CHAPEL END CHARLIE

I have no problem with those who don't approve of public displays of remembrance for whatever reason - each to his own. However, on today of all days a dignified silence on the subject so that unnecessary offence to those who were effected by this tragedy might be avoided would seem to be appropriate don't you think?

The EU in effect has now become one of the largest financial contributors to the Islamic State via our collective inability/unwillingness to halt the onslaught of immigration into Europe from N Africa and the Middle East. Many of the so-called 'people traffickers' involved in this illicit trade are in fact affiliated to IS. Therefore, much of the money raised from these cynically exploited refuges - people in a truly desperate situation - goes either directly or indirectly towards funding Sunni extremism. Our humanist values mean - quite rightly - that we cannot permit large numbers of innocent people to drown in the Mediterranean and neither (as yet) have we decided to simply send these unfortunates back from whence they came. Every single refugee that successfully makes it into the EU guarantees of course that ten more will eventually follow as the world's supply of poor and desperate people is surely inexhaustible. In that sense our enemy is now employing our own western liberal values as a weapon to use against us. If this strategy wasn't so very wicked you could almost admire its ingenuity. It may be that the only way to defeat our enemy might be to act nearly as ruthlessly as they do - a (miserable) old lesson that history has taught Humanity many times before ...

Well we will soon know for sure what the Chancellor plans to do, but by all accounts it is our poorer working families who will bare the brunt of the coming 'austerity' measures while those with £1m houses are expected to benefit from cuts to Inheritance Tax. So much for all that ''one nation'' cobblers the PM spouted in the aftermath of his election victory. I do believe that austerity measures are both necessary and unavoidable given the (appalling) state of our public finances. However, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise policies that result in that 'pain' being shared more widely throughout society rather than hitting the poorest the hardest. To mix my metaphors, the right royal 'kicking' the British people administered to the Liberal Democrat Party at the last election is coming home to roost ...

Regardless of whether we can really afford it or not, the question of whether this nation still requires a nuclear deterrence in this day and age I think depends on how deep your personal belief in NATO and its core commitment to 'mutual defence' is. If ultimately you just don't trust the USA to fulfil its treaty obligations and employ its formidable strategic arsenal to deter/punish any attack on other NATO member states, then I suppose a reasonable case can be made perhaps for the continuance of the UK (and French) independent nuclear deterrence. If on the other hand you just can't see the US ever allowing Vladimir Putin, or some 'rouge' nuclear power perhaps, to 'pick off' the great capital cities of western Europe one by one with utter impunity, then we could probably better spend our limited defence budget elsewhere. You pays your money - you takes your choice. In a ideal world I think it would be preferable that the heavy burden of funding (and controlling) NATO nuclear forces should be born by all member states rather than just the three. Realistically that unfortunately will not happen for a variety of reasons alas. Another option might be that we should gradually reduce spending on nuclear weapons and divert these monies instead into the new generation of advanced 'ABM' (Anti Ballistic Missile) technology that is now rapidly emerging. Such a policy would have the advantage that our future security would not then depend entirely upon the implicit threat of unleashing mass murder upon the civil populations of those who would threaten us. It that sense such a truly defensive defence policy would be more morally compatible with the set of values nominally civilised societies such as ours purport to represent.

