Verbal

What?

I've read this statement of your several times, and it makes less sense with every reading. I can only assume you don't understand the difference between psychological and physical impairment - or have somehow drifted through life without ever encountering the reality of psychological illness in others.

This 'not knowing right from wrong' nonsense is an idiotic American import. It's a phrase trotted out in courts whenever psychiatric evaluation is involved, and it forces psychiatrists and psychologists to talk about the huge complexities of psychological dysfunction in ways that make no scientific sense. I know of people who are acutely moral and impeccably 'correct' in their conduct with others, and yet suffer from conditions like paranoid schizophrenia or manic depression, or have varying forms of brain damage. It seems from reports about events leading up to his arrest that he was conned into thinking he was going to be made into a pop star by a dealer who saw an opportunity. From that, it's unlikely Shaikh thought he was doing anything wrong. Deluded, yes - but then that's hardly surprising. Acting immorally? Well, the Chinese didn't even bother to ask.

As they did at the last Olympics. Remember the torch fiasco?

The only short-term solution for Pompey, as far as I can see, is for them to go public about the truth about Gaydamak - that it's Gaydamak senior who was always the real controlling power at the club. Since he is a fugitive from justice, and his assets are frozen, it's the only way the club can avoid a disastrous repayment due shortly. Of course, it's far from their only debt due for imminent repayment - but it might help. In any case, it's extremely unlikely to happen, because the Gaydamaks may not own the club, but seem to retain their placemen within the boardroom.

That is truly damning, BTF. The trail of mental disintegration clearly extends back many years, and was well known to the authorities. The scandal, though, is that the Chinese broke their own laws in refusing to accept evidence of his mental state. It's clear that he was executed, in the end, to save face - just as Liu Xiaobo (an American citizen who relocated back to China) had to be sentenced to 11 years' hard labour to save face in response to US protests at his arrest for writing a pamphlet calling for greater individual freedoms. Chinese governments have a history of barbarism. Evidently, it is not about to change.

China is pleased to announce that it pumped several bullets into the body of a mentally ill man at 2.30am GMT. after a judicial hearing held under the same rules that last week convicted Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo to eleven years of hard labour for daring to write a manifesto demanding greater freedom of speech. Truly a sick government.

31 Jan, at the latest.

Exactly.

Found any of those 'loads of books' yet?

So name one of the 'loads of books' you've read on this.

Is it his name that gave you the clue he must be lying?

And your expertise is based on what exactly?

+1.

Gretna. A Scottish Prem club relegated all the way down the Scottish divisions, in administration, and now don't exist.

In that case, I'll buy you a season ticket.

So the Echo was probably right then.

Either way, it depends on whether you want to listen to the science or not. The overwhelming - although not total - number of scientists who are climate chemists, physicists and biologists think the evidence is conclusive as to the general pattern. The overwhelming number of sceptics either aren't scientists or are not specialists in climatology. Or, as the Express proves, they are simply incapable of holding an intelligent argument. Given the stakes, which would you choose?

Quite frankly, few if any of us on here is qualified to judge the rights and wrongs of the climate change debate. It is essentially a technical debate conducted most properly by atmospheric chemists and the like. But in any case, the argument about whether climate change is real or imagined is way too narrow. The atmospheric consequences of CO2 emissions aren’t the only issue here. Carbon-based energy is a finite resource. Coal, oil and gas are all running out, and by some reports faster than we are allowed to believe. Therefore the economies that are the least dependent on non-renewable energy sources will have a huge international advantage. It makes sense on economic grounds alone to invest heavily in renewable energy, so that when the supply crunch comes, the lights will still be on. But it’s not just about economics either. Countries that are independent of suppliers of carbon energy are also independent of pressure from those suppliers. So when Russia, for example, threatens the whole of Europe by cutting off gas supplies, we should take this seriously enough to remove Russia from the equation altogether. Or when Saudi Arabia, or some other part of OPEC, decides to exercise its muscle against the West, we can tell them to get lost. Independence from these energy monsters gives us a huge geo-political advantage. Or to put it more starkly, by reducing our dependence on Saudi oil, we are also reducing our indirect funding of terrorism – because there is no doubt that oil revenues in Saudi have driven a huge export of Wahhabi extremism, which in turn led directly to Al Qaeda. But there’s a third reason we should push for renewables and the reduction of our addiction to carbon: it drives technological innovation. One of the small pleasures of watching posters like St George pose on here as defenders of the land of the free is that he represents a point of view – quite strong in the US – that will enfeeble the US to Europe’s advantage. There’s a precedent for this. After the shock of the oil crisis of the early 1970s, when Saudi and OPEC ‘punished’ the West for its support of Israel of the war in 1973, the US and Europe resolved to massively reduce its dependence on oil imported from Arab countries. One of the most effective ways of doing this was to force the car industry to produce smaller cars with more efficient, less petrol thirsty engines. In Europe and Japan, mpg rates improved substantially, as car makers found ever more ingenious ways to squeeze more energy out of smaller, more economical, yet more powerful engines. In the US, by contrast, the hugely powerful carmakers went into lobbying overdrive to prevent this. The result? President Carter’s regulations designed to compete with the Europeans for efficiency savings were torn up by the incoming President Reagan. Reagan also, incidentally had solar panels at the White House torn off the roof, and he cut the Federal renewable energy budget by a staggering 85%. One of the more striking consequences of this vandalism is that American carmakers became the dinosaurs of the world automotive industry. Whereas the Japanese and the Europeans would meet efficiency standards and produce innovative cars that would erode American markets, the US carmakers continued with the hopelessly complacent attitude that they could carry on as before. Result? Crap American car sales dwindled in the US against foreign competition – and regulation elsewhere meant that American cars were generally just too rubbish to export elsewhere. Efficiency targets and independence form carbon are great engines of innovation. If America wants to walk away from that, then fine! Although of course there are plenty of entrepreneurs in the US who see the writing on the wall, let’s just hope that the innovation Neanderthals, so ineptly represented by St George and his mini-me, win the day. All the more for us. And we, unlike these Neanderthals, won’t be inadvertently perpetuating the revenue stream for Al Qeada.

You can't name him. You've just breached his human rights. I'm shocked.

Probably both.

I wonder if Cortese would necessarily want to turn away a potentially valuable revenue stream - assuming the shiny new version of Pompey is one that pays its bills. But - no. In any case, the police would never allow it.

You forgot the 'X'. OPEN AGAIN.

Where have you been? That which we cannot say has been talked to death on here (or nearby).

I thought about that last bit for a minute and then realised you're right.