CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Yes very odd - as is that small enclave of West Brom fans in Hertfordshire.

Although a rank outsider at the start of the 'race' to be the new Labour leader, the latest YouGov poll gives Jeremy Corbyn MP a significant 17pt lead in this campaign. So he is obviously very popular among the Labour Party membership and with trade unionists then. I for one however can't see the wider electorate voting for a politician as 'old school' leftist as Corbyn undoutably is to be their Prime Minister. UK elections are now won from somewhere near the middle ground of politics are they not? Perhaps at least two of the more centrist candidates will drop out and a successful 'Stop Corbyn' coalition might still prevail - indeed it is in the national interest that this happens I think. But should Corbyn eventually become Labour Leader, coupled with rise of the SNP in Scotland and the coming constituency boundary redrawing (thought to favour the Conservatives), could this all mark the start of the Labour Party declining into long-term political irrelevance? The Tories survived Michael Howard, Labour (eventually) recovered from Michael Foot's disastrous leadership. But these are dangerous times for not only the Labour Party but for the health of democracy in these islands because it seems to me that this nation will need a real choice at the 2020 election - not a forgone conclusion.

Disagreements on the internet - in life generally - are of course commonplace. Your behaviour on here however is clearly abnormal in so far as you have prolonged this matter now beyond all reason. I have been a member of this forum since back in 2007, and in all that time I cannot recall anyone else (even Pap) taking a argument nearly this far. Any remotely normal person in your situation would have 'dropped' this many months ago - you seem utterly incapable of doing that. I can only conclude that you have developed some deep seated egotistical psychosis that manifests itself in a need to have the 'last word' on this thread, but your pig-headed ''I'm right everyone else is wrong'' attitude has resulted in you irritating so many people that it is virtual certainty now you will never have that 'last word' you so desperately seek. In addition to your apparent mental health issues, you also seem to lack the intellect to comprehend the sheer impossibly of the situation your own folly has placed you in. Perhaps if you were fundamentally correct here and the lack of gun-control and/or police malpractice were not very real problems in the United States then there might be some small justification for the obsessive behaviour you exhibit daily - but clearly the overwhelming consensus is that these are indeed very real issues that need addressing. That has become a consensus because it is perfectly true. What you have built here is a 42 page high monument to your own stupidity.

Despite receiving a generally lukewarm reception from the critics, I went to see 'Terminator Genisys' the other day anyway. It has to be said this film is very far from being a unmitigated success - many of the set pieces are specular but essentially updated versions of what has already been seen in previous films of this long running franchise - especially James Cameron's magnificent 'T2: Judgement day'. Another disappointment was that any attempt to lighten the story with the occassional moment of humour invariably fails - seeing a ferocious Terminator cyborg attempting to mimic a human smile may have been amusing 20 years ago, but trust me the joke has fallen somewhat flat now. Any story that revolves around time travel, and the endless paradoxes implicit in that idea, has the potential to be confusing of course. However, the writers of this film seen to have gone out of their way to befuddle the audience at every opportunity. There were times during this film when - despite being a veteran Terminator fan - I for one didn't have a clue what was going on. On a more positive note, the way CGI has been employed to seamlessly merge footage of a young Schwarzenegger (lifted from the original 1984 'Terminator' methinks) into this movie is a triumph - Arnie may have a long posthumous career ahead of him when he dies. So overall 'Genisys' is yet another sci-fi film that I can't recommend without reservation - it may be that the golden age of big budget cinema science fiction has passed. PS - In what I felt was a rather unexceptional cast, look out for our very own Matt Smith in his first big post 'Doctor Who' role.

I question the state of your mental health based on evidence of your abnormal behaviour on here - which I see shows no signs of abating. 42 Pages.

You have now made what must be literally HUNDREDS of replies to this thread - all of them along the same lines. This is obsessive/abnormal behaviour that calls into question the state of your mental health. You can rest assured that everyone (and their dog) on here knows by now that you vehemently object to the notion gun-control reform or any implied criticism of US law-enforcement practice. While obviously your viewpoint has garnered precious little (or no) support on here, I think we do all 'get' that. So having successfully gotten your message across (!) can you please explain to this forum what you think you are achieving via this veritable 'campaign' of endless repartition that was not abundantly clear to everyone 40 pages ago?

