Verbal

For a sponsor looking for exposure, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Whoever made that decision is now probably over-burdened with bubbly, given that you can find a shot of their logo in most newspapers and online sites most days of the week. If I were Jobsite, I'd want the agony to continue as long and as publicly as possible.

You do realise that when PFC goes pop - as it will - a new club will rise from the primordial slime quite quickly. And the same blue few will be baying for blood. I'd have thought you'd have gone for C 'out of existence'. I only mention it because I'm a bit uncomfortable to discover I voted the same way.

Serkis's imitation of Dury isn't bad - although Dury had a sweeter, more poetic voice than the rasp we often get in the movie. The film's a touch pedestrian, although quite enjoyable here and there. As someone who sees the A1 sign for 'Hatfield and the North' too often these days, it brought back some distant happy memories.

Are you St Will?

They've already been destroyed by their succession of appalling owners whom the Premier League has signally failed to disqualify or control in any way. There is no way out for the club now, so the poll is irrelevant really, but I wouldn't want them to cease to exist.

There's much more yet to come out on this. PFC is seemingly owned by a Saudi and chaired by an Emirati, yet powerful positions in the club are occupied by Israelis, including Grant and that convicted fraudster overseeing their finances. In Middle Eastern business, Israelis and wealthy Arab nations have all kinds of contacts and dealings. But they are NEVER made public. In Saudi Arabia in particular, 'unacceptable' doesn't even begin to describe it. My own guess is that Gaydamak knows perfectly well who the beneficial owner is. And it isn't Faraj. More likely - and it IS just a guess - the people in charge of the club are fronting for Gaydamak or his fugitive father. I'm sure there are other possible explanations, but the Israeli/Arab happy families game going on at the club just don't make any kind of sense otherwise. At least that's consistent with what's happening: good, old-fashioned, cloak-and-dagger asset stripping, being conducted by a family enterprise with whom criminal law and the recession has caught up.

31 Jan (as I've said ad nauseum - I'm right though) EDIT: Okay, that's a Sunday. How about 1 Feb.

Don't know. Give it a go.

"To date the new owner has injected a total of £9.7m of new funds to HMRC - £5.7m paid and security to the value of £4M." Who writes this stuff? It's as though they're making out that PFC is investing in HMRC! And what on earth does 'security' mean? My understanding is that HMRC isn't in the habit of accepting bogus business opportunities in lieu of a big fat cheque.

The movie's pretty good. Not a great deal happens, but the evocation of a desperate, post-apocalyptic world is stunningly well done. Viggo Mortensen is terrific, as is the boy who plays his son.

That's the spirit.

How odd he couldn't find you. Wouldn't you stick out like the proverbial sore thumb?

I think my prediction was correct, your Saintliness. As will be my prediction that the club will be in admin by 31 Jan. One is as certain as the other.

...and on to page 100...

I'd rather they had lifelongskate as chairman with tommac as his troubleshooter.

The reason Pompey may well pay their players and staff today is that the club has been given a special dispensation to receive transfer funds early. I suppose they're just waiting nd hoping that flogging off all they can raises enough short term cash.

My brother was on Conqueror, just before the Falklands. Missed out on a small piece of fame.

I think I'd take bank robbers over iveadinnerjacket any day.

Ah, the wisdom of a Daily Mail hack - and I'm sure you're right that Saintsweb has wound the jackass up to such idiotic invective (?!) If you want a truly sensational Daily Mail story about a hanging that wasn't, watch this - an incident in Iran today, when a public hanging was disrupted by protesters who cut the sentenced men down from the gallows. Of course, being Iran - so like China in its crude, boot-stamping-on-your-face viciousness - it didn't end well. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1239251/The-moment-Iranian-protesters-cut-prisoners-gallows.html

IQ isn't related to mental illness necessarily. The best example of the opposite is John Nash, the brilliant mathematician whose story was told in A Beautiful Mind. (Actually, come to think of it, Nash's story is a very useful illustration for those who have difficulty in imagining the effects of mental illness) Low IQ is however strongly correlated with poverty. Even conservative American thinkers like Charles Murray (co-author of The Bell curve) would accept that.

The quoting system seems to have gone a bit funny - the first of your quotes was from ESB, not me (just to be clear). In any case, yes, you're right - just imagine the death toll without that ruling. Following that Surpreme Court judgement, at least one state have given up on the death penalty altogether - New Mexico (incidentally, about the poorest state in the Union).

In no fair legal system that I know of would legal judgements - especially those with such finality - EVER be taken without professional psychological reports, where there was even a hint of mental illness. In the US, for example, as a result of a supreme Court ruling in 2002, you're not allowed to execute ANYONE with an IQ below 70.

No what? You don't understand the distinction between psychological and physical impairment?

That's why judgements about the state of someone's mind are made by professional psychologists and not posters on a football fans' message board.

How on earth is that an answer to my question? But since you ask, I would say there is clearly, in any rational jurisdiction, a 'reasonable doubt' about the state of Shaikh's mind. And if you bother to read the article that BTF linked to, you'll see why. Now try answering my question.