Lord Duckhunter

With lambert up top I'm sure they would have pushed and pushed and eventually got an equaliser, we just couldn't get out and move them up the pitch. Jay Rod had energy and pace that gave us an outlet and gave them something to think about. It's a difficult one, because RL and Osvaldo are clearly better players than Jay Rod, I guess it's just a question of horses for courses. If we're controlling the ball and playing our game, then I'd go with the established 2. Hopefully Jay Rod will develop his game and become a real alternative to Rickie. He won a couple of headers yesterday and generally made a nuisance of his self, so the signs are good.

If he was as bad as you make out, MP would have played Clyne on the left and Chambers on the right. If he was as bad as you claim, he would have got another LB in during the window. The fact he didn't do either must mean that MP feels Fox can do a job, but then what does he know compared to you, he's only an ex international centre half whose side have only conceded 2 goals this season.

He was sat in first class, he didn't appear to get off at Southampton but it was absolutely packed so we may not have seen him.

A lot of our experts wanted Boruc out last season. When a side come through the division very quickly, there are going to be players that are around the squad who aren't good enough for the new level. Coming up so quickly means that the squad will look slightly lopsided as the gap between Championship and Premiership means you need to focus on the starting 11. To build a squad takes time. All you can ask is when called upon the back up players do the best they can, and "get away with it". Despite what some people think, Fox has done his best this season and just about got away with it. Long term we're going to need to strengthen in a lot of back up positions, left back being one of them. But, why on earth do people think it's acceptable to get on a players back is beyond me. It also seems very selective, with others mistakes overlooked yet Fox's highlighted. It was obvious from the start that both full backs were badly exposed yesterday. However Clyne got off relatively scot free because Routledge was pretty average compared to Dyer, and Clyne also has the pace to get back in. Second half when W-P came on to give Fox some support, the right side was tightened up. Fox is no worse a player than FB was, it's just that the standard is a lot better now. Cheering sarcastically when a pass is made is just embarrassing. So is getting on the back of a reserve player who is coming in to fill a gap and doing his best. Fox doesn't pick the team, but these experts cant boo the bloke who does cause that'll really make them look stupid. If Fox turned round to MP and said "don't play me, I'm not good enough", this place would be in meltdown.

He got on the train 11 o clock train at Branksome on Sunday morning. My mate was stood on the platform with him.

I enjoyed Miley's video a great deal by playing it with the sound off listening to a Mavis Staples CD in the background. This is the way to listen to modern chick music, watch the young birds wriggling around half naked whilst listening to some proper female singers you wouldn't want to see cavorting around unless in a burka.

Question time has become a joke, clowns like Brand and Johnny Rotton. Together with hypocrites like Medhi H who as we established was allowed to make a mad rant against the Mail and nobody pointed out his job application and the selling of his book to the mail. Dimble needs replacing by Andrew Neil . I'm also sick of listening to the audience's opinions, Any Questions is far better because they ask the questions and then listen to the panel. Instead of making political comment all we get from the audience is "I cant get a job" or "I cant afford a house" or the "banks wont lend to me", or my favourite "I didn't cause the bust".

That's a very capitalist thing to say. The bare faced hypocrisy of the man, was breathtaking. Letts missed an open goal there, and The Mail should have armed Lett's with the facts prior to the show. I'd loved to have seen that application letter rolled out, plus the stuff from his back (serialised in the Mail). I've always thought the bloke was full of hot air, but didn't realise he was a money grabbing hypocrite.

I think the point is that he sold the serialisation to the mail. He calls it all sorts of things, yet sells his book to them and begs to work for them. Surely you can see what that makes him.

My point all along is that people should be allowed to publish what they want, within reason. The Mail can say what they did, and Brian Reade can call Thatcher evil. The debate then becomes what is "within reason"? I dont want people like Toynbee or Alistair Campbell defining what is reasonable, anymore than I want Nigel Farage doing so. What is the famous quote something along the lines of " I dont agree with your opinion , but will fight for your right to air it " (im in the middle of a 14 hour shift, so apologies if that's wrong). That seems to have gone out of modern political debate. Now everybodies "outraged" , but only on their terms. If you accept that Thatcher & Camerons family or motives or views are fair game, then surely Red Snr and Jnr are as well. It maybe that you feel that smears, insults and interpretations have no part in political life, then that's a coherent moral line. Being outraged on the basis of where it was published or who it was about is not. Bearing in mind that we all have differing morals and beliefs , who decides where the line is. The Establishment seems to want to, and this Ralph stuff plays into that. We have the bloke (Alistair Campbell) with Dr Kelly's blood on his hands touring the media outlets moralising , the bloke who smeared countless people, who bullied and lied for 10 years, deciding where the decency line is. Rather than the Establishment id prefer it if the public drew the line. We have laws around slander and libel ( I know that this won't affect Red Ralph),and public decency offenses, but other than that the line can only be drawn by market forces. If people are really outraged by the mail, they'll stop buying it. It'll need to adapt or go bust. I find it deeply depressing that The Sun is the countries number 1 seller, it reflects terribly on the nation. But, its not for me to try and change the sun, or for politicians to legislate and neuter it. The press will cross the line but id rather that then the political classes giving us moral guidence. The press are a mirror of our society and its pretty ****ing ugly sometimes. But instead of adressing that our great leaders attack the messinger. Why dont they look in the mirror and ask " after educating the whole population for 12 years, why is The Sun the best selling paper" . Why does The Mail sell so well, politicians won't attack the readers, cause they vote. Much easier to attack the messenger. Instead of attacking the sun and page 3, why dont they attack the blokes who buy it? Buyers vote....

