Wes Tender

Or is it the case that this martyr thing is really just propaganda to make everybody think that the imprisonment for an indefinite term is the greater punishment by denying them a supposed martyrdom? In reality they are probably thinking that they fooled the gullible liberal Westerners into letting them live and some opportunity will be created in the future whereby their fellow fanatics will create a hostage situation and try to bargain for their release. I'm all for giving them what they want. After all it's what I want too, so win/win.

Here's hoping. Shame we don't have the death penalty for cases like this. I can understand that it might not be imposed where there is reasonable doubt about whether the accused did it, but there was absolutely no doubt about these two at all. If one has a provable mental illlness, OK, but the other one is not deserving of one ounce of mercy.

:lol: There is so much unique content here, bringing such a varied perspective, that it couldn't possibly have been added to any of the other threads.

I'm old enough not only to have voted in that election, but to actually bother about campaigning on the doorstep for a Yes vote. Even then, I became a Euro-Sceptic a few years later when the Common Agricultural policy meant that subsidies paid to the farmers in France, Spain and Italy produced massive surpluses, the so-called wine lakes, butter mountains, etc, whilst simultaneously destroying our orchards and our fishing industry amongst others. You reckon that if we had a referendum now, the voters wouldn't respect the result? There was good reason to accept that the referendum of 1975 needed updating, as there was a complete sea-change that ensued via additional treaties and that was 39 years ago. If there was a vote currently to stay in, then it would have to be accepted until such times as there were significant changes to the situation such as other wide ranging treaties or significant further loss of sovereignty. It doesn't matter whether the turnout of voters is low, as the results still elect MEPs regardless. If the main parties cannot get out their vote, then they will be very much up against it, as UKIP will certainly have many voters determined to give the main parties a good kicking because of their anger at being denied a say in whether we went deeper into the EU via those Treaties subsequent to our joining and the broken promises on Europe of the last couple of General Elections. I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP ended up having the biggest British contingent of MEPs. As Saintandy admits, proportional representation in the European Elections is not likely to benefit the Lib-Dems. It is often trotted out as you have done, that it is better to align ourselves with others like Germany and Holland and bring presure for change from the inside. But when the EU is the size it is, it is also easy to be hopelessly outnumbered, banging your head against a brick wall and having had our veto removed on many issues. A resounding referendum vote in the UK might however put pressure on the electorates of countries like Germany, Holland, Denmark, to hold referenda too, with the longer term aim of forming a trading parnership of Northern European/Scandinavian countries.

I agree that the immigration issue has been the main factor that has benefited UKIP's rise to prominence as the main Euro-sceptic party. But there have been several other issues that have also helped their cause, such as the increasing cost of membership to the few nett contributors like us when the list of nett beneficiaries has increased substantially, that our laws are subservient to the European Court of Law, the levels of bureaucracy, the loss of sovereignty, worries about basket case economies like Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. It seems to me that there is a growing list that resonates with the electorate as being sufficent reasons to be unhappy with the EU and UKIP are making the right noises to attract this groundswell of dissenting voters. I'm not so sure that the protest vote will just dissipate with the return of improving economic conditions. UKIP is effectively a one policy party and only when the referendum on our membership has been held will the issue be resolved. If we vote to leave, there would be no further need for UKIP and their membership will gradually return to the other parties. If we vote to remain in, or to renegotiate the terms, UKIP would be still have some part to play for a while, but their prominence would diminish. The European Elections are just a short time away, far too soon for an improving economy to have any effect. Although there is some time before the General Election, the results of the European Election will almost certainly have already set in motion a chain of events that will be unstoppable in the ensuing year, regardless of the improving economy.

Of course it's all ifs and buts. Every potentially changing situation is. The situation over Europe is one that has been simmering under the surface for 30 years or more as I say, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Look at how long ago it was that the Referendum Party was formed by Sir James Goldsmith, 17 years. Goldsmith was wealthy enough if he wanted, to have held a Referendum at his own expense, but because he decided to go the way of forming his own Party in order to massage his ego, the poor results it achieved meant that the other party's could mutter vague platitudes and sweep the issue under the carpet. UKIP are a totally different proposition and as the mood of the electorate has become more antagonised by the way that the EU has developed without their consent, they are due to give the other parties a bloody nose. It is unclear whether the Conservatives will be the party to suffer the most. If they do fare the worst in the European Elections, they are in a position to do some horse trading tactically with UKIP, or to try and steal their thunder by being more bullish in their stance towards insisting on changes to the basis of our membership of the EU before the General Election. Personally I'm not overly concerned about how our trading position will be affected if we were to leave the EU. The market place has changed considerably since we first joined the Common Market and despite our membership of the European trading block, we do considerable trade with the rest of World, especially China, India and increasingly with other growing economies such as Brazil. And if our leaving meant that we placed more reliance on manufacturing a greater percentage of goods here, then that would be a big plus.

