Verbal

In this case, not even close to being true. If you think sending tomahawks into the urban heartlands of a western democracy is going to help Britain gain influence and win a stand-off, you are so very wrong.

On certain issues, certainly Brazil would have more influence. To take VFTT's example of the Falklands Part Two, if Brazil were not to support any UK military action this tie around, it would make things especially difficult. On matters to do with the Americas, obviously Brazil has greater influence, despite the fact, for example, that the UK is a larger investor in the US than Brazil In any case, influence and power are rarely the same thing. Japan has FAR more economic power than Britain, but its influence is limited in many ways. To make any sense of this, you'd have to argue case by case. Often it comes down to a kind of moral influence, which goes up and down. Norway had greater influence at one point than Britain in the Middle East settlement attempts because it was seen as an 'honest broker'. Britain's influence in the middle east generally has waned as a result of Blair's adventure in Iraq. but Britain's influence in parts of West Africa is high, after Blair's very effective rescuing of Sierra Leone from murderous anarchy. So, at the risk of sounding all LibDem-y, it depends...

Yes, because what the world needs is for all phones to be a paler shade of puce.

This argument tends to descend into the 'how long is a piece of string' variety, because influence can be measured in so many different ways. Britain has influence that may have nothing to do with power (for example, its greater influence in some ex-colonial countries like Pakistan), and it can lack influence despite its relative power (on many European matters, as well as in China for example) As for Brazil, they are now one place behind us in virtually all economic rankings, and are set to overtake us, on conservative estimates, within the next five years.

And cheese-rolling apparently.

Exactly...and listening to dune.

The problem with English nationalism as it commonly exists in public debate is that is not English at all - but a cheap derivative of a corrupt, debased and essentially foreign ideology, namely Nazism and its variants in Europe and elsewhere. English nationalism is best expressed in a set of common ideals, including decency, fairness and tolerance - the kinds of ideals found in Tariq Jahan's wonderfully eloquent calls for calm after the murder of his son. Unwittingly, he was revealing his essential Englishness, while the EDL dumb f ucks in Eltham were espousing their essential foreignness.

Oh for heaven's sake (no pun intended) stop it. This is the measure of the level of 'reporting': Once past the heroism, this story begins to slice through the slimy underbelly of a vile, pathological beast that controls our lives, and gives us glimpses of the innards of this creature that grins gleefully at our gullibility and simple innocence while trampling on our most basic human rights.

He has to. Just before he left Crewe three years ago he was supposedly being scouted by Boro (then in the Prem) and Bolton. Time is marching on and he must be thinking things are starting to pass him by.

Has to better than what was on show yesterday at Loftus Road.

The 'natural instincts' of the Tory Party? What the hell are they? Are you saying that a culture of civil rights is absent the Tory mind? That's a pretty extraordinary claim to make. Anyway, history shows that Tories (and their supporters) are really liberals in need of a good f uck. (I give you Earl Gray, a dull, conformist Tory politician who became a Whig PM and saw through the Great Reform Act of 1832, but only after a chandelier-swinging affair with the seriously left-wing Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire).

Poll please mods.

There are seven levels. I see from my files that you are level one. It's a start.

There IS a carefully articulated argument to made about particular black youth subcultures and their popularity across ethnic lines, which leads to the kind of symptomatic text that Starkey read out from the athlete who was convicted of looting. And actually it's an argument taking place within black communities in the US. Starkey unfortunately was oafishly clumsy, mixing in references to the 'rivers of blood' with overly broad - and racist - equations of black=equals bad (even if you're white and white=good (even if you're black). I say 'unfortunately' - because his clumsiness has now closed off discussion of cultures in mainstream debate about the underlying causes (and there were many) of the riots and the looting (which in my view should be treated separately).

And your conclusions jumped.

Apart from a vague reference to 'disparity in wealth', why no mention of poverty, even as one among many variables?

The figures were 3% in the north, 7% in the Midlands and 18% in London, where there were many more arrests and cases heard obviously. The Mail in particular seems to be gleefully highlighting those middle class looters (models, athletes, organic chefs, etc). So not the majority, clearly. The clearest pattern to emerge from the statistics is the relative lack of patterns. They are by no means, as the other thread suggests 'all black', nor are they all unemployed or council tenants or children, etc. The only clear pattern is that all but a few were under 25.

You had to explain it, did you? Oh dear. Although it's not an autobiography - far from it - you couldn't get a more timely, or less put-downable book than Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower. The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is just a few weeks away, and this is still by far the best 'inside' account of how it all happened.

Who says this any more?

I think you'll find it's Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Nasar's book is is not an autobiography. HTH.

Dune: Prison Writings From My Mum's Back Bedroom Turkish: Avatar Or: The Autobiography of Malcolm X As Told to Alex Haley. (Seriously, this is a brilliant piece of writing)

Anecdotal evidence from the court cases so far suggests that the majority of those rioting were in work. What's happened over the last few days shouldn't be dumped on the unemployed generally.

As andy correctly points out, most of the 'years of liberal dogma' have been Tory years in the last three decades. This is just one of the Mail's gasket-blowing rants.

I bet he wobbles his head as he writes.

Who are these dogooders exactly? Aside, that is, from the straw men you like to throw up for the sake of a weak argument. And I'm not aware of any defence against a murder charge that goes along the lines of: yes I killed XX, but to sentence me for it would be against my human rights. One other tip, Viking. If you're thinking of becoming a lawyer and want to make pots of money, don't become a criminal lawyer.