In the eyes of the Mail and many of their readers, then evidence is in his writings and his opinions. However wrong that is, that is what they think. If Woy Hodgson shared Red Ralph's politics The Mail would run with "this man hates England, how can he manage them". For it to be a lie The Mail hack would have to think " I know he didn't hate his country, but I'll write it anyway". My opinion is that the hack, really does believe that people holding Red Ralph's views did hate the country. Clearly that is wrong, but I don't believe it to be a lie. As for apoligising, they ain't going to back down over a journo's opinion , especially if backed into a corner by lefties. Thereby maybe a token political Blair like apology, but I doubt it.

I was replying to the very specific point that The Mail "lied" about Red Ralph. I don't accept that its a lie, it was an opinion formed by Red Ralph's beliefs and words. You reinforced my point by concluding that my Republican views mean I hate Britain. You weren't lying you were just reaching a conclusion based on yours and my beliefs. Had The Mail said that Red Ralph hated Britain and had told many people this and had written it down, then that would be slander and a lie. But surely even you can see that they have applied their values and reached the opinion that he hated Britain. Maybe the headline should have been " in our opinion this man hated Britain" but newspapers don't work like that, left or right. I don't recall too many "in my opinion's" added to some of the stuff written about right wingers over the years.

Im sorry but I dont accept that it was an out and out lie. This paper and most of their readership, rightly or wrongly equate his extreme views with "hating the country". just as some lefties believe that Thatcherite Tories hate the north or the poor. How do you judge whether somebody loves or hates anything or anyone, if their behaviours and views can not be used in judgement. Can we only say that someone hates something if they've said so explicitly? Could you say that Nigel F hates immigrants, or Godfrey Bloom hates women, or even that David Cameron hates public sector workers. Im sure that all 3 would say they didn't , that all 3 would have friends that defended the accusation. But would the person who alledged the hate be lying or giving an opinion baased on his interpration of their deeds and words? Love or hate of a country is purely subjective. I dont sing or stand for the national anthem, as i am a republican. Does that mean i love my country less than a guy , hand over heart singing it at the top of his lungs. I've read loads of forums where players are accused of not having pride when playing for England , or not caring. The accusations are made based on the accusers opinion , it is not a question of lying or being truthful.

It's not quite as black and white as some make out. There have been some great pieces and campaigns over the years. The Stephen Lawrence one drew praise from all quarters and they were the paper that first named the killers. They also ran a story in the mid 60's stating there were 4,000 potholes in Blackburn, Lancs. One of their lunatic fringe middle class reader's used it in a song.

Pretty good summary. Michael White was on the Guardian political podcast with Toynbee. He made a quite similar point, as well as acknowledging that some of the Guardian's output regarding Thatcher was offensive. He also said that it was part Father/Son, but also part apolitical calculation. One to show Red Ed was willing to stand up to bully's, but two to try and close down Mail criticism of his part in the McBride stuff. Said he can now defend any press mention of what he knew and what he didn't know about McBride/Brown operation, by saying "look what the press did to my dad, they're trying to smear me again". This was the most sensible thing I've heard a member of the Left establishment has said about the whole thing. Toynbee was as poisonous as ever. As well as ranting about the mail, attacked Cameron's response as half hearted and disgracefully wondering why David Milliband was being so quite. Perhaps he didn't love his Dad as much as good old Ed, Polly. The thing the left don't seem to get is that the Mail and most of their readers DO consider someone with his beliefs as hating the country, just as countless Scots and Northerners think that Maggie hated them. It was not a lie,made up to smera Red Ed, they believe it. I think it's muddle headed thinking, but I wish people would stop saying it was a lie, it was a badly thought through opinion.

Correct, he played one first class game for Essex in 1962.

worked it out. It would have been better if you put "Which Boxer" instead of who The ring was at cruffs I presume?

Im puzzled by the "physically". Was there another less strenuous occasion as well?

Which Essex cricketer got a hat trick for England , but never managed to take a wicket playing for his county.

Looking at some old maps on Google, it's pretty borderline. If it was in Sussex, then Wessex would be just perfect for me. Includes Southampton the city of my birth, and Poole the town I call home and the birth place of my better half and kids, but excludes Skates and other assorted Brits I'd rather not share nationality with.

Course it's not. Yesterday he said the nasty people running the show had defected to UKIP, before backtracking, and now he's saying "there are a lot of decent Tories who know this is out of order.so some idiots think it's all right to attend a family funeral without.a invite says more about how low there morals go". Which is garbled nonsense, but seems to imply that although decent Tories know it's out of order, some think it's ok. I may have mistranslated , because in his rush to attack Tories, he types before he thinks. 2 Daily Mail hacks doing this is as relevant to the Tory party as The Daily Mirror making things up about British troops was to the Labour Party.

I've never considered my self British. I'm English, but I'm not particularly into this patriotic lark. Football aside, I'm not really that proud or emotional about the City I come from or Hampshire. Having lived in Poole the past 23 years and all the kids were born and breed here, I consider myself a proud Poole man first and foremost. There used to be an old lush who drank in my local, who kept banging on about The Kingdom of Wessex. I'm not sure if The Skates were in the Kingdom, if not, then I'll start using that as my nationality when asked.

Perhaps you could point us in the direction of the Tories that thought it was ok to go to the funeral, or are you making things up again?