The Army Our Army is already smaller now than it has been for centuries and in truth it's our soldiers that do most of the fighting (and dying) in war. But there is a opportunity for reform here as I understand the main structural problem with the Army is that because of the press outcry every time an historic old infantry regiment is disbanded (the so called 'cap badge' issue) politicians have tended to get rid of vital support units instead. This has resulted in the absurd situation where we now have too many understrength infantry battalions in our order of battle while not enough artillery, engineer and signal regiments etc are in existence to properly fulfil the 'Army 2020' plan. Furthermore, the Army lacks the manpower now to establish all these surplus infantry battalions at full strength anyway. Therefore part-time TA (or ''Army Reserve'' as it is now known) soldiers must make up the numbers. Whether this concept of mixing part-time and regular soldiers together in the same unit would really work efficiently in the heat of battle remains to be seen. In conclusion I don't personally think that overall Army manpower can be prudently reduced very much, but there is a good case perhaps for fewer infantry battalions. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/ The RAF It is hard to see how the air force could be cut much further as it has already been pared to the bone you'd think. Transport aircraft, tankers and helicopters are surely indispensable in modern warfare and the record shows we are now down to our last 100 (or so) fast jets - of which only around 40 could be committed to operations at any one time. This is a minimal force. Over a decade after its introduction our Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft are still not cleared to employ the full range of weapons in RAF use - because of funding problems again - while the Tornado bomber force dates back to the 1980's. Plans to acquire perhaps 150 F-35B aircraft to replace the Tornado's seem ludicrously optimistic at this time. However, I agree that to 'sweeten the pill' somewhat of more defence cuts some move towards reintroducing the MPA (maritime patrol aircraft) capability we lost when Nimrod MR4 was cancelled back in 2010 might be announced in the coming SDSR. The Navy The two huge new carriers we have under construction for the RN are mighty impressive ships, but unless sufficient funding can be found from somewhere to order meaningful numbers of aircraft to operate from them they are destined to become little more than expensive 'white elephants' I fear. Indeed, CVF as it stands is not a sensible cost-effective defence programme and (with hindsight) probably should not have been approved. Like the Army and RAF, the Royal Navy's destroyer and frigate force too has been reduced to a minimal size of just 19 ships. To retain even that small fleet some 13 new 'Type 26' frigates must be ordered to replace the old 'Type 23' class. Frankly I just cannot see that happening. I think it is too late to cancel Astute 07, but the RN will obviously not now receive the 8th SSN it stated was the minimum operational requirement. The 'elephant in the room' when it comes to the defence issue is surely the ''Successor'' project - IE the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. I believe that this will turn out to be a £25bn - £30bn programme and spent elsewhere that scale of expenditure would be quite enough to fund all the regiments, aircraft and warships we could possibly need. Forecasts show that during the time of peak expenditure on ''Successor'' in the mid 2020's this programme is expected to consume 4 OUT OF EVERY 7 pounds we will have available to spend on defence equipment. Ironically, although arguably of dubious value, the nuclear deterrent is the one area of our national defence policy you can rest assured won't be starved of cash.

Well happy birthday for tomorrow MOG and do I hope that some wise and perceptive loved-one buys you this smashing little book. If not, you'd be most welcome to borrow mine of course ... but driving to Dorset would probably cost as much as the book would alas.

This story is a blatant example of the very worse kind of cynical tokenism from a Government that likes to praise our armed forces while failing to invest in them. Whether it is a wise decision or not, the hard truth ministers are not bothering to tell the British public is that the RAF - at a stretch - can just about manage to deploy a token force of just 8 Tornado GR4 aircraft (plus some unmanned drones) to conduct these anti-ISIS strikes. Of those 8 aircraft perhaps 2 are operational at any one time. Look at a map - the area to be covered here is vast while the number of RAF aircraft involved is tiny. So whether Parliament approves an extension of the bombing campaign into Syria or not matters very little in the grand scheme of things because we no longer have sufficient air-power to make much of a difference on the ground anyway. That people is where we are 'at' now. The principle reason our air force, navy, and army are all so feeble now is because the last (2010) defence review forced a series of severe cutbacks on our armed forces that have left this once powerful nation sliding rapidly towards a state of military irrelevancy. Another defence 'review' - code for further cutbacks - is due in a few months time I'm sorry to say. Furthermore, indications that this nation will soon abandon the NATO 2% GDP defence spending target (an objective that David Cameron himself agreed to not very long ago) coupled with the staggering amount of money the new Conservative administration plan to sink into the ''Successor'' nuclear submarine project, hardly suggest that the remains of our conventional armed forces are about to recover anytime soon. This nation's defences are weaker today than at any other point in our modern history.

'Waterloo in 100 Objects' by Gareth Glover Not the type of history book that I would normally read to be honest, 20th Century warfare is my main interest, but I was given a copy by 'she who must be obeyed' and it proved to be such a entertaining read that once I had picked it up I was rather loath to put it down again. The title is self-explanatory; 100 historical objects both large and small - from the skeleton of Napoleon's horse to General Picton's hat - that are somehow related to the Battle of Waterloo are examined and used to illustrate various diverse aspects of the bigger story. I won't list all 100 artefacts now of course, but (for example) item No 10 is entitled: 'The Cuirass of Francois Fauveau' Body armour was apparently rarely worn by the time of the Waterloo campaign. However, Napoleon's heavy cavalry regiments (the 'Carabiniers') still employed the Cuirass in their role as a type of 19th century Panzer Division. Little imagination is required to imagine the fate of the poor sod wearing this devastated example of the Cuirass, a piece that has clearly been shot-through by a British cannon ball. This particular Cuirass is marked as the property of 'Francois Flaveau', but church records show someone of this name marrying shortly after the battle. So did M Flaveau lend his armour to a brother or substitute in June 1815 so that he could marry? One of those little mystery's that will now remain forever 'lost in time'. Clearly this episodic approach to history writing you won't gain you a very comprehensive knowledge of the overall battle. It might well however spark a interest in the subject that could provoke the reader into further study. So in those terms at least, this book is not only a highly entertaining read - it is a valuable one too. Highly recommended.

