CHAPEL END CHARLIE

I got the chance (I now work at a Mercedes/BMW specialist) to drive one of these monsters the other day - a second generation Mercedes CL600 from the early naughties identical to the car picture below. In many ways a utterly wonderful but quite ridiculous car. These cars are a coupé version of the S Class super saloon and ride on a chassis that is only marginally smaller. Being a 600 it is a much rarer car than the relatively common V8 engined '500' and its huge 5.8 V12 motor was as smooth as a smooth thing - but nowhere near as silent as the old V12 you used to find in a Jag. The owner told me you can effectively switch-off half of its 12 cylinders for improved fuel economy. You can get a good one for well under our £5k limit and if rarity is any guide to future classic status then ask yourself when was the last time you saw one of these on the road?

It's a picture mate, nobody died. Look at the mistakes Churchill made in his career before he became Prime Minister in 1940 - including the Gallipoli disaster - and ask yourself whether WC would have survived to become the one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen were he a 21st century politician. Not that I'm saying that this MP is a politician of his substance you understand ...

Forcing a MP to resign from the Shadow Cabinet over a issue as trivial as this is a gross overreaction to my way of thinking, but a illustration of just how fearful of a media 'feeding frenzy' the party leaders have become now in this pre election period. I don't know much about this particular MP or how far she might have gone in politics, but our politicians will (like everyone else) make mistakes and if we end careers for a judgement error as minor as this one then we risk needlessly losing talent that might possibly have gone on to achieve something worthwhile one day. The only way to avoid saying or doing the wrong thing every now and again is to neither say nor do anything. Are a generation of 'do nothing/say nothing' leaders what this country really needs?

Oh I think that UKIP will take votes off Labour as well as the Torys because working class voters are as much (if not more) effected by the immigration and EU issues as any group in society is. I also suspect that Labour's dire troubles in their traditional Scottish heartland, and a possible collapse in the Lib Dem vote everywhere, may well play into the Conservatives hands. As ever - only time will tell.

If anyone is interested the history behind the Jewish reputation for wealth or greed - and hence perhaps much of the basis for modern day anti-Semitism - can trace its roots back to medieval times when the Church forbade Christians from lending money for profit. Obviously Jews not being Christians were not under this restriction and so in a age when they were subject to much prejudice, and even barred from entering some professions, they found a useful niche for themselves in society. So it seems that if the Jews are a bunch of avaricious bankers (they're not of course) it is because the Gentiles helped make them so.

The ability to add a comment in response to a on-line news story is just the modern equivalent of the 'letters to the editor' page that most printed newspapers still feature. In any printed newspaper limitations of space mean that the editor must carefully select which letters he/she chooses to publish - most decent papers will however habitually reflect views that run contrary to the editorial stance of the paper. Those publications at the top end of the market - such as The Times for instance - will also generally give precedence to letters they receive from expert (or distinguished) sources. While there are few real limitations of space concerns on the internet, and so anyone should be able to have their say (within the restrains of our libel laws) this is not to say that news providers are under some sort of obligation to provide a platform for anyone to express any opinion they choose to. A traditional printed newspaper is at liberty to choose which views it chooses to display in its pages and it seems to me that the same applies on the Internet. This ease with which expression is now possible is of course a weakness and well as a strength because any truly worthwhile contribution is in danger of being lost in the sea of repartition, prejudice and misunderstanding that such a invitation is likely to generate. If you really wanted to 'bury' some inconvenient truth then you need only place it well down the 'comments' running order and you can rest assured that few will ever read it. As for any freedom of speech issues here, methinks the OP sees conspiracies where there are none (not for the first time) and that in truth the modern world presents us with more opportunities to both gather information and for us in turn to share our opinions with the outside world than has ever been available before to the Human race.

