Eames

Is this the same HH that was PMing me in January telling me he'd made the whole lot up and was in no way ITK in anyway shape or form?

If there is no line of Hare Krishna's to mow down I'm not buying it.... GOUUUUUURANGA

Hmmm, indeed. I do like the way the club is going, and fully appreciate what Lambert is doing, but this summer has seen us spend less than any of the promoted teams, or those who finished around us last year, with the exception of Newcastle. And beat Arsenal away first game of the season. Turn in two performances away at Chelsea and at home to Liverpool that on other days with better refereeing performances would have seen us unbeaten with 9pts from 9. It ain't what you spend its how you spend it.

Well this is awkward. It would appear that my hypocrisy-o-meter has just exploded. I'd better try and fix it so you will excuse me for not bothering to respond to the rest of your rose tinted nonsense.

Yes, I agree. I just think it had become politically impossible for him to push on without parliament, because of the weakness of his position among his own MPs. He did the right thing, but for reasons which inspire no great respect or admiration. But we've ended up with a reasonable outcome for the moment. The bigger point is that this makes it a little harder for subsequent PMs to go to war without parliamentary approval. Again a good thing, and again I doubt that was any part of his thinking. Whether or not it is harder to go to war without parliaments approval in future will surely depend on the circumstance. In the unlikely even that the UK is invaded/nuked I don't want for the PM of the time to wait for Parliament to be recalled, and then achieve the tacit agreement of whichever 600 or so donkeys happen to be in the Chamber at the time. I want him to strap on a pair and either defend the nation or nuke the **** back. I think it will make it harder for foreign intervention without Parliaments approval.

So he is then blaming something he was very instrumental with, along with most of the current Gvmt. In other words, he cannot exactly moan about something he was very much part of I think saying he was “very instrumental” is perhaps overstating something. You could say Tony Blair or Alastair Campbell was “very instrumental” and that he like many others voted to go along with it, but he was not as far as I recall the driving force. In his leisure like many he has changed his views, of which we are all allowed with the wonder that is hindsight. The logic would also be that as many voted for Labour and therefore Blair, they are also “Very Instrumental” in the war? Paul, I appreciate your voting preference and understand why you would not want to put any Iraq "blame" on the Tory party. But the facts don't lie and they are there despite you not wanting to accept them that Hammond, Cameron, Gideon, May etc were all very much instrumental in allowing that vote to get through parliament when without the then Tory opposition support it would have been defeated as there had been so many Labour (Gvmt) MP's votig against it. Your arguments are actually self defeating in that you are now saying that they have had a change of mind so it does not count. If that is the case then how can Hammond etc and any other of teh Tory party that were massively in favour of Iraq war, now use it as some sort of excuse for not allowing another war to happen with Syria? You and other Tory supporters devolving any sort of responsibility for Iraq war from those who voted for it is pretty much a bury your head in the sand attitude, IMO, especially when the same people then use Iraq as some sort of excuse http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Philip_Hammond&mpc=Runnymede_and_Weybridge&house=commons&dmp=963&display=motions To an extent, Iraq was a very different beast to Syria. There was a sense of unfinished business.... had the Americans' not bottled it in 94 Iraq would have been dealt with long ago. The second incursion was the son finishing daddy's business, WMD was an excuse. The support given by the Tories could and no-one here is in a position to know could have been a determination to a) finish the job but a misguided support based on dodgy evidence complied by Campbell, Bliar, Straw et al. The opposition has no role in intelligence gathering, more detailed information than that set before Parliament may have been shared with Dave and the Lib Dem leader at the time on a Privy Council basis but this certainly would not have been at the same level offered to Tony and his cronies. To argue that the Tories are as culpable as the Labour government because the voted in support of intervention is incredibly disingenuous on your part and represents nothing more than the "Ah but...." arguements you seem so keen to highlight in the responses of others.

