Lord Duckhunter

Brian Reade and Toynbee are two that wrote particularly vicious articles about Thatcher when she died. So it is not confined to the daily mail, just as phone hacking was not confined to the news of the world. My view is Thatcher, red Ralph or any other political person is fair game, dead or alive. Others may think that such attacks are wrong and disgusting. However , some people appear to want it both ways. If its somebody they hate and it appears in a paper they dont mind, then its legitimate. Put it in the Daily Mail about an old leftie and its moral outrage here we come. Its laughable that people like Alistair Campbell are outraged by this, that people like Campbell are somehow morally superior then the daily mail defies belief.

That's not what you said. You said that the people "running the show" and compared these to the " decent Tories " running the party now. You are backtracking when caught making things up.

What a load of nonsense. Red Ed himself said that red Ralph's politics were a legitimate discussion point. His problem was with one specific accusation only. That he hated our country. As for the nasty party, I suggest you read the McBride book. Perhaps you could also point out who used to run the show and then defected to ukip? Just a couple of names will do. Ran the show and then defected to ukip, I'm sure you know your stuff and didn't just think that was a good line, that is factually incorrect. I await the names with interest. It makes me laugh that in a thread about making something up to suit a political agenda ( this case the mail) you make something up that suits yours. Thatcher, Joseph, howe , hestletine, Clarke, portillo, Lawson, major, Lamont, tebbitt, Hurd, are ones I can think of off the top of my head. These ran the show, who are the ukip defectors?

The most laughable defence on here, "not a politician". This isn't some sort of ordinary voter, he spouted his political "views" the whole of his adult life. Not even Red Ed is trying to pretend that he somehow wasn't involved in politics. There is a very clear set of circumstances that have led to this article, it wasn't just some sort of random "lets have a pop at Red Ed, by dissing his dad (had that been a tabloid tactic then Jack Straw's coward of a father, would have been an easy target during the new labour years) Basically Damien McBride alleged in his book that Ed stabbed his brother in the back to protect his Fathers legacy. In light of that, his Father's "legacy" is clearly a legitimate target for discussion and wider comment. Add to this the modern politicians use of their families as props, to show "where they came from" and "who they are" (he has mentioned his Mum and Dad and apple pie in plenty of political speeches) And the fact that Red Ralph was clearly deeply involved in politics, and you can see why the story had legs. The issue then becomes whether Red Ralph's political views and his clear hatred of certain aspects of British life, constitutes a hatred of "his country". Personally, I don't think it does, but can see how some people may think so. I don't think Mrs Thatcher had a hatred of the North or of Scotland, but can well understand people who think she may have done. Had the Daily Mirror written an article "the women who hated Scotland" which then went on to pinpoint statements and policies that they believed proved their point, whilst disagreeing with it,I would have no issue with it. I certainly wouldn't be foaming at the mouth in moral outrage. I also doubt very much that the Mirror would allow carol Thatcher a rebuttal the following day. Brian Reade called Thatcher "evil" in the Mirror, a statement every bit as nasty as anything written about Red Ralph . In my opinion the left and many posters on here are getting their knickers in a twist because of the publication that the article appeared in. It is an opportunity to show their moral outrage at the bogey man Mail, whilst defending an old Leftie. A great win-win for them.

The moral outrage from some on here appears to contain caveats. By asking whether they were outraged by some of the vicious stuff written about Thatcher, we can establish whether this is a principled disgust or a political one. But you knew that all along.

It's no more offensive than what Brian Reade and toynbee wrote about carol Thatcher's dead mother.

Love the lefties outrage at insults towards the dead, just a shame the outrage only extends to a Marxist and not Mrs Thatcher.

There are unemployed people or low paid receiving housing benefit that rent off private landlords. These people do not receive a spare room subsidy .

People are only defending him because he plays for us. Had Redknapp signed him for QPR and he performed like he has done, it would "prove" what a shiete manager he was. So far in the great Saints web roll of Gaston excuses which has been running for 12 months, we've had ; Young , in a new country, not "saints fit", keeps travelling back for internationals, other players aren't on the same wavelength (my favourite that one),MP will get the best out of him, and we've even had one that Lambert's presence somehow affects his game. All I've seen is a bloke who flatters to deceive, how keeps giving the ball away, plays ok when we're on top in a game, but isn't really a bloke you'd want in the trenches next to you. Rather than getting better, he seems to my untrained eye to be becoming less and less interested. All this for an outlay of £12mil. Tim Vickery said all along he would not make an impact in English football, and from the evidence so far he's been right. Some people want him to do well so badly, that they are overlooking the actual facts. He has been average and is further away from the starting line up than he's ever been.

