Lord Duckhunter

Personally I dont think you can beat carry on films. Screaming with Harry H Corbett is proberly my fav. Looking away from Carry on, The Rutles is a great film.

I've no problem with Russia getting the world cup, when it's Europe's turn it's not fair just to share it around the Countries of Western Europe. For all the Journo's banging on about how the FA should withdraw from FIFA ect, our game is hardly whiter than white, look at the blind ey the PL turned to what's going on at the fishy end of the M27 ..

My first point was quoting another poster, my second one was showing him how what he claims is good for Britain is another area where we have no control over our own laws. Sorry for any confussion.

Clapton's off his head in the Bangladesh concert.If you haven't got it the DVD is well worth buying, a must for all Beatles and 60's/70's music fans.

A) This is not happening here without a warrant - how is this relevant? How many fugitives are their on the so called Costa Crime that can't be arrested without going through extradition procedures? If there was a paedophile from Belgium here or a fraudster from the UK in Italy surely we should be making it easier for their extradition..the EU parliament gives that a fair chance of happening. If I was to go on British TV and deny the Holocaust ever happened, the German police could come and arrest me. Holocaust denial is not an offense in England (maybe it should be, but it isn't) but is in Germany. Under the new EU treaty the police force of a member state can issue a warrent, arrest me and there's not a damn thing my MP, my local police force or anyone in the UK can do about it.Who gave away the right of the British people to determine their own laws, surely it can not be right that I can be arrested in my own country for something that is not illigal in my own country?

There was nothing new in the programme, the events took place 10-20 years ago. The timing was a delibrate commercial decision to attract viewers and publicity, not to weed out corruption in FIFA. If that was the case then they would have aired the programme with enough time for the corrupt members to be investigated and even suspended (like the Times story did).If the BBC want to act like a commercial outlet, then fine, do away with the poll tax that funds them. My issue was not the content or the right to investigate it was the timing of the programme.

Do you think the Canadians would put up with the US police force arresting Canadian citizens on Canadian soil for something that is not a crime in Canada? Would they put up with as many Mexicans (another member of NAFTA) as wanted to, having the right to settle in canada, and there was not a damn thing the Canadians could do about it? Would the Canadians give away Jurisdiction over vast swaythes of their domestic laws to NAFTA, without consulting the people of Canada? Who elected Herman Van Rompuy, because I didn't get a vote, did you?

We can be in a loose community of trading nations without having laws and other European dictates forced upon us by an unelected body. The choice is not EU or protectionism/tarriffs. The Canadians are in NAFTA without the US imposing laws, an anthem and a foregin minister on them.

+1, spot on.

I happen to believe that anything that affects the sovereignty of a nation is for the people to decide, it is not for politicans to give away to unelected faceless officals in a foregin country. The Euro loons wont give people a say because the people will reject their vision of Europe, even when they do vote no, they're bribed and told to vote again.The history of British membership of the EEC has been built on deceit and lies and if the Euro loons vision of Europe was laid before the people in 1975 they would have voted to leave. The vote was about an Economic union not a union where German police can arrest an Englishman in England for something that is not illigal under English law. Where we have no say in how many Europeans can settle in our country and where it becomes an offense to sell goods in pounds and ounces.

Nobody is denying the right to publish what they want, the issue is the timing. They had this info 3 weeks ago, why didn't they run with it then. Had they, it may have stopped the 3 alledged corrupt members from voting. Had the programme stopped these 3 voting, then that would have been a good outcome, as it is, it's too near to the vote for that to happen. Why was it broadcast in the week of the vote and not before, for maximum publicity and viewing figures thats why. Personally I dont think an organisation funded out of taxation should be putting publicity and viewing figures to the forefront of their programme timings,especially as it means the 3 members still vote. The Times ran their story weeks ago and as a result some delagates lost the vote, the BBC left it so late that the corrupt ones they exposed, still vote. Had the Times ran with their story today and harmed our vote, they may have lost readers in protest. The BBC have no such worries as they rely on a compulsary poll tax. If they want to base their programmes on maximum publicity and viewing figures they should be subject to the same constraints as commercial broadcasters and media outlets.

This is a typical pro EU arguement, we can not ask the people because they dont really understand the benefits. Why dont we go all the way and let people like Ken Clarke and Mandleson decide the Govt, after all some people vote for the wrong reasons and dont understand the manifestos.

It's only been a few years, so it's way too early to start saying "it's worked". The latest German opinion polls show 51% want the Deutschmark back, if the Germans or French say it's finished, it's finished. Come back in a generation, then tell us it's worked.

As the BBC is funded by a poll tax and is not a commercial organisation it should not act like one. It is in the nation's interests to have the World Cup and therefore the BBC should have braodcast earlier or after the vote.They have an obligation to their stakeholders (us) that is wider than any "journalistic terms". They are either the state broadcaster or a commercial broadcaster, they can not be both. Had Sky pulled a stunt like this and it cost us the World Cup I would cancel my package and not watch them ( and so I suspect would countless others), if we do that to the BBC we'd end up in prison.The BBC want their cake and eat it over this and I hope the FA reward them by giving the Premiership highlights to ITV next time round.

If the Euro was such a great thing, why were the peoples of Europe never given a vote on joining? 2 Countries were, Denmark and Sweden. Guess what, neither are in the Euro.