I don't suppose for one minute that anyone on here would claim that police have a easy job - far from it. However, whether it is ever justifiable for the police to shoot someone because they suspect he may be armed depends utterly upon the exact circumstances of the case I think. The recent Azelle Rodney shooting here in the UK is a interesting example. This known ''mid level'' criminal was shot (repeatedly) in the head by a Metropolitan Police (SO19) officer after the car he was travelling in was subject to what is referred to as a planned 'hard stop' procedure. He was given no real opportunity to surrender - indeed he was shot a matter of seconds after the car came to a halt. Although guns were indeed found in the car, I understand there is no evidence that Rodney actually had a gun in his hand at the time. A judicial inquiry deemed this killing to be unlawful, a British jury on the other hand decided to give the officer 'the benefit of the doubt' and acquitted him. Now compare that incident with the video posted by Micky on the previous page. The unarmed suspect is seen standing in the street surrounded by at least two police officers who have their guns pointing directly at him. He fails to follow the officers instructions to raise his hands (because he is drunk no doubt) and as a result of this they decide to shoot him dead. Apparently a US jury acquitted the LAPD officers involved of any crime for reasons that seem utterly inexplicable to me. The key difference here is that the US police officers could see their suspect clearly and might have delayed shooting for a few crucial seconds, while the UK officer had a very obstructed view and had to make a instant decision. I dare say that had the Los Angeles incident occurred in London then a innocent man would probably be alive today.

Ta very muchly.

I see this home friendly is listed to be played on the 2nd August, but the OS seems to have little further to say on the subject. So does anyone on here know what the ticketing arrangements for this fixture are - the price and when they go on sale etc?

You do realise I hope that Judge Dredd and Robocop were fictional characters created to entertain bloodthirsty adolescents, rather than 'role models' a modern police force should seek to emulate? For all your talk of ''maintaining law & order'' but seem incapable of comprehending the basic point that the police shooting unarmed suspects is not necessarily lawful, or very conducive to public order for that matter. I dare say that most on here (but not you obviously) will agree that the recent riots in the USA would seem to prove the latter point conclusively. The police are only Human afterall, so mistakes will sometimes be made unfortunately. However, those charged with UPHOLDING the law must never themselves be placed ABOVE the law because down that road lays the 'police state'. The appalling regularity of Police shootings in the US (which is itself a phenomenon directly related to their deeply dysfunctional gun-control legislation) coupled with the fact that the officers involved invariably seem to 'get away with it' points to a major problem with law enforcement in the US that surely will not end well. It seems to me that any nation that develops a police force that appears to see the public as a enemy to be suppressed, rather than as citizens to be served, is in deep trouble.

Well I can remember exactly this type of excitable talk on here when Gaston signed. So please forgive me if I wait a few months before proclaiming him the next 'big thing' - even if he is only 4'6''

Methinks the ONLY circumstances when it is acceptable for the police to use lethal force is when they can observe a suspect with a lethal weapon actually in his/her hands. It is not justifiable to shoot somebody because they are attempting to avoid arrest, neither is a failure to comply with police instructions - such as raising your hands - grounds for deadly force I think. Number of people killed by police in the UK since 1900 = 52 Number of people killed by police in the US during March 2015 = 111

He's 4'6''.

Don't be shy - you must have some sort of opinion so why don't you share it with us?

Do you consider that jailing and then deporting a women for the so-called ''crime'' in question is harsh treatment or not?

Yeah I read the OP and concluded that ''a bit harsh'' was my considered opinion. Can I take it that you're not the type who places much value on any Human Being's right to 'free speech' then?

Umm ... the question seemed to be more concerned with the fairness of her treatment rather than its legality. If the local law, for example, allows you to shoot your neighbour if he forgets to take his bins in at night, would you consider that behaviour to be justified and proportional merely because it is legal? There is the law and then there are deeper questions surrounding the concept of our 'Human Rights' that really should transcend matters of culture and geography. It may well be legal to imprison and then deport this poor women over some trivial matter, but that doesn't make it 'right' to do so I think. So back to the question of whether she has been ''a bit'' harshly treated or not - well the only answer that makes any sense at all to me would be 'yes'.

Storyville: Last Days in Vietnam. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b062mbng/storyville-20142015-25-last-days-in-vietnam A - stunningly good I think - documentary that deals with the death of South Vietnam and what was perhaps the USA's greatest humiliation until 9/11. All that I can remember of this story (as a mere 12 year-old boy at the time) was the indelible image of 'Huey' helicopters being dumped into the China Sea and those iconic scenes from the US Embassy rooftop in Saigon. But there is of course much more to it than that. For instance, I didn't know that a more orderly and effective evacuation would have been easy possible but for the stubbornness of the US ambassador - a man who refused to contemplate the possibility that South Vietnam was about to fall until it was far too late. Neither had I recalled that President Ford had attempted a 'last ditch' measure to save South Vietnam from communism - only for Congress to block him. Ford's bitterness at this political betrayal was made quite apparent. One of this programme's strengths was that many of the key players in this tragedy were found and interviewed - from the helicopter pilot who flew the first evacuation mission into the embassy compound to the very last US Marine off the roof. Most pitiful of all was the story of the last 400 Vietnamese refugees who had been solemnly promised that they would be rescued from the embassy but were in fact abandoned to the 'mercy' of the enemy by their erstwhile allies. Strong stuff. An object lesson in the death of nations and on how history should be taught on television.