What about the fact that social tenants in the private sector don't get a subsidy for any spare bedrooms? Is this a disgrace, or are there deserving and undeserving poor.

Complete nonsense. We would have stayed up regardless. We wouldn't have played with 10 had he not signed, someone else would have played and would have contributed. Maybe we couple have signed someone else with the money we Spunked on him. I can't think of one game when I came away thinking" we'd have lost that if Gaston wasn't playing". He has been a monumental waste of money, had he been a harry redknapp or fat sam signing people on this forum would be ****ing their pants.

Spot on. The pro climate change people use "science" to back up their opinions, when in fact there is no way of knowing and it boils down to belief, not science. If I conduct a scientific experiment , I will be proved right or wrong. If I do A, then my opinion is B will happen. If B happens , then I'm proved right. If B doesn't happen, then I'm wrong. If B doesn't happen for a particular reason, then surely it is for me to prove why B hasn't happened. Yet in the "science" of climate change those who were wrong are automatically assumed to be right. The dire warnings of 20/30 years ago, have turned out to be wrong, yet the climate change lobby are still right and challenge disbelievers to prove them wrong. I equate it to life after death. The one fact is we will all die. Whether there's an after life we'll never know. It boils down to belief. The fact here is the climate is changing, how much man has to do with it, can never be known. It boils down to what you believe. It is not a science, because to be a science there has to be an opposite position that can be proved wrong. If I said that I had a special dance and every time I did this dance it rained within a week, it would either rain or it wouldn't. If it rained someone would say "it would have rained anyway". If it didn't rain and I was wrong, would I get away with saying "I misjudged it, it will rain, just not in that week". Would I

Clearly nobody knows very much about it, seeing as nobody predicted a "pause". Difference is , I'm not part of a billion dollar gravy train. Just a bloke who thinks the climate will continue to change (as it always has done) regardless what man does. We are being told today, that islands will dissapear, that this will happen and that will happen. When it doesn't, there will still be tree huggers moralisng and anyone who dares point out that they're in the altogether, will be labelled a daily mail reader.

Just listened to a great John Lennon podcast on Radio 4, well worth listening to if you're a fan of Lennon or the Beatles. I had read the Rolling Stone interviews in a book, but compelling listening to the tapes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r4music

The old Daily Mail, rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you, must read The Daily Mail. There has been no global warming for 15 years. Nobody predicted this , but instead of holding their hands up and saying "we were wrong", it's now called it a pause. When all these predictions of Armageddon were being delivered, it was done with certainty, no caveats. All of a sudden when proved wrong by events, all sorts of excuses are made. The gravy train keeps on running, earth warms up, it's man made. Earth cools down, it's man made. Earth stays same, it's a pause. For something to be scientific the outcome has to prove your theory. In the weird and wonderful world of climate change, the tree huggers ensure that any outcome proves their theory.

You should read "The Emperor's New Clothes" . How do you explain the extreme climate swings prior to man? Ah yes that's right , it's now a mixture of man made and natural causes. Of course this "man made & natural" causes is a win-win. I remember all the dire warnings from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and they'll keep on coming year after year after year, getting it wrong, but explaining it perfectly. Until someone points out that the Emperor Lucas is bolloko (god forbid, I bet she doesn't shave her bits).

How do the tree huggers explain climate change before industrialisation, or even before man walked on the earth? No doubt they'll be a explanation for this, and a Guardian article posted. I expect millions of pounds of money has been poured into this "science" which will explain how man made the climate change without even being on earth. Are the tree huggers trying to tell us they know what the climate on earth would be if man had never existed? Are people seriously trying to tell us that if we all followed the Caroline Lucas manifesto and all lived in wind farms, rode round on penny farthings and rowed to our seaside holiday destinations, the climate would stay the same? Thank god there weren't people like Lucas around at the end of the ice age, they'd be issuing dire warnings about ice caps melting and man made destruction of the planet.

I don't get all this no celebration of goals. I just about get it if you're a legend, maybe if Rickie returned, but journeymen like Phillips who was just a player passing through. He's rewriting history here, he couldn't wait to get away. Let's give him plenty of clog and he should stop being a soft **** and rub our noses in it if he scores.