The absence of the apostrophe in "chicks" needs clarification of the seriousness of the offence. Are we talking a chick's tits, or two chicks' tits. The difference between the two possibilities would have serious repercussions on the sentencing, as it is the difference between a first offence and possible serial misbehaviour.

As I said, there will those who will insist that we can't belong to a club without following their rules and here you are, with your usual poor grammar. But it was quite OK for the Club to change the rules without the membership factions being allowed to ask their backers whether they wished those rules to be changed, wasn't it? The only way to bargain with the EU is from a position of strength that will come from a majority vote of our electorate to leave. The EU will then be faced with either losing one of their key members, or accepting that we can roll back the basis of our membership to solely a trading arrangement, not a political, financial or legal one. The time agenda will be dictated by events, commencing with the major parties' poor showing in the European Elections in May. That will concentrate their minds wonderfully for the General Election next year. In the event of a massive UKIP vote in the European Elections, there would be great pressure on the main parties to promise a referendum sooner rather than later to get the issue out of the way once and for all. Europe has been a festering sore for the past 30 years. How would we entice investors to a country outside its main market? Well, if Europe is their main market, they'll probably invest in Eastern Europe, where the unit labour costs are much lower. A bit like Ford, threatening to pull out of Britain if we left the EU, which we haven't yet, and then closing down their Southampton plant to move it to Turkey. External investment will come here because we offer subsidies to them, as we have in the past and they will expect that trade will still continue into Europe, in the same way that European manufacturers will still expect to continue to sell their products here. What exactly don't you understand about that?

Quite. It really does beggar belief that if we left the EU, the member states would suddenly cease buying our goods, but expect us to continue buying theirs. But all this talk about either leaving the EU or staying in is so very black and white. If continuing trade with Europe is such a good thing, presumably for both parties, then there should be the possibility of maintaining the trade, but dropping all of the other guff that has been landed on us subsequent to the Treaty of Rome by the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon. The best way to ensure a strong bargaining position towards that end? A strong majority for the Euro-sceptics in a Referendum. If the Government had any sense, they would have three options in the Referendum; Stay in, leave, stay in solely on a trade basis. Undoubtedly there will be those who say that the other member states will not allow us to be "part of the club" without following the membership rules. In that case, we should call their bluff and leave. In that event, it might ensue that other member states follow our example and form separate trade agreements with us as a separate grouping.

I think Pap has hit it about right with everything he has said. Parallels between Clegg's performance in the last General Election and how he might fare against Farage cannot realistically be drawn. In the General Election debate, it was a three way event and Clegg, not really expecting that the Lib Dems would be elected, was able to spout his Party's usual shallow platitudes, trying to be all things to all people, hoping to be seen as the viable alternative to the two main Parties. This will be a head to head debate primarily on a single issue, Clegg having to face a politician whose rise to prominence has been on the back of this single policy issue, which has given him a firm grasp of all of the arguments. Really, I can't see why Clegg has thrown down this challenge as it is likely to backfire badly on him and potentially could be the biggest misjudgement of his career. He is on a hiding to nothing following the Lib Dems stance on our EU membership, when the voters have swung towards the biggest Euro-scepticism since we joined. The voters are fed-up with the constant election promises that they will have an opportunity to vote on our continued membership of the EU and certainly they are completely cynical at Cameron's promise that if we elect the Conservatives they will guarantee a referendum in 2017. The referendum should have been held during this Parliament. Farage offers the electorate the opportunity during the European Parliamentary Elections to have their say on Europe and effectively the European Election itself will be seen as the referendum. I predict that not only will Clegg do his Party no good with this debate, but that UKIP will register massive gains in these elections. It will start a bandwagon rolling in the run up to the General Election that will have the other three Parties looking nervously over their shoulders. It wouldn't surprise me if the Lib Dems are overtaken as the third party. Personally, I believe that the majority of the electorate do not actually wish to leave the EU, but they would only be happy to remain in on the basis that it was solely a trading block and nothing else. This is what was originally agreed by the Treaty of Rome, that we became members of a Common Market. Despite the massive changes which have transformed the European organisation beyond recognition via several subsequent treaties, the British Electorate has never been afforded the right to vote on whether they were happy with them. The cowardly Westminster politicians thought that by achieving a majority in an election on a basket of diverse policies, that gave them a mandate to go with these sweeping European changes.

Green Shoots thread, posts 624 onwards. Saint Bletch's post followed immediately on from Misguided's. It prompted me to post the You Tube "I seem to be richer than yo" sketch and Saint Bletch to post the Doctor Evil 1 million sketch in response to your post. Maybe Saint Bletch and me both misunderstood, but the impression was given by his response to the highlighted bit by Bletch that he was talking about his earnings.