Yesterday was the 9th annivesary of George's passing, I cant believe I posted last night and forgot (it's not that I'm an anorak, but he died on my daughters 1st birthday and she was 10 yesterday). I found this fantastic clip of him on Youtube, playing with his mates (what a band) and really enjoying himself. You also get the added bonus of a glimpse of rock and rolls greatest pair of tits and ass, Claudia Lennear. Enjoy and RIP George.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwVAvnYKLJE&feature=related

You're spot on. The BBC took a commercial decision but they are not a commercial broadcaster. Had ITV or Sky ran with this yesterday, that would be understandable as they have to maximise viewing figures, for the BBC to use our money to do so was shameful. The other point is that Sky and ITV would have had a decision to make as to whether running this so close to the vote would have a backlash that would affect their profits. Sky viewers could cancel or advertisiers could pull out. The BBC has none of this to worry about. If we dont get the bid because of this programme we can hardly withhold our licence fee, as we'll be put in prison.Had Sky run with this, then anyone disgusted by the timing could have hit them commercially by withdrawing from their services. The BBC is either a commercial broadcaster or a national broadcaster run in the interests of the nation, it can not be both.

The retirement line was a bit tongue in check . I had the pleasure of seeing Johnny Cash at the Albert Hall in about '94. However for every Cash there is the Chuck Berry gig, seen at the BIC around the same time, when he did 25 mins and then ****ed off without an encore. I've also seen Paul Simon in fine form,but I find 65 year old Roger Daltrey singing "hope I die before I get old" a bit weird, and as I said I think Mick and Keith should call it a day. I just felt that all though well meaning, Elton John parading a clearly unwell Leon Russell ( a hero of mine) on BBC 4 a bit distasteful. Back to the Beatles and argueing over who was better is like argueing over Mick Channon, Matt Le Tiss or Terry Paine, all were great but it just boils down to personal taste.

We need an in or out vote to sort this once and for all. The reason we dont get one is that the EU doesn't do democracy in case the Euro Loons lose, they want a Superstate piece by piece, inch by inch. The people's views are an irrelevant to them. Grocer Heath lied to us and the Euro loons have been deceiveing us ever since.

I would have thought coming second above the Lab and Lib/dems parties was pretty decent, hardly "nothing nationally". The way I read the results was thus; in a European election the mainly Euro sceptic Tories and the withdraw from EU UKIP, came first and second.

He hasn't performed at the same level this season and that's plain for all to see. Whether it's a blip, he's not fully fit or it's his attitude is for NA to work out, that's what he gets paid for. Personally I think we've seen the best we're going to see of him and I'm starting to think he's "gone".Not based on any insight, just a gut feeling. I always felt he would get us out of this League, but would need replacing if we want to challange at the top of the Championship.I like the guy, but there's no way he's good enough for the Premiership.

Denny Laine hooked up with Paul after the first original album, apart from a few vocals from Linda, Paul played every instrument on every track. Laine played on the later live version, but even then I'm pretty sure it was Jimmy McCulloch who played the lead. The original and best version was all Paul. Music is obviously a personal thing to everyone, but I just find Lennon's solo stuff over produced. The Plastic Ono album is great and had Imagine been produced in the same raw way it would have been a much better album. I think Paul gets a bad press compared to John. Maybe because of the type of person he is and maybe because John got shot, but Lennon did some terrible rubbish and spouted a load of nonsense with Yoko. Yet could do no wrong, some of his "protests" ie the Hanratty thing and being interviewed in a bag, were just embaressing self promotion.I dont much listen to any of their solo stuff now, there's just too much dross, from all 4 of them.I read an interview with one of Wings once (can't remember who it was) but they said "how do you tell Paul McCartney he's written a poor song?", and I think they all suffered from that a bit. Lennon and McCartney could tell each other "that was poor", but how could Denny Laine or Klaus Voorman? Take George Martin out of the mix as well, and you can see why they couldn't match what came before (who could?) On a seperate note I feel that all musicans should be forced to retire at 50. Seeing one of my favourites Leon Russel, shuffling onto stage holding a walking stick to play with Elton John on BBC 4 the other night finally convinced me of it. As for Mick and Keith, they're just getting a bit cringeworthy now.Let's leave us old fossils to listen to the guys in their prime and let the youngsters do the live performances.

George was great, but he wasn't in the same class as a musican or songwritter compared to Paul.Even Lennon in his Jann Wenner interview in which he conducts a character assassination on Paul claims that him and Paul were "the best" and that George learnt from them. People forget what a brilliant musician McCartney is/was, a great drummer as well as keyboards, bass and guiter and other instruments. Listen to Maybe I'm amazed where he plays all the instruments, or Ballad of John and Yoko, where he plays everything except lead, including drums. In fact it was to thank him for his work on that song that John named him as a co-writter on Give Peace a chance. Personally, I dont accept your second point. Lennon and Harrison's decent solo stuff was done shortly after the break up, but Paul's (apart from a couple of songs on the first album) was poor and didn't get better until he got the Beatles out of his system. Band on the run being his first decent solo album and that was his 5th one.

John's on that album, Yoko's isn't bad, certainly better than anything else she's ever done (not that that's very hard). Beautiful Boy is just embaressing if you ask me. I liked some of his solo stuff, the plastic ono band album is a work of genius and New York City is one of my fav songs. But most of his solo stuff was over produced and Double Fantasy was just sentimental pap, something Paul's always been accussed of writting.

I dont understand why PMc gets stick for dross and yet Lennon gets away with it. That Double Fantasy album contains some of the worst musik I've ever heard. The whole Beatles solo work is patchy at best with some great stuff thrown in. Even Ringo's "it dont come easy" and "photograph" would not sound out of place on a Beatles album. As for "Band on the Run", it's a pretty decent album, personally I preferred "Venus and Mars" or "Tug of War", but none of them were ever going to match what they did in the 60's.