Verbal

And for all the time you were composing this missive, one simple problem with it didn't occur to you? Dictators that overthrow democratic governments tend to be the MILITARY. For example: the Colonels in Greece, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile, a succession of animalistic generals in Argentina, Brazil, etc, etc. Greece is interesting for your supposed counter-example. King Constantin - a relative of the Queen - tried for weeks to intervene. In the end, he not only failed, but was forced by the Colonels into a humiliating accession to all their demands, and the constitutional guarantees of democratic and other rights were simply abolished, with the King signing all the necessary paperwork. So clearly, on your own assumption of the paramount need to protect the constitution and the rights therein, it's by far the best thing to do to boot out royalty and replace it with deeper democratic structures like a properly elected second chamber and an elected head of state. And what's the garbage about 'comrade? If anyone, I'm an admirer of that dangerous Trotskyist Tom Paine. Try telling an American constitutionalist that Paine was simply an evil revolutionary and he'll take you for a tiny bit of a twit.

Take a chill pill bro.

Do you really think, in the event of a British Hitler, that the existence of a ceremonial monarch will be some sort of constitutional safeguard? It's plainly self-contradictory: any dictator is going to set aside the constitution, written or unwritten. That is, there are, by definition, no constitutional safeguards against those who, in order to rise to and secure power, must subvert the constitution. In a more realistic context, the duality isn't allegiance and 'everyday' command. You overstate allegiance (it's ceremonial, and seriously trumped by political will) and understate political control by calling it 'everyday'. Blair wasn't making merely 'everyday' decisions about the conduct of the war in Iraq - he made the case for going to war and, in cabinet, decided to do it. There was the trip to Her Maj to inform her of this, but it was little more than protocol and of little but ceremonial value.

Over time it's what the music industry is built on.

Not really. It's pretty easy to name elected heads of state who've done FAR more in much less time - Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel come to mind. In any case Vicky was only half there - once Albert died she withdrew for decades from public life, pretty much until her death. And Liz 1 was by no means a ceremonial head of state now was she?! Liz II did well to keep the commonwealth - which is important for some, I suppose. The two 'less illustrious' (hilarious phrase, well done!) monarchs are about par for the course. How is this in your odd little mind 'bigoted'? actually, don't tell me: I am not curious as to the workings of the bizarre spectacles you appear to see the world through.

Back off topic, there's a dalek standing on the roof of my local petrol station. I have no idea why, but at least he's not from Norwich. And Re: Rhodes, yes, still can't see how Huddersfield would apart with him just yet.

No, he's not going to break his duck. He's wrong again. This is Pompey's last season.

Nick, you're like the canary in the coal mine. If you say they won't get away with it this time they are truly screwed.

Nasty in what way exactly? And why don't you actually engage with the argument rather type the hyperventilating piffle above? On a broader note, anyone but a pure dimwit would define Britain's 'greatness' by monarchy. How 'great' are we that we foisted on ourselves a King of such insanity as George III, or one so utterly dissolute that he and the monarchy were held in the deepest contempt by pretty much everyone as George IV, or such a pathetically weak, Nazi-loving character as Edward VIII? Britain's greatness, if defined by its people, is surely NEVER defined seriously by monarchs, but by great engineers (Brunel), artists (Turner), architects (Wren), writers (Dickens), poets (Shelley), historians (Gibbon), philosophers (Russell), medics (Harvey), etc, etc. These and THOUSANDS more are more significant and have contributed more to 'greatness' to this country than these freeloading, inbred nobodies. And that's not 'nasty' - just a simple, unarguable fact.

Well that's it then. Within weeks, Pompey will be the biggest club in British football history to simply disappear in a puff of debt-laden smoke. Staggering.

It's dead easy - one of the pleasures of going to and from Tokyo is how straightforward it is.

Tourists. The last refuge of those without an argument to stand on. Anyway, the good news is that Britannia's de-commissioning was a good kick up the royal caboose, because it broke a line of continuity going back to 1660. We just need to de-commission some castles and property, have Jug Ears 'ascend' (!), and the sham of a British royal family will be off to history's dustbin. As for those who say there is no appetite for republicanism, that's neither here nor there. The royal gravy train is not part of that argument, because as its defenders have so hopelessly pointed out, the royal family's great and lasting value to the country is to attract camera-waving tourists from the rest of he world (even though, of course, they never see them!). They have no political function - again, as their defenders have pointed out. So the argument isn't between republicans and royalists because royalists don't really exist in a meaningful sense of the term. The argument is between those who live in a Hobbesian fantasy world, where they imagine that anything different to the way it is now is unimaginable, and those who want to get this dead-wood logjam out of the way, so that wider constitutional reforms and modernisation can take place. For a start get royalty out of both Houses of Parliament - something that's been attempted for centuries and almost but not quite achieved. Then get to work on the hopelessly archaic House of Lords (It's to our national shame that such a chamber exists in this form). And the greatest ammunition to aim at the royals are the royals themselves. As soon as Jug Ears is in situ, I'll give 'royalty' 20 years, tops.

I understand the animosity towards Puncheon's comments and attitude, but if he's a malign influence I wonder about the logic of applying the usual punishment of packing him off to the reserves/under 18s. He's presumably in daily contact with the younger and more impressionable players.

