benjii

Did anyone else hear more of this?

I'm not trying to twist anything, merely positing another angle for people to think about. My view is that raising money for people who need help is generally a good thing. I also feel the value of "remembrance" is somewhat undermined by surrounding it with militaristic pomp and circumstance which only underlines our propensity to keep subjecting people to the **** of war ad infinitum; unless of course you believe our current wars are just, in which case it makes perfect sense. That is the point - pure remembrance does not need mass ostentation which can only ever be inherently political. I'm not trying to offend and not saying people should not choose to participate in the appeal if they wish. And simply saying something is "politically correct" is hardly a devastating argument.

Aye. Charlton PLC owes loads of money. Charlton PLC can't afford to pay it. Charlton PLC has to sell its assets (one of which is the football club). The creditors accept that and don't exercise any rights they may have to appoint an administrator. No insolvency. It's basically just a sale of the football club and associated assets, just under distressed circumstances. Or at least, that's how it sounds.

I was waiting for the first "Nandos FFS" post! I agree though, it can't be premium nosh for athletes. Or can it? Chicken and carbs. Probably alright actually?

Dave Richards has come out of this looking like an utter ****-for-brains.

Wow. You're the man. May I blow you?

PPhhhrrrrrrruuuurrrrr.

Nutshell.

and they even saw fit to include the most predictable and witless headline imaginable.

No, I'm sick but not in Soton!

Our debt was to commercial lenders. We had no cashflow as we had breached our overdraft limit and the bank would not advance us anymore. This meant we were unable to trade solvently and we went into administration. This act would have also represented a default on the stadium loan. That is a completely different scenario from a few directors/shareholders offering to write off their debt in exchange for a transfer of assets into a new company owned by them. I'm not sure if that's what happened at Charlton but unless you know all the details then simply saying, "I fail to see the difference", does not qualify you to assume that there isn't one.

I can do some work from home if need be. I do feel like **** though and posting snippets of wisdom on here requires a fraction of the application and concentration that my job does!

Why? The British Legion are not a force for peace. They care for people who need help which, in itself, is a nice thing. The fact that those people are former soldiers doesn't make any difference - it is still a nice charitable thing and I wouldn't suggest they don't do good work. But, the displaying of a token is inherently jingoistic and has evident regimental connotations. There is no need for such ostentation and it does nothing to foster peace, which is surely the answer. Like it or not, parades, tokenism, totemism, ceremony are perpetuating acts and cannot be engaged in passively. That's not to say the Celtic fans were anything other than offensive and that their actions were "good" but the argument should not be brushed under the carpet just because it interferes with peoples' desires to show everyone how nice and charitable they are and be a part of something.

Indeed, but morally what's the difference? Using the information is a form of moral endorsement. By acting on that information you are clearly adducing the value judgment that torture, in that case, is better than no torture. Unless you would have preferred for no torture to have happened and the attack to have gone ahead, which is the consequence of your second statement.

I think you'll be safe in London, unless it chooses to drive along the M4.

It's inherently political. It is an act of meek surrender to the power-mongers who start these things in the first place.

On that simple logic then no doubt we will be invading China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran etc.... soon and you will support all those offensives?

If I get really bored I suppose it's an option. There's a Tesco Express next door but their fresh produce stock leaves a lot to be desired. Will probably just make-do with the typical internet trawl and pump.

I thought the first episode was self-indulgent and a wee bit smug but last night's was much better and had me laughing on several occasions. If those waiting staff at L'Enclume were all genuine then that makes it all the funnier.

While we're on the subject, I would smash Chloe O'Brien from 24 too.

She just said "anal". I've gone a bit firm.

No, no. This is all above board. Chanrai's previous connections with the Gaydamaks are just a coincidence.

Again? ****ing hell. I was worried that the first time had been what had led to her possibly being ruined. I still would though. She has the allure of a nubile teen, even if she is getting slack.

Racial? Really? There are probably quite a few people in England with similar feelings. The Iraq war is ****ing disgusting and the Afghan war is utterly futile. If you wear a red poppy then by implication you are supporting that whether you like it or not IMO. You can't just say "it's about the soldiers". That is facile and ignorant. Any ostentatious statement is political.

She has been a long-term favourite of mine. That French maid outfit on that Saturday morning show she used to be on always provided me with plenty of early-morning exercise ammunition. I am worried that she might be going downhill a bit although she is still a bit of a fox. Does anyone think Phil Schofield may have given her a ruining?