Lord Duckhunter

Just to make it absolutely clear, I have no problem at all with someone arranging this. If people want to attend, then that's up to them. My point is that if it was a commercial money making night, then it is understandable that some people or organisations don't want to be involved.

I don't particularly want to get into a bunfight, but what was the reason behind this tribute? I know he was to most our greatest player, certainly in the top 3, but what triggered this particular night. I could understand it if he'd reached a milestone, maybe his 60th birthday, or 30 years since he signed. He's not died, is not ill to my knowledge, or is retiring from the club. Was it a charity venture or a commercial one. If it's a commercial one, then maybe this is the reason the club didn't want anyone involved in an official capacity. Is there going to be another one in 5,10,15 years time, maybe one for Lawrie or Franny? To me, his tribute was his testimonial , but I find this whole tribute thing a bit strange if it's just a random date. If it's a money making commercial venture, then good luck to them, but I can well understand some people not wanting to get involved if that's the case.

If Bazza moved back, they'd have to. If I paid £1 for a house and then found out Bazza lived nearby, I'd want some change.

I used to stay with a mate from Southport, whenever saints played up north . Must be 20 odd years ago now. Some great nights.My mate emigrated , so don't go there now. One thing I remember was being up there one orangeman's day , must of been around '92. Could not believe it, all marching through Southport like it was ****ing Belfast or something. Big booze up more than anything sinister, but I was not aware of it up there before I saw it. Don't know if it still goes on.

Liverpool is a great city with some great people, I love visiting, but personally prefer living on the south coast. Maybe I could be tempted to Southport or somewhere similar, but personally i prefer the quiet life here in Poole. The weather is better, there's enough pubs and restaurants for me and we're a stones throw from beautiful beaches and countryside. I've met plenty of liverpudlians over the years and not many of them ever moved back, so it can't be to everyones taste. At the end of the day, if you're happy and feel you're at home, does it matter what any ody else thinks. I have lived in many places and this is the place I've most felt like I belong .

The middle class, whether families or pensioners should not be "receiving" or "claiming" benefits. Nothing will be done about it because they vote in large numbers. As a nation we spend enough money on welfare, but it is spread way too thinly. The giverment is handing over millions to feed the middle class' kids, heat their homes, pay for their tv licences , pay them for just having children whilst an underclass struggle to get by from week to week. We over tax the average person and then distribute it back to them in various benefits. The overriding view is "I've paid for the welfare state, so I am entittled to something back". Why ?. I pay my house insurance, that doesn't mean im entittled to money back from The Nationwide. However it gives be the peace of mind that if disaster fell , they'd be there for me. Why can't people view the welfare state the same way. We have over 80k coming into our house each year from 3 earners, why should I be able to claim £140 odd pound a month child benefit. That money doesn't grow on trees, it either comes from the pockets of the poor via lower benefits for them, out of the working mans taxes , or is borrowed by the giverment be paid back by my children and grandchildren.

I'm not particularly keen on Southampton, but anyone who thinks its anywhere near the bottom of the pile of UK towns/cities has either never visited many or is on a wind up. Personally I think the city lacks decent pubs, but other than that its pretty decent. Its not Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff or London, but not many towns/ cities are. Liverpool is my fav, bit wouldn't want to live there as I might bump into Bazza.

I said to the guy next to me before the corner was taken "he'll blow for a foul", it was so obvious what was going to happen. Saints players obviously realised as well, because there was not much arguing about what was a perfectly good goal. Ref's obviously think that this is the best thing to do, but I'm not so sure. They are always on about respecting the ref and accepting decisions, but the only reason Dean knew he'd made a mistake was the reaction of 3 or 4 Swansea players. Had they just accepted the ref's decision and thought "oh well, it's a tough job and he's doing his best", Dean would not have realised his basic error and they'd have been 2 down. By caving in and making things even it proves that argue enough and the ref will be influenced.

I dont want to hear about people's individual problems when tuning in to a political debate, you will never have enough time to assess whether they're genuine or not. If they want to offer themselves up as part of the debate, then the politicians on the panel should be able to correct them. I've heard some right bollards from the audience. That's why any questions is so much better, any answers the next day is a phone in and I don't have to listen. As for mh, the application wasn't known, but the book serialisation was. Dimble should have done his homework and then added after his rant " didn't you take their money for your book". Jo colburn did this to Ann diamond on the daily politics. Following another rant , outrage , disgust at the mail, Jo said " of course you used to write for them Ann didn't you".Diamond replied " yes I used to take their money" "and would you again " asked jo " im a journalist , id write for anyone " came her reply. See that's what gets to me, the rants, the disgust , the outrage at the disgraceful mail, yet these peoples morals dont quite streech to not taking their dosh. Its not like diamond or medhi are on the breadline, needing mail money to feed their hungry mouths. They're well off, established journos who should practise what they preach.

If he does get picked again should we get on his back, or the guy that picks him?

The food at SMS is ****e. The Beer at SMS is ****e. If somebody has to eat it or drink it, then that's their choice, but why keep coming on here telling everybody what we already know? It's not as if anybody is going to post "thanks for that, I was going to eat there next game but wont now". There's no football next weekend and I'm going to watch my local pub team at the Rec. I know they'll be ****e before I set off, so what's the point in moaning about the lack of premiership skills on show. It's like Masterchef on here sometimes.

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.