Can mods please rename this thread 'How Long Does It Take A Man in Japan to Pack a Suitcase'?

Quite. It's also a lie because the £5 membership charge was much later than 2006.

Heaven forbid that I end up in Lord Duck's camp too often, but you really need to see his comments in terms of citizenship. You demean yourself, rather than him, by trying to take his comments about these kinds of equality (and, in the monarchy's case, inequality) as an argument that all people have equal health, wealth, etc. Western democracies are founded on the equality of rights (and concomitant responsibilities). The idea that it's fine that these rights - to freedom of speech, assembly, to voteand to be represented, etc - be distributed unequally would be bizarre. In these terms, clearly (!), the monarchy is a useless anachronism, and worse. And to argue, as you appear to do, that the usurping 'Windsors' are NOT at the pinnacle of a notoriously and archaically sclerotic class system that has stifled some of these rights (including freedom of speech) but also turned social mobility into a rarity rather than a characteristic, suggests to me that you're the one in need of a little help, although more in the form of basic history rather than psychiatry, I'm sure. The constitutional points made on here seem to have flown right over your head, so perhaps Lord D's attempt to enlighten you is a waste of time.

No, that's WRONG!! The fall of the Shah really has NOTHING to do with 'co-existence' problems. It was always a regional issue, and never impacted upon the West except in the limited ways already discussed. The 'Islamisation' of Pakistan, Afghanistan (both formerly heavily influenced, even dominated, by Sufism - a term which is going to send you into a tailspin, I'm sure) is down to Saudi influence that began with the rise to power of Zia in Pakistan and the war with the Soviets in Afghanistan. Before that, you need to understand the role of Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and especially Abdullah Azzam, to really appreciate where the 'war of civilizations' really comes from. By the way, if you think I gleaned all or any of this from Wikipedia, that's your prerogative. Speaking as someone who's travelled regularly to Pakistan since 1986, as well as to other parts of South Asia and the Middle East (especially Syria, including Homs and Deraa), I am usually encouraged to find that others have taken the trouble to learn about those places. Very occasionally, though, it's possible (only just) to encounter the kind of ignorance - yours - that leaves me dumbfounded.

That is, I'm afraid, completely wrong. The toppling of the Shah had NOTHING to do with al Qaeda, nor any terrorist outrage in the West since 1979 or 9/11. (You will no doubt interpret this, in your bone-headed way, as my 'support' for the Iranian clerics, which also couldn't be further from the truth. It is a horrific regime.) Given the chance, bin Laden would have happily had murdered every single Shia cleric in Iran. Iran's meddling extends essentially to southern Iraq and its financial support of Hezbollah. The problems to do with al Qaeda have everything to do with Saudi Arabia, and its export of its Wahhabi sectarian take on Sunni Islam to Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This is a huge subject, but one that deserves to be understood properly; your 'received wisdom' (!!) is no substitute. All I can suggest is that you either continue to wallow in your ignorant pit or you learn something about the history of modern Salafist Islam and its terrorist variants. BTW, I've given up trying to plumb the depths of your stupidity over the 'baby murdering' comment.

Don't you think it's tiny bit funny that you're repeating the same dumbass error you made much earlier in this thread? Iran is Shia. The fundamentalism of al Qaeda is Sunni. Both sides of the religion loathe each other. There is no 'domino'.

That is one of the weirdest things I've read in a while. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

And this applies to my remarks WHY?!!

By the same token, let's hope the Iranian opposition Green movement learns from the Syrian rebellion.

That's what happens with monarchies - a genuflecting,ever-so-'umble, appreciation for the small crumbs off the top table becomes a mindset so limiting that the highly qualified freedom of speech we have is gratefully accepted as evidence of something worth cherishing. It isn't, and they aren't.

You're being too generous in one sense. The idea that the royals have ANYTHING to do with freedom of speech is doubly wrong, and has no place in this argument. First, any reasonable understanding of British history will tell you that freedoms such as speech and assembly were wrestled from the monarchy in the teeth of bitter opposition. As to the extent of that freedom of speech, it's worth remembering that Britain's uniquely draconian (for a Western democracy) libel laws limit freedom of speech in a way that would completely unthinkable in, say, the United States. We have nothing to thank the Royals for. On the contrary, they should be ashamed of even being a silent party to the idiotic Gove's 'chief option' to shovel £60m more of our money to the spongers.

Happily, you're wrong in just about everything you've written. I know how dedicated, brown-nosing royalists revel in the fantasy that their pin-ups, Wills and Kate, will 'ascend' (!!) to the throne, instead of jug ears. But they won't. A simple understanding of the history of accession should tell you that. And why are republicans called 'chippy'? I don't get it. It's a weird and rather brainless attempt at a putdown, based on the assumption (which is probably too strong a word) that the royals represent some kind of natural order. There's also a good argument supporting the case that the royals have been at the pinnacle of a system which has contributed to the UK's economic decline and increasing redundancy on the international stage. Either way, though, I'm perfectly confident that jug ears is such a meddling imbecile that the monarchy will be falling about his oversized lobes long before your Mills-and-Boon fantasy couple get their mitts anywhere near the throne.