Verbal

Where's your 'don't blame the messenger'?

But the idea of freedom of speech, as expressed by John Stuart Mill, who essentially formulated it for the modern world, is in no way 'complete' or absolute. He argues that our right to do as we want should be free from the interference of others, so long as what we want does no harm to others. He qualifies this by saying that 'harm to others' cannot mean simply something we find repugnant. You could quite easily argue that preventing a march in Wootton Bassett is the right thing to do, because there is the clear implication that the 'protest' goes beyond moral repugnance, and is really a symbolic attempt to dance on the graves of dead soldiers. With this definition of freedom of speech, the idiotic al Mahajiroun can make their protest elsewhere without complaint...if they genuinely believe they have a point to make. So while your second paragraph is right, in my opinion it really isn't 'compromising' freedom of speech at all.

It's no coincidence. There is a battle for the 'soul' of the religion going on, and the victims are predominantly Muslims. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other salafists virulently hate Muslims who do not agree with them, and have a very detailed theological argument worked out that justifies killing other Muslims. Because of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., we tend too easily to believe that these lunatics are trying to provoke some kind of 'war of civilizations' between east and west. They are not. as cynical as it may sound, the attacks in the west are nothing more than fund-raising and recruit-raising exercises. The real battle is for Mecca and Medina, not London or Washington.

That's actually worse than name calling. Threatening violence on here fits into a democratic response how exactly? It's also precisely how they WANT you to react. You've just been successfully manipulated by them.

It very much IS the point, sadly. You don't blow up spectators at a volleyball in the Pakistan Tribal Areas expecting to hit anyone other than other muslims. And that was the entire motive behind that and almost all the other attacks listed in that link. What had happened prior to that explosion was the the local people had expelled Taliban thugs - something that takes a great deal of courage to do. The Taliban retaliated in the way they always do - by dynamiting all Muslims who get in their way. It is no coincidence that by far - by MILES - the greatest number of victims of Taliban and al Qaeda violence is other muslims.

A little information that may be of assistance to you. At the time of the London march, the British Cabinet was split down the middle about our impending involvement in the war, the Lib Dems were solidly against, as were a number of Conservatives. There were substantial claims at the time that the pretext for going to war was false - namely, that Saddam was about to fire WMDs and that these could hit the southern UK within 45 minutes. And of course, as it turned out, we were lied to by Blair, et al, who has since admitted he knew it wasn't true. But aside from all that, peaceful protest is part of the essence of a democratic society. And the 2003 protest about war was, above all, 'democratic', in the sense that there was no popular pressure to wage war against Saddam - Quite the contrary. but even if the war protest was carried out in the teeth of a public opinion that supported the war, there was and always will be a right to protest. In short, to claim that to protest about an impending war was 'against Britain', is full-on absurd. The difference between the 2003 protest and the al Mahajiroun 'protest' is that the former actually WAS a protest against the war, while the latter is simply a provocation aimed mostly, as I've said, at encouraging a reaction and embarrassing moderate Muslims.

Moron? Why the name calling?

Did you happen to notice who the victims were?

What?!

All true enough, but there's more to it than that, and I hope the police ban it - but only on the day. Al Mahajiroun are looking to provoke a violent reaction, so that they can cast themselves as martyrs to the tyrannical crusader cops (!) and appeal to a few more of the feeble-minded. They are also desperate to embarrass moderate Muslims, and to silence them. Al Mahajiroun are cartoon characters whose modus operandum is to think of the most provocative thing to do - then threaten to do it. I doubt these cartoon characters would even turn up - but if they did, just turn them around on the day. At least let the inconvenience fall on them.

Agreed. Shallow depth of field works beautifully in conventional films, but in 3D, it can make foreground characters look like 2D cut-outs and background characters unnaturally muzzy. If 3D is going to stay around this time, directors and cinematographers will have to adapt by dropping some of the oldest cinematic conventions. Conversely, infinite depth of field really doesn't work if overused in 2D. Try watching Speed Racer for more than ten minutes - it's really unpleasant.

How much beer did you have in that teacup?

I'll forgive Fulham, who have one of the most charming grounds in the Prem - not something you could remotely say about you know who.

If you end it in the river, it could be the exit for away fans.

I'm going to pretend that this post does not exist.

Agreed. I lived in Norwich for a few years, and never understood how such a small city managed to produce that many fans. The stadium is nothing much, and the football is usually so-so at best - yet they have a better attendance this season than seven premiership clubs.

I think you will find that this place is called The Lounge for a reason.

Secret - but I see most films before release. The movie to watch out for is Invictus, though, and Morgan Freeman will compete for the lead actor Oscar with Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, in which he is simply brilliant. You heard it here first!

It strongly underlines the sense that the PL is hoping that Pompey muddle through to inevitable relegation, when it ceases to be their problem. Hopefully, Lens and the Inland Revenue will help bring things to a head before then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article6972692.ece This bit's good: The club are attempting to refinance, but Dr John Beech, of Coventry University, a football finance expert and Portsmouth fan, expressed his doubts yesterday. “It all seems to depend on ‘the new investors’, but if I was a multimillionaire, I wouldn’t invest in them,” he said. “I would want to keep being a multimillionaire.

Osama bin Laden would be a good choice - although he is (was) an Arsenal fan apparently.

I think the notable point in that Guardian article is in this quote from PFC: The club has been assured of receipt of funds by Tuesday and the owner and Board have been working hard on resolving the short term delay. So the club is completely dependent on some unnamed third party to provide the funds necessary to pay the players (which gives the lie, incidentally, to the claim that they weren't paid because of a problem loading a file at the bank) Is this money coming from a transfer, for which the club have had permission to take early receipt? And if so, was the 'late' payment the result of last-minute haggling by another club aware that Pompey's position was hopeless? The only other alternative is that the club has found other short-term 'investment' to tide them over - but I find that so unlikely given that at this stage it would be like throwing large bundles of £10 notes into a pit.

You, little dish-fitter. You bring us ... Pets Do the Funniest Things. In HD!

I wasn't being entirely serious. Thought that was obvious. Oh well.

The A stands for Amateur. So obviously it'll be necessary - although I suppose they could add that now, since everyone there is working for free.