A programe exposing the latest in what is now a very long line of 'Jack the Ripper' suspects was aired on Channel Five this week, and what a fascinating watch it proved to be: http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy-the-missing-evidence/episodes/episode-3-616 Put briefly the case presented here is that a man found standing over the body of Polly Anne Nichols in Buck's Row, Whitechapel very early on the morning of 31st August 1888 was not the first witness to stumble across the corpse of this unfortunate women but actually her killer. The programe goes on to claim that this man, one Charles Allen Lechmere (aka Charles Cross) must have arrived at the scene rather earlier than he claimed he did and he would thus have had ample time to inflict the various injuries found on the body. When Lechmere was found standing over Nichols she must have been very recently murdered because, despite a horrific neck wound, no blood was observed to have pooled under her body. Lechmere's subsequent behaviour also seems highly suspicious. Furthermore an analysis of the Ripper murder scenes show that all they either lay either suspiciously close to Lechmere's shortest walking routes to work (at the Pickfords Yard near Broad St Station) or were otherwise in a area he knew well. Lechmere worked as a 'carman' (cart driver) delivering butchered meat around the area - hence any blood evident on his work cloths would have aroused no suspicion. I should add here that although the programme makes no play of it, a familiarity with the butchery trade does seem suggestive given the grisly nature of the Ripper's crimes. I do have a few problems with this programme, for instance it is debatable whether Martha Tabram was really a Ripper victim and establishing the exact time of death for each murder is problematic given contradictory eye witness evidence and the state of forensic science pertaining at the time. Perhaps no blood was seen under Nichols because it was dark and only the Police would have carried a lantern? For that matter why didn't Lechmere simply run away? Nevertheless I think this programe does put forward a circumstantial case that is much stronger than some others I've seen promoted recently. However, no one can be considered a satisfactory Ripper suspect without some plausible explanation being offered as to why the killer apparently stopped killing after the unhinged brutality of the Mary Kelly murder. We are promised a forthcoming book that deals with that key question - and a hint that Kelly may not have been the last Ripper victim after all ...

I find this advert to be overly sentimental and manipulative. What is more, if it led to the uninformed believing that the incident depicted represented anything more than a brief interlude in what was a terrible war then I suppose it could even be seen as being dangerous. To call it a 'lie' however is perhaps too strong a response - we should remember that war, for all its awful destruction and waste, brings out both the worse and the best in Humanity. A century has passed since the start of that conflict and there are no veterans left to bare witness to it. But despite that great gulf in time I hope that our young do actually know enough of the Great War by now to mean that these concerns are misplaced and they can see the ad for what it is. You might even say that anything that reminds us of that war, and the sheer scale of the sacrifice this nation made back then, is actually a good thing.

80 million Germans v 1 French pensioner with a heart condition? I'm going to stick my neck out and go with our Teutonic friends - but don't quote me on that.

I don't think that Gerald Houlier's view is germane to the question of Adam Lallana. Indeed, both he and the Germans are probably best kept out of it.

Well Captain thanks very much for the helpful suggestion. But if I was to leave then I would be depriving myself of the pleasure of your company ... and that would be too high a price to pay.

If statistically speaking our average fan is supposed to be aged over 60 then (as there are clearly many thousands of young men and children at each game) there must be huge number of centenarians at St Marys too. Are we stockpiling old codgers under the Chapel Stand somewhere? Or maybe the stats are so odd because Methuselah is actually a Saints fan - as this passage from the Book of Revelations seems to suggest:

Unfortunately I haven't yet heard this interview, but it sounds like the veteran you mention knows what he's talking about. 'Fury' on the other hand sacrificed a degree of historical plausibility in order to serve up a veritable blood bath of a climax. The producers of this film might I suppose excuse this by claiming they were engaged in making a entertainment, rather than attempting to produce a historical documentary. In reality I doubt that any allied tank crew would have placed themselves in such a (suicidal) position considering that these were the 'dog days' of a war that was already won. Even had they been so very careless with their own life's for some reason the final action depicted would surely have been over in minutes - instead of just endlessly charging into the gunfire of the stationary Sherman like a bunch of Lemmings the German infantry would I suspect (given even a modest degree of miltary competence) have taken cover, brought up a Panzerfaust anti tank weapon, and Wardaddy and his entire crew would soon have been toast. However from a Hollywood perspective, if you are going to show Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks sacrificing themselves then I suppose you're going to sell your audience the message that this heroic action serves some higher purpose as our movie stars lay down their life's for their fellow man. Those wanting to see Human life being pointlessly wasted in war might do better to seek out the deeply cynical 'Catch 22' rather than Fury or Saving Private Ryan.

This is a rather depressing story. From personal experience (twice actually) before they started their deliberations the Judge would have carefully explained to this Jury that they can only convict if they are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in fact guilty of the offence he was charged with. If some of this jury were truly incapable of comprehending that eminently simple legal principle then they should have excused themselves from Jury Service on the grounds of mental impairment. Indeed, they probably shouldn't be left to go outdoors on their own without a responsible adult being on hand to help them cross the road.

