A.J.Rimmer

I've not read this thread and have no idea if a Keane appointment would be welcomed. Speaking for myself, I would welcome anything that might shake the current system up. That said, why would Roy Keane wish to associate himself with such a doomed outfit as AVFC? Sorry, I just don't see it.

Please, do tell us... what are these "complex" and "deep seated issues"... ... and did you also agree with Blair when he said he would bring democracy to Iraq? One last thing... 'simple' is what nature's great truths have usually turned out to be. EDIT: I forgot, can you name a single militant atheist? I believe 'militant' is usually related to the use of force. However the list of militant morons who believe in god is positively endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless etc...

I'm delighted to see someone call Blair a zealot. I've just been watching 'The Big Question' about our toleration of intolerance... what a bunch of morons. The problem with all these discussons, particularly when discussing the middle east, is the elephant in the room, which noone dare mention... RELIGION. As an atheist, it will come as no surprise that I blame the above problems on the ALL people who believe in this stone age crap. This is not one of those endlessly repetitive religious threads we've seen from time to time... but when applied to the modern, and much smaller, world we now inhabit, these beliefs can clearly be seen for the dangerous rubbish they truly are. The difference between me and most of my fellow secularists, is that I have now taken to immediately insulting religious belief, and its adherents, the moment I encounter either. This is not because I am a naturally ill mannered fellow, but because I feel it incumbent upon me to espouse the rational point of view on every occasion. After all, there is 'Rational' and there is 'Religion'... and the two are totally incompatible. In short, insulting these uneducated morons at every opportunity, should be a secular duty. For this reason, I will doubtless not last long on this site.

I too am on record as saying we would never bring democracy to such places. I did business with these people for 25 years and trust me, they are not like us. I differ however, in my belief that we should have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq as they had a history of attacking our friends and allies. Our mistake was to stay there. We should have left them to sort out their mess by themselves, and warned them that if we ever needed to come back, they would all be off to see Allah. Personally, I'm delighted they are all too busy right now to bother with killing us... though that will change with time!

Quite right... I'll bet those corrupt bloody Israelis planned all this with Mrs Thatcher

You are quite wrong... the linesman is dominating.

Back in 2006 there was a topic called 'Trial by TV?' I can't now remember if I started it or not, but I was virtually the only supporter of the idea, and for a while thereafter I was known as such. Not for the first time in my life, public opinion eventually followed me, especially in 2010 after the Lampard 'goal'; though it should be said that in 2006 we were more concerned with offsides and penalties than goal line technology. This game has become a total farce... Mexico should be leading 2-0.

Fair enough, but penalty areas these days are full of players virtually throttling each other at set pieces. Ref's have either gotta clamp down on it both ways or not give anything at all and let them get on with it. It's turning into rugby where there's that much going on in a ruck that you wonder how on earth the ref can decide which offence to give. That decision last night was ropey to say the least. A guy the size of Fred shouldn't be throwing himself about like a spoiled girl just because another player puts his hand on his shoulder. Cheating get I have some sympathy with this view point... the decision would, more often than not, have gone the other way. However, shirt tugging is most definitely a foul and last night the real cheat got caught.

Last night's penalty may have been soft, which I take to mean as being brought about by a minor and unnecessary foul. However, my understanding of the rules is that one should neither hold on to a player from behind, nor pull his shirt... to do so is clearly a foul... and to do so in the penalty area is clearly a penalty. The Croatians shoud direct their anger at their No 6... not the referee.

I stand corrected... I should have said convicted.

The problem is that they never repeat what exactly it was that got the fellow convicted, so how can we ever know what we're not supposed to say? Causing offence is an important part of getting people to think... personally I think we should all be much more offensive to our religious bretheren... but does this mean I'm in danger of going to prison? A muslim man was recently jailed for saying something along the lines of 'all British soldiers should die and burn in hell'. What is the matter with that? I'm as British as anyone, but if that is what he thinks so be it... all well and good. The correct response is to inform him that his prophet Mohamed was a stinking peadophile and may he rot in pig shit. BOF : Edited

Poor little thing... just doesn't bear thinking about.

