Lord Duckhunter

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?

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.