Yeah, let's get rid of all these no marks making millions out of shares and invest our pension pots in your mate the chippy.We could also give everyone who is unemployed a job in a tractor factory.

The other thing that needs to be factored in is the rises prior to (god forbid) a labour government.If prices go higher than they would have, how's that going to help? These private companies run rings round governments, particularly left leaning ones. Plus, the effect this will have on the man in the streets pension as I'm sure some of our pension funds will be invested in this sector. There's also a very good chance that this will be challenged as there's some doubt that European laws will allow it. More costs bought upon the poor old taxpayer. I'm all for giving the working man some help,but take £6 less out of his pay packet a month, instead of trying to interfere with the free market. We could pay for it by making middle class families pay for their offsprings school dinners.

If you're going to go on national TV complaining about profits, surely you should have some sort of knowledge of what those profits are. Its basic research surely. The thing is Red Ed was energy minister, when he could of done something, he didn't. Bills went up , energy companies made profits. Why has this suddenly occurred to him? Even a dreamer like you can see what's going to happen when a price freeze is announced. What on earth do you think the energy companies are going to do with prices in the next year? What are people wanting to invest going to do? When asked by Adam boulton whether energy bills would be lower in real terms under labour than they are now, Red Ed was unable to answer. Anyone who can't see that this is a gimmick, proberly thought Michael foot was a great leader. What's the next policy announcement, free beer?

That's because its easy to discredit. Like all of labour's new eye catching voter friendly bribes, they're built on sand. You only had to watch Andrew Neil monster twigg and Mrs balls on the daily politics today to see that. Twigg,banging on about energy companies profits was challenged by Neil "what were their profits". Twigg, didn't know, just kept repeating it. Then said " everybody knows centrica made vast profits" , " what were they?" Neil asked. "I don't have that to hand" replied the education spokesman, do some homework before coming on and moralising on energy profits suggested Neil helpfully. Neil then pointed out that tesco made more profit than them, "why not a pricing policy for food, as the big supermarkets are making massive profits". As for Mrs balls asked about firemen and their strike, kept answering about policemen. Does anybody seriously vote for these clowns?

WOW, Just WOW. Has there ever been a period with so many political pygmies and illiterate economic arguments. Does anybody in the establishment realise how much debt we have and why do all 3 establishment parties seem to think more Government intervention is the answer. In the past 7 days we've had free kids meals for middle class and rich parents, "wrap around child care" , more bank taxes and now Government interference with private companies prices. Does Ed think he's hitting their profits, as Andrew Neil pointed out to Caroline Flint, in California the energy companies just cut investment in infrastructure which led to power cuts following a pricing policy. This is not going to come out of their margin, and it's telling that some energy companies share price went up following Milliband's announcement. Where on earth are these clowns going to get the money from for these pre election bribes, that's right, our money. OH no, of course, it's going to be a bank levy, a mansion tax and increasing the top rate of tax. Surely they can see that if you take more capital out of the banks, it comes at the expense of lending, lending that we need to boost the economy. Mansion tax, who decides the value of a house, are they basing it on existing council tax levels, or will there need to be an expensive revaluation of every property? When will this money start coming in, because the spending commitments start from day one.It's easy to throw around talk of a "mansion tax", but it's really not as simple as saying "you live in a posh house, pay up". Somebody needs to value these properties, which takes time and money. And of course the old Labour favourite from the 70's , raising of the top rate of tax, the answer to all our prayers. Money that the Labour party has spent about 6 times over. We've had 2 conferences and all I can think is "do they really think we're that stupid". I've no doubt the Tory one will follow a similar vain. I just hope that somewhere in my children's generation, there's a politician who can sort this mess out, because what we're handing down to them is a bloody Portsmouth FC style economy.

Woy has made it pretty clear he'll go with 4-3-3 most games, with Rooney, sturidge and wellbeck as the 3. Leaving Gerrard, lampard and Wilshire centrally . He might change it around against stronger sides, bringing milner in to close off a flank, just like capello did a lot and man city did on Sunday. Just can't see where a tidy ball playing wide man with little pace fits in. I seem to recall a thread "kelvin for England".

I think maybe we're a bit harsh laughing at the historic chairs bunged in the skip. After all it was the previous regime and now they're community owned mistakes like that are a thing of the past. I know for a fact that the PST have learnt from that mistake and rather than chucking out valuable Portsmouth chairs, they are now using them around the club. Trust members can now take turns sitting on them.