Otta

Radio 4 right now, debate about bishops in the lords.

I'd imagine (hope) that Mick would take no pleasure from Ranger's problems. After all, what are Celtic without Rangers? What are Liverpool without Everton & Man U, what are Arsenal without Spurs, what are pompey without the saints? Teams need their big rivals, or what is the point? What was Eubank without Benn, what was Ali without Fraizer, what is English cricket without Australia????

Yep, very true.

So BR, how will you feel if Tevez comes back? Can an apology really be enough? Personally I wouldn't want him back, even though he is a great player, he has made it very clear the club doesn't mean anything to him, so f**k him. Players are often described as "mercenary", but in his case, I think it is a perfectly valid label.

What El Pibe said, x 100!!! I do have some symp[athy with Brown, I think he took A LOT of nasty shit from a lot of corners, some of which was just disgusting. And I think Blair played a blinder, getting out and leeting Brown take most of the blame for the mess that he'd been every bit as responsible for. I voted for Brown, I never voted for Blair. I'd be very interested to see where we'd be today had Cameron & Osborne been in charge for the noughties though! Of course, we'll never know, but I think we'd be in at least as bad a mess.

Can I just make t very clear that I totally agree with all of that. I just don't think a few prayers in meetings is really worth the effort of fighting over. Giving contraception to people in poor catholic countries, or stopping women from being stoned, or people having their hands cut off.. Well yeah, I'm all for fighting those battles.

McCarthy sacked. Thought we might be reading that this morning.

;-) xxx

Idiot.

I'm not defending him, I'm laughing at you, and you just don't get it. Okay, no more Suarez / Evra chat.

Maybe they would. The outcome would still be good, no one arguing. That is all I want. I guess all I'm really saying is that this just isn't that important either way. I'm talking about this specific topic, not religion in society as a whole by the way.

I said you'd have been Suarez's hero. You've clearly missed the point of what I said completely. No big surprise there.

Am I small minded now too? Not sure what the hell that would have to do with language anyway, but there you go. It's a shame for Suarez that you were not sitting on the investigation panel, as by your own logic, Evra's evidence would have had to have been thrown out, as he has lied in the past, so is clearly a compulsive liar. Suarez would have walked away, and you'd have been his hero.

"So what, you just can't be bothered to do anything about it?" I admit, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What exactly am I meant to do about it? I'm all for reforming the house of lords, and would vote accordingly, but other than that I think I'm q bit powerless. "Do you actually agree with this ruling but can't be arsed to care?" I don't feel particularly strongly either way. My point is that I don't see why a person would feel so strongly about this that they'd take it to court in the first place. "Well, more than it takes to post here at least? Gobsmacking." You're easily gobsmacked then.

?!?! Quantum Leap.

There are some pretty stupid journalists out there. Anyway, back to your "point". Do you seriously believe that if someone lies once, they are a compulsive liar?

If anyone else wrote that, I'd find it funny, as they'd probably be joking. In your case though, I suspect you really mean it. PS. It LEADS you to think.

Quids certainly never said that. He used the name Dawkins as a representation of UK atheists, which is fair enough, as he is a well known and vocal one. He just said he's bored of both sides. Sorry Quids if that is a misrepresentation, but that's how I read it. I agree there is a huge over reaction from SOME n the church, but I don't think you can accuse Quids of saying it was a Dawkins attack on the CofE. Personally I just can't see why this is particularly news worthy in the first place. So what if meetings include prayers, just ignore it, there are so many other things for people to worry about.

That's why I said it seems irrelevant these days. We are a multi cultural country now, and obviously we don't all parade to church on Sunday, like we would as a matter of course in the past. Politically though, it is a Christian country, in that the queen is head of the church, and bishops sit in the Lords. Not saying that is right, but I think Britain is still a "Christian country".

I doubt the whole CofE are up in arms. It's a retired old Archbishop talking to The Mail.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmmmm WTF? I'm really not getting how that has been misinterpreted. I was being silly yes, but bloody hell SJ, calm yourself.

Personally, I never knew prayers were held before meetings, I've certainly never come across it, and if I did, I'd find it all very strange, and wouldn't join in. What I find bizarre though is that someone was wound up enough by it, to bother going to court. I also find it weird that people actually spend their time in basically anti religion organisations. What exactly is the point? You're quite right SJ, that people could have a prayer before the meeting if they felt the need. Equally though, those who don't like it, could just ignore it. Finally, the UK is a Christian country. The monarchy, and indeed the church, may seem irrelevant these days, but at the end of the day, like it or not we still have a Queen who is boss, and head of the CofE. Our national anthem is GOD save the queen. I personally don't think religion should be anywhere near politics, but it is.

I was just taking the Mick out of BNG's post,.

Yeah Quids, you must not mention anyone not expressly mentioned in either a thread title, or the OP.

Liverpool / Suarez response / apology. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17004667 R_D, I believe that's known as the Vinny Jones school of handshakes.