''Minions'' is epic Although with all those hip 1960's references I may have gotten more out of it than the kids did. While waiting for the adorable little yellow fiends to do their stuff we saw this 'coming attraction' trailer - which judging by the audience reaction may well be the next big thing in kids films - you have been warned. [video=youtube;i-80SGWfEjM]

> Did 'we' oust the old king and impose that fruitcake Muammar Gaddafi on the Libyan people back in 1969, or indeed incite a bloody revolution against him over 40 years later? Are you saying we should have backed Gaddafi? > The 'Arab Spring' has proved to be a utter disaster for so many unfortunate people alas. But what real evidence is there that 'we' in the west initiated any of these events? > It may be that some (essentially tribal) Arab society's are still so backward in developmental terms that only a strong dictator can hold them together. You tell me, why are we to blame for this historic Arab failing? > Did the US (for some inexplicable reason) force Saddam Hussain into invading Kuwait in 1990, setting in motion a chain of events that reverberates across the world to this day? Was it a strategic mistake maybe when we decided to protect the gulf oil fields that are so vital to our economy and way of life? > Is Christianity (or Judaism perhaps) to blame somehow for the great Sunni-Shia doctrinal divide in Islam that surely lays at the heart of much of the violence sweeping the world today. All these things - and much more no doubt - might be our fault I suppose, and methinks if Pap were still a member of this forum I don't doubt for one moment that he'd be on here telling you just that. As for my opinion ... well I think few would question that we've made our share of policy errors for sure, but let's just say I'm not yet entirely convinced that absolutely everything that goes wrong in the world is really 'our' fault.

A Land More Kind Than Home - by Wiley Cash. Madison County, North Carolina 1986. Carson Chambliss was a preacher man who claimed he could work miracles. His congregation believed that God had chosen to speak through him, others thought he might be a Devil. Old Miss Lyle had good cause to know exactly what Chambliss was, and until that awful day she had succeeded in keeping the children well away from his church - the church with the papered-over windows ... I had never read this author before and for a little while I thought it might have been a mistake to try this novel. But before very long I found myself drawn deep into this intense story of life and death in the American south - a tale you just know will not end well. Unusually the author has chosen to tell his story from three different perspectives - that of a 9 year boy, a country sheriff and a old lady. This multi-viewpoint structure works so well you start to wonder why all novels are not written this way. A remarkable book from a young writer of some promise I think.

IS involvement in people smuggling is quite well known I would have thought - but here you go anyway:http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/libya/articles/20150705.aspx

Well - on your own figures - our National Debt has increased dramatically since the start of the recession then. It seems to me that debt is very far from being a ''meaningless'' statistic because borrowing of course has to be serviced. The record shows that the cost of servicing our (£1.56 trillion and still increasing) National Debt is now some £43bn per year - IE 3% of GDP or put another way rather more than our ENTIRE defence budget. So that's 43 billion reasons why debt is of some significance you might say. It may well be that we can't even rely upon the effects of inflation over time to decrease to relative significance of these huge numbers anymore - leaving the problem top our grandchildren to worry about hardly seems equitable in any case. So moving towards a balanced budget - in economically 'normal' circumstances that is - would appear to be pretty damn inevitable. But I will pass on the message re the unimportance of debt to the Greek people and see how they react to this news ...

The commitment to upholding the 2% of GDP defence spending target is as welcome as it is surprising - although I note how HMG defines defence spending may be changing. On a selfish note, a good budget for me as I'll benefit (a little) from the new National Living Wage and, as I don't claim benefits anyway, cuts there don't personally effect me. I didn't actually vote for him, but anyone in a similiar position to me has some cause to thank the Chancellor tonight. A much tougher Budget of course for those who do claim Tax Credits etc - they have my sympathies, for what its worth. Moving towards a balanced budget is both wise and quite inevitable I think - although of course that still leaves this nation with a huge national debt burden hanging over us. I do seem to remember not so long ago our resident lefties on here were queuing up to slate the Chancellor's previous moves towards austerity as an erroneous policy that could only lead to disaster ... Funnily enough you don't hear that argument put forward quite so often now do you?

Yes really - hundreds of people were directly effected by 7/7 and many more indirectly. Common decency should tell you that no good purpose can be served by offending these people - at any time really but on this day especially. It is by no means impossible that some of them might even be members of this forum.