CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Russia and the Ukraine are on the verge of war, the deadly Ebola virus sweeps much of western Africa and the black flag of ISIS flies within a few miles of Baghdad. And yet here we all are wasting our time arguing about light entertainment on the BBC. As it happens I don't personally believe that Clarkson is the vile racist that some on here are seeking to portray him as. But my opinion on Clarkson, and for that matter whether you agree with it, are both matters of bugger-all importance really. You remember the now notorious 'N' word that started this ridiculous 5 page thread running - the 'Guy Gibson's dog' word? Well those with any concern at all for the truth will concede that he didn't actually say that word. But this is no court of law, so let's not let the mere facts of the matter interfere with our fun. But if I'm wrong and Clarkson is indeed a racist and not the overgrown naughty schoolboy with a mischievous sense of humour he appears to be, then at least he's a 'equal-opportunities' bigot because I can recall that he (and his fellow Top Gear presenters) being equally nasty to the following groups: Fat Americans His Excellency the Mexican Ambassador to the Court of St James Socialists Caravan enthusiasts ('the love that dare not speak its name') All of Eastern Europe Germans (many, many times) The French Police Force Murderers Members of the Morris Marina Owners club Members of the Austin Allegro Owners club Rich people from Cheshire Trade Unionists The Chinese Australians Old People Women The Advertising industry Sunderland FC fans Teenagers Anyone who is a member of a Golf club ... ... and John Prescott. Now if only Pap could organise these serious maligned groups into some sort of effective protest group then he could get George Galloway to lead them and march on the BBC 'en masse' ... and I think we can all agree that what a magnificent sight that would be.

NO NO NO! Pap has made it quite clear to me that Clarkson's conservative politics has nowt to do with his opinion of him and the vile programme in question. Indeed I happen to know that our Pap can sometimes be found out drinking socially with Jezza and Jim Davison every time they are in town because he's a extremely broad-minded kind of chap. As for Pap's principled and consistent stance against of racism, this too is beyond question. Anyone reading the 'Gaza' thread who might have formed the conclusion that he can be perhaps just a tad anti-Semitic at times (all Jewish children are evil) can rest assured that this misapprehension is the result of his SWF account being temporarily high-jacked by those sinister 'dark forces' on here that are seeking to portray him as some kind of hypocrite who's concern for his fellow men is always subservient to his concern for politics. Thinking back on it now I realise that many (if not all) of Pap's more memorable contributions on here are veritable 'pearls of wisdom' that the rest of we mere mortals should never have dared to doubt. George Galloway is without question the finest statesman this country has seen in a generation. It is a matter of fact that the 'Boston Bombings' were staged by wicked US Neocons in order to further their own ends. Only a complete fool could believe that the Apollo moon landings represented a genuine triumph for the Human spirit and not the fabricated NASA fraud there so obviously were. And as for Lee Rigby and the 'crisis actors' ... well need I go on? If I have one (tiny) criticism it is that Pap can sometimes be prone to misinterpreting my attempts to be supportive as a form of supercilious attack that they most certainly were never intended to be - but I'll forgive him because nobody's perfect afterall.

I'm happy to accept the 'super' bit, but rather less pleased with being described as 'cilious'. Indeed you will both be hearing from my team of lawyers as soon as the small matter of a bent Lexus is cleared up.

Okay then. Pap has told us that his deep dislike of Clarkson has nothing to do with the man's politics (which coincidently just happen to be the polar opposite of his own) and everything to do with the nature of the appalling programme he fronts. I would like to publicly thank the Papster for this clarification and express how glad I am that this important question has been cleared up so succinctly.

I was shot down? Two insurance claims in a month are DEFINITELY going to make me persona non grata at AXA

Ha! Like it. It least after some pretty nasty replies you seem to have recovered your sense of humour.

You seem unusually 'tired and emotional' today my friend. Wrong side of the bed, PMT, or is it finding yourself on the wrong side of yet another argument?

If you hate Top Gear so very much then why don't you try tuning the TV over to another channel ... god knows there is plenty of choice out there now. For instance I can't abide Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing and bloody Eastenders - but I'm not on here moaning about them constantly because I understand that many others like them so their popularity justifies their existence - cue the usual 'but bear baiting & public hanging were popular' false analogies. This is akin to a TV version of democracy - if many millions of people vote with their remote controls to watch a programme because they are obviously entertained by it, then producers should probably keep on making it while that level of popularity endures. Now come back on here and tell me that the real reason you dislike Clarkson so has nothing to do with the fact that he's from the political right, while you obviously are not.

