CHAPEL END CHARLIE

This link is working brilliantly for me - top quality picture and I didn't even need to download a bunch of rubbish to get it either. Thanks verymuchly.

What a odd article - a 'lack of ambition' being the one accusation that could never be justifiably leveled at our egocentric Chairman. As for Ramirez, so many on here seem convinced that he's on the verge of greatness I'd kinda like him to stay and we'll see if they're right or not. But if he really wants to back to Italy - as long as someone is prepared to pay - then in this era of unbridled 'player power' we might as well let him go. This young man is by no means irreplaceable and our last result proves we are more than capable of turning over big teams without his assistance.

Have you ever seen Sidney Lumet's unforgettable cold war chiller 'Fail-Safe' ? The US President is on the phone to his ambassador in Moscow at the exact moment the Thermonuclear Bomb detonates over the Soviet capitol - the first proof of which is the President hearing the phone melt.

I once had a few HBOS shares that dated all the way back to the Halifax's takeover of the old Leeds Building Society. Holding this stock was an exciting ride to put it mildly. At one time there were verging on £2000's worth - but that which goes up must come down - and by the end when Lloyds took them over you might as well used the lot as fire lighters for all the good they were. An expensive lesson for me then, but one that doesn't really matter much anymore to be frank. Others however with much larger stakes (not all of whom were wealthy financial institutions by any means) must have taken a real beating as a result of the disastrous decision making of those charged with the running this bank. I wouldn't trust Crosby and his mates to run a Whelk store.

Umm ... I must say to me he comes across as a rather likable commentator and very probably good company to spend time with one suspects. As for him being a 'unfunny tosser' ... well you're obviously not one of those capable of appreciating the 'dry' sense of humour. If he doesn't happen to rate us very highly, well that's a pity and I think he's wrong, but if that is his view then he's entitled to express it. I'm not one of those who are so very insecure that they feel the need to take a instant dislike to any and everyone who doesn't happen to share our love of this particular football club.

I remember the days when you could put down the deposit on a new Capri Ghia, have a week in Butlins, buy your girl a fish supper and still have change from £57. Mine you I grew up in Albania.

These short films are rapidly becoming a unmissable element of our post game wind-down. Just a few notes and suggestions to make them even better in future: 1 - The 'Senior Response Steward' really should make a effort to be more responsive if he is to live up to his title. 2 - More 1970's style bare arse dressing room nakedness would definitely spice things up. 3 - I'm very distantly related to John Terry - this may not be a good thing. 4 - Marin is a midget 5 - Forcing the mascots to have a kick around with the ref should count as child abuse. 6 - Kelvin was obviously distraught at the news that his mate Artur was injured. 7 - Chelsea have a very nice bus. 8 - Adam Lallana struts about as if he owns the place 9 - Funny to see the Chelsea players pretending to remember Jack Cork 10 - Despite giving Tadenari Lee the boot we are still big in Japan

If Scotland is indeed to abandon the Union then life will continue on both sides of the new border much as it does today I suppose. That fate would however be a terrible shame because Great Britain together has achieved (and sacrificed) so much over the last 300 years that in my view a divorce of this magnitude should only be contemplated on the grounds of some overwhelming justification for this measure being evident. The practical/administrative/economic problems of splitting apart two long united nations are legion and should not be underestimated. The Scots are a proud people - and they have much to be proud about - but the hard truth is that in this day and age a independent Scotland would be a (very) small nation of little real significance in a world that is increasing dominated by huge Asian powers. I suspect the existing level of devolution within the UK already allows Scotland all the independence it either needs, or can handle. So other than to address some vague residual resentment of the English among some Scots, or as a sop towards Scottish envy of English economic dominance within the British Isles (which will continue anyway) then I just can't see much of a rational case for it. Breaking up the Union just reduces all the peoples of these isles for no obvious gain.

He couldn't go on Saturday and was more interested in Sir Rickie's wonder goal to be frank. He hero worships Lambert but although he's been to St Marys quite a few times now the great man has resolutely refused to do the business on every single occasion! He has seen Guly score though ... a rare occurrence indeed.