Well foolishly I still hoped that - against the odds - some original contribution might magically appeared on this thread somehow. Yes I really should have know better ...

So you understand the futility of your actions, but continue regardless. That would appear to be something close to Einstein's definition of insanity.

Well I see we now have 38 pages - and counting - of variations around this very same point (and assorted playground insults) being endlessly hit to and fro across the N Atlantic in a manner akin to some vast transoceanic game of ping-pong. God knows it should be quite obvious to all that our Canadian friend will never accept what we might call the 'gun-control' viewpoint - however rational that approach might appear to be on our side of the pond. He in turn really should have comprehended by now that very few on here can agree with his attitude. So everyone either agrees to move on and try and find something more productive to do with their time, or this futile game carries on until we all die of boredom. Your choice fella's ... PS - can the mods please confirm whether everyone on here now has 'carte blanche' to blatantly circumvent the forum swear filter with apparent impunity, or is this a special privilege reserved for a select few only?

I can only wholeheartedly agree with the above and wonder how it has come to pass that this ancient nation, a place that lays claim to being the very seedbed of western democracy, has somehow managed to develop the most immature electorate and political class in Europe? You get the impression that deep down this nation tacitly believed that Eurozone membership was the answer to all their problems and they could carry on retiring at 50 and not paying their taxes because the rest of the Eurozone would always bail them out if 'push came to shove'. However, the notion that the rest of the Eurozone will 'blink' first and back down before Greek political and financial irresponsibility is a act of sheer wanton folly that can only led to disaster. The world does not owe Greece a living as if they alone are somehow immune from the economic realities of life. This nation has now exhausted both its credit and its creditability - an object lesson in the dangers of democracy without responsibility and the EU's first 'failed state' perhaps.

I think the only answer to this problem is that we should annex Calais and return it to our control. It was obviously a terrible mistake allowing the frogies to have it back anyway. Indeed, this is what happens when you allow a women to be in charge of things ...

'Echoes from the Dead' - BBC iPlayer The Baltic island of Öland 1945. Two surrendering German solders are murdered by a local man for the money their have looted. He then goes on the run - mercilessly killing a policeman in the process. Thirty years later a innocent little boy goes missing on Öland's desolate and fog shrouded grasslands, never to be seen again ... The mystery of how these two seeming unconnected events are in fact inextricably linked together, and how the consequences of violence can echo down across the decades, impacting on the lives of everyone involved, from the basis of this sombre but never less than intriguing story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04lp7xn/echoes-from-the-dead So if, like me, you like your drama in the dark and Scandinavian style, then this film I think may be right 'up your street' as it were.

I rate Issac Asimov as a writer highly - like Ray Bradbury many of his short stories are perfect little gems - but his epic 'Foundation' series left me a rather frustrated because - at the time - I felt it was little more than contemporary Earth politics transplanted into the future, rather than the fully conceived vision of a radically different universe that Herbert managed to achieve. But 'each to his own' of course!

I'm somewhat reassured to see that I'm not the only person on here to voice a few reservations about 'Wolf Hall' the book. I'm also very pleased to meet another fan of Frank Herbert's magnificent 'Dune' because - although it must be getting on for 30 years since I last read it - this truly great novel still lives clearly in my consciousness in a manner that few other books from my long gone youth do. Indeed, it's all coming back to me now - the awesome 'Guild Navigators', their bodies grossly deformed by the priceless 'spice melange', folding space as only they possibly could. The Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam of the Bene Gesserit order and her fearsome Gom Jabbar. I've a very poor memory most of the time but somehow I can still recite 'The Litany Against Fear' almost word for word as if I read it only yesterday ... A few sci-fi writers and film makers have over the years harboured the grand ambition of not only creating a story, but placing that tale of theirs within a unique and distinctive universe of their own creation too. I dare say that none of these authors have succeeded in that ambition quite as comprehensively as Frank Herbert did with Dune. It may even be that this book is one of the great novels of the 20th Century - but you won't find it in the popular lists because science fiction is seen as a inferior form of literature for reasons that make no sense to this reader. I really will have to find my copy and dust it off - a treat for anyone who enjoys a good book I think.