That's good of you to acknowledge that there were high emotions when that happened, Bearsy and many were guilty of knee-jerk reactions. But Misguided can go off the deep end when people just disagree with his opinion. You only have to look back on the Climate Change thread to see that he doesn't take kindly to other posters having the nerve to diasagree with all of his immense knowledge on everything and when they started running rings around his knowledge gained through his ability to cut and paste, he lost his rag royally. But whilst he's good at finding all these little nuggets in an effort to make him look good in his own mirror, I took his advice from an earlier occasion and resurfaced an absolute pearler from him in the past too. Quote Originally Posted by Misguided Missile Saint Bletch: Misguided Missile: So judging by his ego trip on his own life story thread, where he is irrestistible to any Yank secretary in a skirt, he lost several fortunes and is now reduced to being rich from earning only tens of thousands a year.

Quote Originally Posted by Dorkish Although I have him on ignore, if people will quote him, then I feel that I ought to correct the mistaken impression that he is giving other posters by remarks like this one. I didn't say that and I challenge him to find the post and put it up here. He won't be able to. I can't forget something that I never said, so that is typical of the wind-up merchant's MO too I might have posted that it was not impossible to get into the Champions League, because that is not something that can be ruled out willy-nilly, unlikely as it would seem, but that isn't the same as predicting that we will get there anytime soon.

Skate Chairman McInnes:- I'm obviously way out of touch on current education standards. Since when did 40% constitute a pass? Is this GCSEs, where you put your name in the top right hand corner and are awarded a pass, provided that you have spelled it correctly?

Who thought that? Name some names. There is a possibility of us gaining a higher league spot than them at some point in the future, as we have in the past, but of course that isn't the same thing.

As you say, the article is written by a deluded fantasist. Not only does he reckon that they are better financed than us, but he relies on rumour to suggest to him that not only is Pochettino not 100% keen on staying here, but also that Katharina wants to sell the club. Neither is substantiated by evidence. And then to cap it all, this Walter Mitty includes them amongst a small list of clubs capable of playing in the Champions League and that we conbsider every season that we avoid relegation as a Godsend. The idiot doesn't seem to have much knowledge of our financial position since the arrival of the Liebherrs, an over-inflated valuation of the Donkey Carroll combined with the opinion that he is a much better player than all the others in both teams! Market values ought to be an indicator and ignoring the lunacy of Liverpool paying £35 million for him, West Ham paid £15 million. Shaw will certainly go for much more than and there are reasonable expectations that others might too. I certainly wouldn't want the donkey playing for us. So all in all, one of the most misguided posts that I've ever seen about us from a rival fan. The Skates writing drivel like this is excusable, but West Ham are not some shining beacon as a club that is well managed, well financed and going places currently. I hardly think that the likes of Spurs and Everton are quaking in their boots at the prospect of West Ham usurping their place in the pecking order for a CL place.

Despite Turkish's whine about how the Red Top newspapers are disparaged by us for their embellishment of some little snippet of information, in order to turn it into an exclusive coup, this is exactly what they have done here. As has already been pointed out, there is no mention at all of Pochettino saying that he would jump at the chance. And you also have to love the implied inference that despite only having been here a year, Pochettino is already looking to move on to bigger and better things. Despite the heap of evidence that abounds in the newspapers of fabricated or embellished stories regarding our players, management and owners historically, it is quite endearing that anybody is prepared to be an apologist for them.

It's not easy signing players from a different country, is it? How's that Wolf's Winkie bloke doing at Norwich? Somebody said that we ought to be making signings like him. I watched him today and he didn't impress me much.

Of course, it isn't about the views that are expressed, it's about how they are expressed. Read the forum rules to clarify this in your mind.

There comes a point when arguing with idiots, that you just have to accept that there is really no point in furthering the discussion. I've reached that point with you. Go and celebrate; you've worn me down with your wind-uppery.

Do you think that if you say it often enough, people will start to believe it? Some of the hard of thinking brigade might, but the others will just think that it makes you look as if you have some sort of pathetic agenda.

I'd rather react to events that have happened when they happen, rather than indulging in idle speculation of what might happen, based on a poster with form of such idiot posts speculating on the basis of his perception of the manager's body language. If anybody else feels inclined to take that view too about such posts, then of course they are also entitled to do so, as several already have. If you wish to misinterpret any such posts as representing a cheerleaders' club, then go ahead.

Keep up, KP. Pastor is an expert at reading body language, which tells him that his heart isn't in it anymore, and anyway, others have posted opinions that Pochettino has lost interest too. It therefore must be true and anybody who doesn't agree with the OP is a cry baby.

I choose to target you, because you're the original poster of this tripe. Aren't you able to follow an argument through to a conclusion? If you are able to discern from Pochettino's body language that he has given up on us, then surely you must also be able to read whether other managers have also given up on their teams too. All you have to do, is use this expertise you have to provide a list of the names of suitable candidates to the club and leave the rest to them.

Ah! many people have clearly picked up on it, like Glasgow Saint and 110 persaint, so it therefore validates your assumption that it must be true. His body language? My word, your expertise in that field leaves me in awe of your abilities. Perhaps you can look at the body language of all the other managers and tell us who is ripe to head-hunt as his replacement.