The thing about supporting a football club is that even when it's bad - it's still good. When your team is playing well and winning then there are precious few things in adult life more joyous. On the other side of that coin, when everything is going wrong and a fan learns to despair of his own team ... well that too can be the cause of real passion. Either way for a few hours a week this great game allows millions of ordinary working people to escape the crushing burden of working life and responsibility. In this peaceful, ordered, and prosperous country we may be doomed to endure safe existences that are devoid of much in the way of real peril, passion, or even meaning in some cases. Football however (so unimportant it is free to become strangely important) allows us to regain the frill of being truly alive again. Karl Marx was wrong again for it is surely football, not religion, that is the true 'opiate of the people'.

The sun shines on Southampton Football club and long may it continue. We turned over yet another 'big' team today and methinks few neutrals would say we didn't deserve just what we got - although yours truly was more than a tad nervous for the final 15. I love a good moan but there really is precious little for any of us moan about at this time - how dull! Shaw was my MOM but you could have given it to any of them such was the superb collective performance this team is now delivering. A few weeks ago I did that BBC Predictor thingy and came to the conclusion that we'd end up somewhere midtable with more than 40 points this season ... and was told not to be so stupid. Well tonight that guesstimate doesn't look to be too far a leap does it. PS - away fans singing for their own manager to "ferk off" are a bloody disgrace.

It's a bit of a shame he's leaving Parliament, he'll be a loss for both his party and for British politics. Had the situation worked out differently he might have made a interesting Prime Minister one day methinks. From t'other side of the House of Commons you could say much the same about Micheal Portillo. Too often in this country lesser men clamber to the top of the 'greasy pole' while their more able counterparts fall by the wayside. Talent is always in short supply and we seem to waste too much of it.

I saw this German crime drama last weekend: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01hxmjr/The_Silence/ 'twas rather good I thought with a ending that breaks all the rules.

Indeed it is not. In our system both the Government, and in certain circumstances the Judiciary, can change law. HMG however cannot ride roughshod over the rights of the individual - even wildly unpopular individuals - without the consent of the Courts or Parliament. I would hope everyone reading this is capable of understanding the importance of this principle. Government, like the police, must never be above the law. In theory anyway.

I don't much like this Qatada fellow. On the other hand I do rather like the fact that we live in a country where even the Government still has to abide by the rule of law.

...

Two questions: Do you run your own personal finances on this lunatic basis, and if you do, are you still remotely solvent? So the government increases the national debt from todays already crippling level to something utterly astronomical in the hope that this will lead to more sustained growth in future. This is of course effectively betting the economic prosperity of this nation, not just for a few years, but for generations to come on that mad gamble paying off. And if doesn't work ... well we're just screwed like Greece and Cyprus are then aren't we? Let's put to one side for the moment the negative impact that massive level of additional borrowing will have on interest rates, inflation, and on our already degraded credit rating and consider instead the record of how wisely Ed Balls and his mates have managed our money in the recent past ... err not a very promising prospect is it? No, I say the wise man bewares politicians who choose to peddle easy answers. The only way out of this mess is not to inflate further the national debt and state spending, but rather to cut debt and control spending to the best of our ability. Above all it is imperative that we continue to reduce the share of GDP that government is responsible for - a metric that is a sure indicator of most successful high growth economies. This nonsensical 'lets spend our way out of debt' scheme the Labour Party and you advocate is a load of Balls frankly.

The Labour Parties response to the last weeks Budget Statement, indeed the entire approach they have adopted to the severe economic problems the country is facing, is a cynical nonsense. You don't have to possess a masters degree in economics to know that you just can't borrow and spend your way out of our enormous debt and deficit problems - that way surely leads to ruin. By offering oh-so-easy answers to what are in truth massively difficult problems they may win the support of the gullible, or those who just can't face up to the hard truth that the road we are on is long and painful one. However I believe in the long run the British people won't tolerate being treated as if they were a bunch of ignorant children and Labour will sacrifice any slim chance they might have had of restoring their tattered economic reputation. The inevitable consequence of that is that they will lose the next election decisively I both trust and believe. And that fate will be exactly the outcome they so richly deserve.