I like your examples of colourful buildings. We should have more structures like these. However the 'chalk and cheese' deferential you draw between them and the broadly comparable 'Gateway' complex remains a mystery to this observer of our cityscape. To me the scale seems appropriate to the setting while much of the design is eminently 'simple' in nature. Try explaining it again or show us a example of your own work and perhaps I'll get it.

As a democrat I'm happy for everyone to have their say. Can you say the same I wonder.

As the acknowledged architectural expert on here I expect that you have read Albert Speer's memoirs. So you really should remember then that Speer conceded in his book that the near uniform height line, and grandiose scale, he had envisioned for the buildings of his reconstructed Berlin would have generated a oppressive effect that (in a normal non-authoritarian society) would be highly undesirable. Southampton is (like most British and US cities) a dynamic constantly changing place that can never be frozen in time, as if it were a rival for Florence or Venice in all their authentic renaissance glory. Neither is it a pretty little Cornish fishing port or a Cotswold village for that matter. It seems to be that modern towers are perfectly appropriate in a 21st century city such as this. I must add that for a person who chooses to write in orange your dislike of colourful buildings is more than a little puzzling.

Top Gear must be a anathema to the BBC top brass. Unlike virtually every other programme the corporation produces it positivity revels in it's rejection of political correctness. Any concern for environmental issues is well concealed as Clarkson power slides the latest ridiculous 500 bhp sports car around the track. For that matter it's presenters are all white middle aged men, which is definitely a 'no-no' in a world that demands that at least half of them (yes 1.5 people) should be a disabled black lesbian. I suspect there are many at the Beeb who would love to see the programme canned because it goes against everything they stand for. I further suspect that these faceless execs are behind much of the negative publicity Top Gear is attracting in the press - it may well be that this covert campaign to 'get Clarkson' will prove to be successful before very long. And they'll be wrong because Top Gear, for all its failings, is loved by millions around the world preciously because it is so gloriously immature, outdated and irrelevant. It will be a sad day when the BBC decides that it can find no room any longer for Top Gear - afterall the founding purpose of this organisation was supposed to be to inform, educate and entertain was it not?

I'm glad you brought this car park up because I drive past it nearly every day and consider it a excellent example of how the judicious use of colour can lift even the most mundane of buildings into something much better than it otherwise might have been. You 'beige' types can argue for a dull monotone world all you like, but I'm voting for colour - the more the better.

This curious British disapproval of colour and ornamentation can I suspect trace its roots back to the time of our puritan past. This era saw the great religious conflicts of the Tudor age result in any hint of colourful decoration being violently removed (along with the Rood Screens) from what were once gloriously colourful Roman Catholic churches on idealogical grounds. I believe this pervasive 'whitewash' attitude has seeped into British culture over time becoming something akin to a 'race memory' almost. Our Victorian forefathers somehow managed to (spectacularly) shake this old prejudice off course, but the British are perhaps a innately conservative people and some of us seem to have reverted to type I'm sorry to say. Well I say that Queen Mary and Edward VI are long gone and we should rejoice in colour like many other nations do. Indeed, where does it say that our built environment must be dominated by dreary pale stone or brick-red structures? For that matter why does the tyranny of 'good taste' demand that so many of us insist that our cars be grey, silver or black? Whitley - I think you really should change your avatar image to one of Oliver Cromwell. Now I'm not saying that you're old enough to remember the old fanatic of course, but methinks it might suit you better.

I'm sure there must be some kind of point submerged underneath this post - but I'm not entirely clear what it is.

I agree. I'm suspect that our players go away with England and have their ears constantly bent back by 'big club' players telling them how wonderful life is at Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal ... etc and what a brilliant idea it would be if they dumped little old SFC for the green pastures (and enormous pay packets) that await them elsewhere. PS - my lawyers have instructed me to make it quite clear that this activity is not of course a underhanded form of 'tapping up' and that no respectable Premier League club would engage in such a thing - perish the thought!

I'm more than a little impressed with Professor David Reynold's 'Long Shadow' (BBC2 Wednesday) a series that examines the profound and continuing effect the Great War has had on subsequent history. Yesterday's instalment focused on how, in the aftermath of the war, Britain managed to avoid the extremism that engulfed much of Europe during the 1920's and 30's. Today everyone is familiar with the 'supermen' of last century, dynamic personalities such as Churchill, Mussolini, and Hitler who (for better or worse) did so much to bend history to their own ends. Reynolds argues here - persuasively I might add - that is was in fact self consciously 'ordinary' men who actually saved this country from the political chaos that befall France, or the bloody extremism of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. So it turns out that the real heroes of our history are men like Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald (and even good old King George V) who so skilfully steered Britain towards a path of moderation and consensus politics at a time when other nations were descending into extremism and division. This moderate 'consensus' style lasted from the 1920's, via Atlee's iconic 1945 Labour administration, right up until Maggie Thatcher called time on it in the 1980's. Then as now perhaps, the irony is that the 'middle of the road' often turns out to be the safest place to walk.

