that there are multiple forces at play here and the situation is not quite as simple a one as you think it?

If the horrors of their collective past has led the German people to develop a more humane and compassionate 'body politic' then that surely is a good thing and not much of a cause for criticism. Indeed, it takes a special type of cynicism I think to conflate what appears to be a perfectly genuine concern with the welfare of your fellow Human Beings with some venal ''PR project''.

There have been some pretty doom laden views expressed on here lately, from a (claimed) ever poorer future for our children to what appears to be a call for mass culling of Humanity! I for one however am far from convinced that we as a species are nearly as 'screwed' as some would have you believe. One of the ironies of the world today is that most people get the impression that things are getting worse and worse while the truth is that for the majority of people on the planet life is actually getting better - and quite significantly better for many. Worldwide poverty and death rates are plummeting while many major diseases (like tetanus and polio) have nearly been eliminated. Malaria, the disease that has killed more people than any other throughout history, is in steep decline because of medical advances and the splendid efforts of international organisations such as the World Health Organisation. Despite the rise of ISIS war related deaths have actually been declining since World War II ended and that decline continued after the Cold War eliminated most communist governments in 1991. But if the 'big picture' then for humanity is not nearly as bleak a some say then why do most people think otherwise? You can place much of the blame for this pervasive sense of doom on the mass media and their most effective marketing tool; FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). We are saturated with news - both via the traditional media and now the Internet - and all this good news about the modern world is drowned in a veritable torrent of head line grabbing despair. Good news just isn't 'news' as those who set the news agenda see it - it certainly won't make you money or get you noticed. So bugger off SWF doom mongers - Humanities manifest tendency towards violence and self-destruction can be matched I think, and then overcome perhaps one fine day, by our innate ability for cooperation, compassion and inventiveness. That's the future I prefer to believe in anyway.

Hey - Michail Antonio makes it to the Premier League at long last. Take that Turk!

I'm more than a little relieved to see that virtually everyone on here who has actually seen Romeu play properly says that he's a decent player, because every time I see him on MOTD he is engaged in giving the bloody ball away. I'm planning on getting back to St Marys soon - and if he's as terrible as the TV makes him look then you lot are in for a rocket!