Verbal

They appreciate in value when you trade them in. Excellent choice.

It's really not.

But for a club in Southampton's position, that would be weird.

Not a bad impression to give.

How does Mao fit into your collection of royal mugs?

I don't suppose there's anything in your vast collection on King Constantine?

Yep, we pay the jackass £400,000 ON TOP of his overblown salary as a reward for presiding over a share price dive of 40%, firing 3,500 staff (at a cost of god knows what in terms of lost tax revenue but certainly a LOT higher than 400k) - all because 'that's how it's done' among British bankers.

Well, only one of those options is really an option - and even that's debatable. Wealthy lunatics have either been wiped out by the credit crunch or have battened down the hatches for years to come. Cala only seems to fit, at most, one part of the above phrase, and it evidently isn't 'wealthy'. So toast it is. Probably by April at the latest.

This from what counts as an ITK in Portsmouth (I've corrected the English): We are still one of the top 20 clubs in England. Our potential is massive. Do Rochdale, Hereford and Darlington, to mention a few, get our crowds? Some of it is right anyway...

Well Hester certainly isn't. He's a public sector worker who's singularly failed to deliver. Share price down 40% in a year, 3,500 staff laid off, etc, etc. He's cost the taxpayer billions and has been awarded another million presumably just to rub it in that no matter how useless he is, bankers ALWAYS get their loot, come rain or shine, and especially when someone else is left holding the tab. Interesting comparison with Cortese: both have five-year plans. Cortese is clearly on target; Hester isn't even close, and maybe never will be. So it's weird that you defend the failing public sector worker and denounce the successful private sector operator.

Cala clearly doesn't think the same as you. Passing the FAPPT is harder, he says, than getting into MI5. Good grief. Makes you wonder what we DON'T know.

And too dim to take the test? Never mind.

36%. 'For you, Europe is an ode to joy but not necessarily with a happy ending.'

That's a stylistic choice more than anything. However, the absence of a question mark is unforgivable.

Ignorance is not a defence, and therefore probably not brilliant mitigation either.

If it made you chuckle it has no place in the Lounge.

Constantine, Constantine, Constantine! Yours ever, Dim Sum Il

Ahem, Constantine, comrade, Constantine! Never mind; you clearly can't face it. And so sorry that US intelligence, based on official German reports, and the FBI are not credible sources for you - or perhaps the elephant armour is obscuring your vision. Let's agree on this. Return the Duchys to common ownshership, chuck out the present lot - you're surely not so childish as to argue for the divine principles of accession are you...or to argue that they're anything but a useless breed? And let's have a version of the bicycle monarchy in Holland. Give them the average income of a British worker, an expenses allowance - and be done with that. We could also include some compulsory donor insemination to ensure a modicum of intelligence. There. A plan.

One other thing, Sergei, if it makes you feel better: I probably wouldn't so be opposed to the monarchy if it didn't consist of a cretinous, inbred clan from Saxony who couldn't keep their thieving hands off public and common land, and who then try to lord it over us with all the faux pomp and circumstance of a Colonel Blimp. If 'our' royals were more on the model of those in Scandinavia and Holland, fine. Still, as I say, as soon as QE2 is gone, and the mother-fixators have lost their object of blind adoration, the useless remnants of the monarchy will be swept away, as they almost were during the equally ludicrous George IV. Can't say fairer than that. Agree?

No, I didn't see it, but thanks for the tip Sergei! Did they include the infamous cable from the German ambassador in Lisbon, who, in July 1940, which read: “The Duke believes with certainty that continued heavy bombing would make England ready for peace.” Nice of the Queen's uncle to recommend the bombing of 'his' own people, don't you think? No wonder he was banished from public view by the British Foreign Office.

Thanks for this, comrade. I can't help noticing that the gaps between your replies are getting ever longer as you furiously try to google some sort acceptable, common-sense veneer on your quite funny argument. I notice you STILL avoid my King Constantine point. I wonder why? I'm sure it's nothing to do with the fact that it makes your proposition that monarchy is a bulwark against tyranny ludicrous. And aside from the fact that pap has already rather elegantly expressed the absurdity of that particular brainwave of yours with his elephant armour analogy, you should consider this. Let's assume Edward hadn't fallen for Wallis Simpson, and had remained on the throne in the lead-up to and during the Second World War. What a spectacle it would have been to have had a Nazi-saluting, Adolf-admiring King on the throne at a time when the very independence and freedoms of the country were at stake. Re: your suggestion that I am trying to argue that monarchy TODAY is a source of tyranny - don't be so silly! Read what I actually said and take those Alpine purple rage spectacles off. These were the words I used: You, on the other hand, decide to strain credulity by claiming that the monarchy is some sort of last bastion against tyranny, when the role of monarchies historically is to be the source of tyranny! As for the fossilised relic of an institution that it is now, of course it can't be that. And as for Hitler's dealings with Edward, are US naval intelligence reports good enough for you? They recount the details, lifted from a confidential report produced at a conference senior German officials in 1941. This states: When he [Edward] was in Germany he had contact with Hitler and he is the only person with whom Hitler would confer in any negotiations of peace or armistice when it becomes necessary. "Hitler well knows that Edward at present cannot work in a matter that would appear to be against his country, and he does not urge it. But when the proper moment arrives he will be the only person capable of directing the destiny of England." Fraternal greetings from the Socialist Republic of Fulham

I wouldn't mind too much if we were in a recession of 7% growth. Why am I not surprised that a banking sector worker doesn't grasp the definition of recession?

Why? Is he mooning?

Only if it sails too close to Italian obstacles.

Exactly! So India has to somehow scrape by with a growth rate of 7% this year, China 8%, 'Developing' Asia 7.3% Russia 3.3%, Mexico 3.5%, Sub-Saharan Africa (!) 5.5%, etc, etc. Are you REALLY trying to suggest that they are all - and many others besides - part of a 'global' recession?