This is good to hear. Where did you obtain your 'informed and professional' opinion from by the way?

Well beauty is indeed 'in the eye of the beholder' as they say, and my 'eye' is showing me a attractive modern building that will stand the test of time I think. Needless to say other opinions are available ... if only some on here could express those opinions without foaming at the mouth while they do so this forum might yet become a more civil and rather less antagonistic place to visit. That'll be the day.

I understand you will now automaticly get any remaining road tax refunded when you sell your car. My question is: if you buy a car that is taxed, will it not effectively remain taxed as far as the authorities are concerned until the former owner gets around to posting his V5 to the DVLA and they get around to issuing a refund - maybe two or three weeks later in my experience?

Leaving to one side this planning issue for the moment, not for the first time I find myself in total disagreement with the majority on here because to my eye this structure looks like a outstanding example of contemporary architecture. Okay some of the guttering looks rather heavy-handed and the side blocks attached the tower could be accused of being a tad uninspiring I suppose, but their understated simplicity is almost certainly deliberate. The central tower itself provides the focus for the complex and it is surely a stunningly good design. I love its proportions and the unusual oval shape. The faceted and contrasting surface textures applied also raise the building above the ordinary. Above all the artfully chosen colour palette the architect has chosen is both bold and highly successful I think. Do you lot really want yet another dull 'glass' covered tower? No, far from being some 'blot' on the cityscape of Southampton, methinks the 'Gateway' should be seen as a asset to any forward looking modern city. I can only wish that my home town had a building half as good as this.

I'm not sure that Jose Fonte was ever a bad player, but he did take what may have looked at first glance like a career risk when he dropped down a division to come here. Well this morning he wakes to find himself the Captain of a top two Premier League team with the best defensive record in the division. So that little gamble (if we call it that) has paid off in spades for him. Fortune favours the brave perhaps. If I was him I'd celebrate with new Bentley. But please Jose - not black wheels this time.

With today's vote in Parliament the Prime Minister has secured the large majority he was seeking to authorise miltary action against the 'Islamic State' organisation in Iraq. The UK public seem (broadly speaking) to be of the same view and with the Iraqi Government also requesting our assistance the last constraints against war are removed and the RAF will almost certainly find itself in action against 'IS' extremists within a matter of days, if not hours. But with just 6 Tornado GR4 strike aircraft in theatre (and a 'Tomahawk' armed Royal Navy Submarine perhaps) it seems to me our contribution will be largely symbolic in nature - the limited form of our commitment reflecting perhaps the limited enthusiasm we now have for this cause after decades of bloodshed. However if we accept that IS is a real threat to regional security in the Middle East (such as it is) and that the Iraqi state we have created post Saddam is worth a damn, then I suppose a semi reasonable case for military action can be made here. I'd feel more secure in thinking that if Iraq itself was putting up more of a fight in its own defence - I can only hope that one day we do not find ourselves drawing ugly comparisons between the Iraq we are going to war for and the doomed US backed South Vietnam regime, or even Soviet era Afghanistan perhaps. Time will tell. How strange it is that a organisation I'm sure most of us had never even heard of a few months ago is now adjudged to be so dangerous that we must go to war in a effort just to contain it. I must also add that it seems to me that 'IS' far from fearing the prospect actually desire war with the West. Might that not be a pretty good reason why we should refrain from action? Nevertheless rightly or wrongly we are about to 'let slip the dogs of war' again and if you asked me when those hound's constant barking would cease all I could say is that I'm confident it will all be over by Christmas ... just don't ask me which Christmas.

In the wake of a extraordinary summer do we access the clubs subsequent success as proof positive that SFC is a exceptionally well run organisation, or perhaps have we been exceptionally fortunate in that Koeman and all those new players have adapted to the demands of the Premier League so very quickly? A bit of both probably, but I can't help but think that what we have achieved so far this season is the exception to the rule and should we lose the manager and sell off most of our best players again next summer then we may not get away with it a second time. Come next summer, if not before, you can bet your bottom dollar that the rest of the Premier League will be knocking on our door again trying to sign every good player we have because SFC has now gained a reputation of being the ultimate 'selling club' in this division. I can only suggest that if we don't find a way of resisting that pressure (within the bounds of reason) then it's only a matter of time before that lands us in deep trouble.