Turkish will be alarmed to read that I agree with him - my apologies. As I take it 'as read' that all reasonable people accept that it is only fit and proper that the ultimate crime of Homicide is separated into the very different offences of Murder or Manslaughter depending on the circumstances, then I'm struggling to see why Rape should be treated so very differently. In the real world of course our Judges understand that not all 'Rapes' are the same and they set the length of the sentence they hand down to each convicted rapist accordingly. Long may that situation continue I say.

Fury A naive young recruit with no special tank training is sent to serve in War Daddy's (Brad Pitt's) M4 Sherman tank during the last days of WWII, where he is soon introduced in no uncertain terms to the grim and bloody realities of mechanised warfare ... It's lazy I know to review films only in context with other films but the temptation is irresistible in this case because 'Saving Private Ryan' casts a huge shadow over all subsequent war films, much like 'Unforgiven' does with Westerns. And 'Fury' does inevitably remind you of 'Ryan' in its extremely realistic/bloody portrayed of combat and its ambition to say something profound about the horrors of war - a ambition the script struggles to deliver I'm afraid. Yes it seems that war is indeed hell. But make no mistake as a portrayal of armoured action this film has no equal - the tanks and their crews look brilliantly 'war weary' and the scene when the troop of four little Sherman's encounter a deadly German Tiger tank is superbly exciting - using actual period tanks (courtesy of the Tank Museum Bovington) rather than mock-ups or CGI helps enormously here. Other aspects of the film are rather less successful. The talkie bits between the set piece battle scenes are over long and pretentious, the (often hostile) relationships between War Daddy's crew seem unrealistic given my understanding of how tank crews related to each other, and the climatic battle scene - where this one immobilised Sherman more or less slaughters a entire battalion of SS infantry - is well staged but ridiculously over the top. Look out too for the unexplained instant transition from broad daylight into the dead of night here. So unlike the tanks it portrays this is a bit of a 'hit and miss' film then, but if you like your war films then you'll probably want to see this one and I doubt most viewers will be all that disappointed with the results. [video=youtube;-OGvZoIrXpg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg

You see the problem is that however well paid and however good at kicking a ball around they are players are at heart just working class lads (in the main) out to make the best of their situation. When fans put them on a pedestal and expect them to behave in a manner that few (if any) of them would then they are setting themselves up for a inevitable disappointment. I understand the emotion the game can arouse in fans, but please remember that Adam was born in St Albans and grew up in Bournemouth supporting Everton if memory serves. I'm quite sure Adam is very fond of this club, I'm quite sure that we have been good for him and he has been (very) good for us, but in the final analysis his relationship with SFC was that of a employee to his employer. Managers, players, owners and staff will come and go like the tide - only we fans are signed up for life and the sooner we learn to accept that fact of footballing life the better.

This is true - I suppose I'll just have to take that as another of those things I cannot change.

Ask yourself if the 'emotion' you are getting from the game is hatred then is that entirely healthy? They do say the wise man accepts the things he cannot change, has the courage to change the things he can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

After all this time I'm running out of new stuff to say to be honest about it - but as there's no MOTD tonight its more interesting that the TV. If I may venture a opinion the swearing doesn't help your cause much.

My apologies. But to be frank about it as you didn't say anything very new the second time the reply will do. As for agendas - pot/kettle/black?

Well I just don't accept your interpretation of events - this should be clear to all by now - and I suspect I loved watching Adam play just as much as anyone else either on here or at St Mary's did. But what I do find to be truly 'naive' are those fans who, even after years spent watching the game, still seriously expect players to put clubs before the interests of their career or indeed their own family. I wish he had stayed but Adam was looking after what he thought to be his own best interest - just like most people would in his situation. Now perhaps directing their anger at former players who have now left serves a deep emotional purpose within some fans that is a useful outlet for their repressed rage - I on the other hand go to a game to enjoy the company of good friends and to watch the football. I don't think Adam is a 'rat' and I doubt most decent fans do in their hearts of hearts.

You feel that players must show undying devotion to clubs, even after 14 years of service, but when it suits clubs to get rid of them they can be sold off or otherwise disposed of without sentiment. As systems go this does not seem to be the most equitable of ones does it?

I'm in a minority for still likening Adam, or I'm in a minority for not claiming to speak for thousands of people I've never met?

Do calm down.