Still no excuse. excuse? WTF are you talking about? The Savile thing is about the victims, about covers ups and corruption. It's about serial law breaking, and abetting. It's about justice. Just because you don't care for that, as the Moon Man points out, doesn't mean the rest of us don't, or that this shouldn't be pursued, and/or have taxpayer money spent on it. "Justice".... What Justice? The guy's dead... and we've already got Scotland Yard working on the case. Next it will be Jack the Ripper. I'd rather they spent their time, and my money, helping old people across the road.

Still no excuse.

Point taken... but I still would not be happy to find we spent millions of pounds on the post mortem.

On Radio 4 this morning some guy said the surest way to ensure an investigation into anything at the BBC, would be for some senior figure to try to surpress it. John Humphries immediately agreed. I just don't buy that.

I hear what you're saying... but with so many victims, it seems extraordinary they could not put a case together when he was still alive; and whilst recognising how difficult it is to empathise with the victims of such crimes, I still don't entirely understand why they couldn't speak out earlier. Incidentally, I used to see him once a year at the Dunhill cigar tasting in Jermyn Street, and though never swapping more than a few words with him, he always struck me as rather creepy.... then again, I feel like that about most notherners.

I have neither seen the programme nor read this thread, so of course I'm going to be in a minority again... I don't wish to be insensitive, or perhaps I'm just stupid or missing something obvious... but I just don't get the point of going into all this after the fellow is dead. After all it's not as if it happened recently and there was no time to charge him... this was already ancient history when he died. What will really piss me off, is if we start spending money on another bloody inquiry. Am I the only one who feels like this?

I think a far more credible explanation is offered here. good find good read ...the focus on American symbols – embassies, American ‎schools – even KFC – suggests the roots of popular anger is not hurt religious pride. These ‎symbols of America were not the unwitting target of frustration over a film – rather the film has ‎provided an unwitting focal point for massive and widespread anger at US foreign policy in the ‎region. I've taken the trouble to read every word of this article... and it is absolute rubbish. I will tell you why: It contains not one single word of introspection, self analysis, or self criticism. It may be moderately worded, but it is nothing more than the standard tirade against the west in general and the United States in particular.... small wonder it won the approbation of our resident anti Americans. There was not even a passing reference to the global problems created by Islam, and certainly no suggestion as to how we should have responded to 9/11. Until these morons get their head out of the arse of their pig fecking Prophet Mohamed, they will be permanently closed to reason and there will never be any basis for discussion. I wish to be quite unequivocal about this. I have not seen the famous film; it may not be very good, but I heartily approve of it; just as I approved of Life of Brian. What I do not approve of, are muslim attempts to restrict my freedom to say anything, read anything, write anything or watch anything I may wish... this marks the end of freedom and the start of tyranny. Others may choose to appease their oppressors, but not I. In the modern age, our little planet cannot afford such forms of mass hysteria fuelled by the crass ignorance known as Islam.

I'm sorry to dip my little fly into your ointment, but was it not Mrs Thatcher who put that all right for us... and for those who have forgotten, she did win 3 elections, pretty easily as it happens.

If the pair of you showed any joint endeavour which lead to the killing, directly or indirectly, then you would, of course, be to some degree culpable... Yes.

The truth is finally out: How did I guess? All that pushing and shoving... it was all the fault of Mrs Thatcher. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19584313

Most important part of your post. Amen. (Woops, sorry.) I'm not so sure I agree with that: Does it mean we can criticise paedophelia, but we must be nice to paedophiles? Voting National Socialist in 1933, did not make one guilty of committing the Holocaust... but it does give you a share of the responsibility for what happened. Likewise with our religious bretheren... none of them should be without some share of the guilt.

Also very well put, Mr Mooney, yet the problem remains that, as 500 years ago, indeed until Darwin and beyond, some one had to face these Christian monsters down... and the same applies today with the disgusting rubbish called Islam.

Is that really the reason? China is also more powerful and not muslim but the arab world doesn't have anything against China. Furthermore, The US government is hated by a lot of western non muslim people as well so I think you might have missed the mark there. I agree entirely with Awol, indeed the moment I read that, I thought 'How beautifully put'. The reason the muslims have nothing against China is that the Chinese are the new kids on the block and Islam has been too busy hating us to have moved so quickly onto anyone else... there is also the small matter of Israel to consider. The people here who don't like the US are generally failed lefties who have envied the wealth and power of the Americans for decades. Personally, I love the Yanks, despite not eating McDonalds, drinking CocaCola or watching their god awful Hollywood films... though I do like the sound of the current piss taker.