They won't sanction UN intervention in Syria's internal affairs, if that seems intended to remove Assad. I don't think it would be impossible to get them to support a position that chemical weapons should not be used, not least because Assad is winning the war in any event. The real problem is that what the US wants is to remove Assad, not prevent the use of CWs. They have no problem with the use of chemical weapons, and in fact are directly responsible for most usage of these weapons in the last few score years. If there were a position put forward which tries to stop both sides in Syria using CWs, without changing the balance of forces, then it is the US that would be more likely to fail to support it, as it would do nothing to achieve what they actually want, which is regime change. No agreed.... the US are quite happy to use CWs are we are for that matter.... white phosphorous/depleted uranium and all.

Russia and China will never act against an ally repressing a terrorist element at home - that would maybe give too much encouragement to their own dissenters. As far as I am concerned this is a matter for the UN and the Arab League to sort out. Military action here is in no way in Britain's national interest and as unsavoury as Assad's behaviour is the Middle East is far more secure with him in power than without. UN sanctions are the way to bring him into line - not cruise missiles and F16s.

A **** ton of cash. "Cheap" seats are c.£900 IIRC.

He is exactly what they need. Someone to get stuck in in the middle of the field.

I don't know F*£%ing GOALKEEPER TALK?! http://www.goalkeepertalk.com/index.php?/user/4065-garethrdr/

Here and Here

Perhaps the BBC should ask him to do his own sketch for the news.

I know it ripped off the odd riff from elsewhere, T-Rex / Cigarettes and Alcohol for example, but the music was pretty revolutionary at the time. They took their inspiration from the Beetles, Stone Roses and other bands, but rarely sounded like any of them. I wholeheartedly disagree with this, if one album did change the musical landscape in the last 20 years, then it's this. No it really wasn't and it isn't the odd riff either. I was there in the early days working for SJM and there was nothing revolutionary about Oasis in the slightest, just a band that scallies could relate to because they'd heard most of the riffs before but didn't realise it. Whether you think it should or shouldn't have been revolutionary, it undoubtedly was. Definitely Maybe was the album that brought Brit Pop to the masses. There may have been other groups doing similar things at the time, but none of them changed the musical landscape in the same way. Most people would struggle to name a more influential album from that time. It may not be to everyone's taste, but you can't deny that this album was the one that kick started the whole 90's era of indie music. Well you can, but most people would disagree with you. WRT Artcic Monkeys - you may well be right, but I sincerely hope you're not. You're now arguing about something different. An album that increases the overall popularity of a genre or artist doesn't necessarily make it "great" I always found Oasis to be incredibly predictable and formulaic. Guitar pop by numbers - the have released good songs and were incredibly popular but they haven't as far as I'm concerned Definitely Maybe is not one of the greatest debut albums.

Simple rule change required. The expectation is that each team bowls 15 overs and hour. (90 in a "normal" day) If this is not achieved the batting side is awarded an additional run per ball not bowled. So an over rate of 12 an hour all day (72 overs) would lead to an additional 108 runs added to the total. Umpires would retain the discretion to waive this addition if circumstances prevent teams reaching that target. eg. injury, batsmen fiddling with sight-screens, Trotts constant **** scratching etc. A 10% tolerance would also be allowed before penalty runs were added.

Debut albums are funny beasts.....most of the artists I like made pretty average first albums its only after a few that they really hit their stride and started pushing out their best work.

Top Post Blandy.

Van Halen - Van Halen - re-defined the guitar

Nowt to do with TB control either. Simply the Tories keeping their core supporters happy. Nothing more nothing less. Just a shame thousands of badgers have to die to secure the rural vote.

Presumably this was the view from the optical sight before the wasted the little ****.

Why? It ain't about how much you spend its about what you spend it on.

**** sake....now the thread has been over run by Movies based on TV series. I demand a new thread where I can avoid this drivel.

As I said yesterday - what exactly has this got to do with the UK? Where the **** are the Arab League and what are they doing about it?

I could be wrong squire, but didn't you argue against PR, and quite specifically argued strongly in favour of FPTP, on the thread discussing such matters, around the time of the referendum on this subject? I didn't argue against PR (I did against AV but more on the basis that it was a crap compromise so in that context yes I was advocating FPTP.

I can't see any UK government getting support or a mandate for this. We have had forces tied to Afghan and Iraq for a decade now with seemingly little or no benefit to the national interest. This is a Middle East problem that the Middle East should resolve itself. Where are the Omani's, Qataris, Saudis? and what are they doing about this shit?