I would hope than anyone who saw the documentary; 'The Met: Policing London' on the BBC last night will share with me the same sense of just how appalling the seemingly never-ending waste of young life is on the streets of our capitol. We may have seen this same type of programme a hundred times before, London's murder rate may be little different from what it ever was, but if the time ever comes when the sheer pity of seeing a 17 year old boy stabbed to death by a 16 year old - all over some miserable £90 theft - fails to move us anymore ... well then I think a part of our own humanity must have died too. How can we make our children wise beyond their years? Can we somehow gift them the wisdom many so obviously lack so that they might comprehend the awful consequences of their actions before they destroy not only their own lives, but someone else's too - like the young killer is this devastating programme did? I well know that there is no easy 'pat' answer to this age-old question and that some kids who are brought up badly will often in turn behave badly during their adolescence. These children have been damaged by those who are supposed to have cared for them. Even more worryingly for anyone who genuinely cares about their children, it seems to me that some kids raised in a stable loving environment will also turn out to be dangerously anti-social because there is just something inside of them that makes them so. It is perhaps our base nature that makes us what we are, and for one reason or another humanity is always destined to suffer from violence because for some of our young there is alas no prospect of a 'short cut' to maturity I'm afraid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05zt9kp/the-met-policing-london-episode-3

Agreed, the 'amateur hour' impression of last summer's transfer dealings seems to have gone thank goodness - although there may be bad news to come I suspect as good players we want to keep leave us.

It is interesting to see that our two latest signings this week have been distinctly less expensive ones than either of these foreign players were - by some margin actually. Is this now club policy? Can it be that the club has concluded that the obvious failure of the Osveldo and Ramirez transfers show that there is little or no 'value for money' in signing players in the £10m to £15m bracket because they are ultimately no more likely to prove successful here in the PL than those who cost less than £5m? My little theory may be blown out of the water next week of course if the club splash out on another 'big money' transfer such as Charlie Austin for example. Time will tell I suppose.

I must say that reading this, and other, recent threads some of you lot are coming across as a bunch of spotty teenagers who are far too absorbed with their own popularity in this pseudo 'peer group' of our invention. Really who gives a flying sh1te what others might be saying on another forum, or whether you are widely admired on here or not? Never a utterly realistic possibility perhaps, as yes it does seem I'm badly out of step with modern society yet again, but I was brought up in a era when your stereotypical 'strong but silent' type represented the ideal role model a boy was supposed to aspire to. I can't imagine Humphrey Bogart for instance whining like a teenage girl every time some stranger said something nasty to him, or the men who fought and won two world wars behaving as if they were damned 'big brother' contestants! Now however it seems that we have descended into introspection and forgotten the stoic qualities a man was once supposed to exhibit. What is even worse I can detect these very same behaviour traits creeping up on myself. It this what the modern world and its information technology has in store for humanity - IE it lures us into a state akin to perpetual adolescence?

'Wolf Hall' by Hilary Mantel I expect most of you will already know that this massively successful (Booker Prize winning) novel is a fictionalised biography of the Tudor courtier Sir Thomas Cromwell, charting his remarkable career from his service to Cardinal Wolsey to his subsequent rise to great power and influence under Henry VIII. I may also have mentioned once or twice on here before how very much I admired the recent BBC TV adaptation of this book. So I was predisposed to like this book long before I picked it up and sure enough 'Wolf Hall' is undoutably a outstanding work of historical fiction by any standard - perhaps among the foremost novels of its type ever published I think. However, while no reader could possibly fail to admire this book, I must admit that for some reason I didn't really emotionally engage with it quite much as I was expecting to. Normally when you see a film or TV version of a great novel then the book will often prove to be the more satisfying of the two versions because so much has to be inevitably omitted when any serious work of literature is committed to a screen. But in this instance I felt that - atypically - the television drama was somehow rather more than the book is. I suspect that this reaction may well be as much a tribute to Peter Kosminsky's utterly superb series rather than a substantial criticism of Mantel's writing however. For me part of the problem may be that Mantel tells Cromwell's story from a unusual '3rd person' perspective - IE Cromwell is generally referred to as 'he' most of the time. This matter has become the subject of some controversy on the web I see, but even after you have gotten used to it I am one of those who find this approach needlessly awkward. Having said all that, I will certainly soon be seeking out Mantel's sequel 'Bring Up the Bodies' safe in the knowledge that another great novel will doubtless await me - but even greatness is not always perfect it seems.

I question whether the above is really club policy. For example, do you think we are likely to realise a significant profit when the time comes for Shane Long to leave?

Believe it or not I'm pleased to see that you're back because I was starting to worry that my little joke had horribly misfired and you that had indeed 'shuffled off this mortal coil' - or even worse defected to Papsworld. A fate worse than death surely ...

Err ... I wasn't planning to buy a new shirt anyway.

As my only SFC shirt is falling to pieces and has 'Friends Provident' written on it, your last cost saving suggestion is sadly of little use to this fan ... And the cost for me would not be £25 but rather £40 because the boy wants to come along too bless him. Yes it's not a fortune, but trust me when you have to watch every penny you can do without this.