If a few insults from the normally sedate Chapel Stand were capable of upsetting him so, one wonders how he ever coped with the vile torrent of abuse he must have received playing in the notorious 'old firm' games up in Glasgow. Or have the Rangers fans started to mellow in their attitude towards Catholics?

There's no point in me describing the plot of this novel because I dare say you've already seen the film - and that fine effort is a unusually faithful adaption by the Coen Brothers. So I'll just tell you that Cormac McCarthy is a author I admire more than I can say and I'll leave you with just a little taste of his truly remarkable prose style: Wells looked out at the street. 'What time is it?' he said. 'Eleven fifty seven' Chigurh replied. Well the hell with it. I think I saw this coming a long time ago. Almost like a dream. He looked at Chigurh 'I'm not interested in your opinions' he said. 'Just do it you goddamned psychopath'. He did close his eyes. He closed his eyes and he turned his head and he raised one hand to fend away that which could not be fended away. Chigurh shot him in the face. Everything that he had ever known or thought or loved drained slowly down the wall behind him. His mothers face, his first communion, all the women he had known. The faces of men as they died on their knees before him. The body of a dead child in a foreign country. He lay half headless on the bed with his arms outflung, most of his right hand missing. Chigurh rose and picked the empty shell casing up off the rug and put it in his pocket. He looked at his watch. The new day was still a minute away.

In this day and age is it not a tad odd that in a stadium full to the brim with fans, players, officials, press, and SFC staff no one else - as far as I'm aware anyway - reported this racial abuse at the time. Although I only caught the tail end of this particular incident myself, Boruc was certainly on the receiving end of some stick from our fans. Methinks not because of his Slavic origins, but more likely because he was 'aving a mare' as the saying has it.

I'm sad to see that the noted British horror writer James Herbert has passed away. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21870413 I can't claim to have read all his (many) books, but those I did were pretty good.

Firstly I must comment on how pleased I am to see your (much revised) take on what it means to be British in the 21st Century, although the substance of your so called 'big point' remains something of a mystery. Your cynical interpretation of the islanders motivations is again objectionable and not support by hard evidence or even the newspaper article you cite for that matter. I find the idea that a proportion of the monies generated by oil recovered from the South Atlantic might be retained for the benefit of the local population to be standard practice and entirely unremarkable. While I can't help but think that oil is a diversion from the real question in hand, I suppose it may well become a matter of some political/economic significance in the near future. But this oil business has precious little to do with the question of the historic sovereignty of the islands, their current legal status, or the morality of ignoring the democratically expressed wish of the Falklanders to retain their British identity. We went to war with Argentina back in 1982 over these islands, not because we desperately wanted to secure a potential oil bonanza in the South Atlantic - no significant oil reserves had even been discovered at that time - but rather because this nation could not tolerate seeing our people placed under the heel of a aggressive foreign power. While I recall how averse you are to factual contributions on here, for your information the current costs of defending the Falkland Islands are in the region of some £70m per year - out of a total defence budget that now exceeds £4,600m. But his is not really a question of money, oil or the complex multinational settlement history of the islands. The Falklanders seek to remain British because in the final analysis 'British' is exactly what they are.

Although I have known servicemen who have been there I don't personally know any Falklanders as it happens. Do you? I do know for a fact however that they recently voted overwhelmingly (with just a handful of votes against) to maintain their current political status. As a Democrat and advocate of Human rights I think we should respect the will of the people and continue to offer them all the rights and responsibilities that come with that - including the protection of the law and our military if need be regardless of cost. But if have some objection to that - other than you think their rural lifestyle makes them less British than you - than do try to summon up your thoughts into something resembling a cogent argument and present them here.