David

just out of curiosity are you a bnp voter harry?

In all honesty, no.

I think the majority of political parties in the UK are a fucking joke.

I do find the current BNP situation interesting though, especially the reaction that their members and supporters get throughout the country, so i'd class myself more as an interested observer.

I've said it a million times, but the only way to defeat twats like Nick Griffin is to engage them in serious debate in the most public forum possible and show them up for the useless, ignorant cunts that they are.

I think one of the good things to come out of the BNP getting some airtime is the idea that perhaps the so-called legitimate politicians will be forced to answer some of the questions on immigration, Europe and human rights as well.

We all know that the BNP are never going to be major players when it comes to UK politics, but we can at least hope that their involvement will ensure that some real questions get put to these fools we have in charge at present.

In other news, Gordon Brown keeps making the headlines;

Gordon Brown declined to put formal pressure on Libya to get compensation for IRA victims, No 10 has confirmed.

 

The victims say Libya should pay compensation because it supplied the IRA with explosives used in atrocities.

 

Mr Brown told a victims' lawyer it was not "appropriate" to discuss the claims, but aides have denied he was trying to protect oil deals with Libya.

 

Democratic Unionist MP Jeffrey Donaldson said the PM had done far less for victims than US leaders had.

 

Mr Brown's office released a letter written by the prime minister to IRA victims' lawyer Jason McCue last October in which Mr Brown wrote that the government did not "consider it appropriate to enter into a bilateral discussion with Libya on this matter".

 

He added that Libya would be "strongly opposed to reopening the issue."

 

In an earlier letter dating from last September, the prime minister told Mr McCue that Libya was now an "essential partner" in the fight against terrorism and it was in the UK's interests for that co-operation to continue.

 

Mr McCue has been lobbying the government to raise the matter of compensation at the highest levels of the Libyan government.

 

His campaign follows out-of-court deals agreed by Libya with three American victims of IRA atrocities.

 

More than 100 UK IRA victims, who had been pursuing similar claims through the American courts, had been excluded from those deals.

 

Mr Donaldson told the BBC that the US government had "held the Libyans' feet to the fire" in order to win a multi-million pound settlement for its nationals.

 

"I want to know - and the victims are entitled to know - why Gordon Brown does not have the same desire to stand up for the victims of IRA terrorism as George Bush showed standing up for American victims," he said.

 

"He got a multi-million dollar deal in terms of compensation from the Libyans."

 

Mr Donaldson is part of a cross-party group of MPs preparing to travel to Tripoli for talks about compensation.

 

The victims' campaign has been boosted by the Scottish government's decision to free Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

 

The victims argue Libya should show similar compassion regarding their demands.

 

Colin Parry's 13-year-old son Tim was killed in Warrington in 1993 by an IRA bomb thought to be made from Libyan Semtex.

 

"It does make Britain look very, very weak and insignificant if, for reasons of worrying about oil deals or other economic considerations, this government of ours is prepared to disregard all the pain of the thousands of victims of IRA terrorist campaigns," he said.

 

"It isn't about the money. It's about Libya saying, 'We now want to be a normal state.'

 

"If that's the case then they've got to address the sins they committed in the past. The only way they can do that... is financially - to compensate those people their actions hurt so badly."

 

A Downing Street spokesman said the government had raised the issue of compensation with Libya informally but it was felt that formal negotiations stood little chance of success.

 

The Conservatives said the public needed to know "on what basis" the government had reached its decision not to press for compensation.

 

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague told Sky News: "These latest revelations are part of an ever-expanding farce, with more revelations really every day about how the government have conducted themselves.

 

"These latest revelations greatly strengthen the case we have made for an independent inquiry."

Source: BBC.com

I see that the BBC have decided to rethink the coverage that they are giving the BNP after their election success.

It seems that the Labour party will now have to share a platform with BNP representatives, which should be good for a laugh as well;

Labour has been forced to drop its policy of not sharing a platform with the BNP after the BBC confirmed that it is to invite Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time.

 

The party

Bullshit non story considering Roach trains Khan and Pacquiaio. More importantly, Clinton Woods retired today.

Despite there being a fucking quote from the promoter saying that the fight was offered?

I did like the humour though in talking about non stories then posting some news about Clinton Woods.

Good arrows there lad.

It seems that Amir Khan was offered a fight against Pacquiao.

In a conversation with Bob Arum, as we discussed the visit of Muhammad Ali last week to the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the head of Top Rank revealed that Amir Khan was offered the challenge of fighting the world

David Cameron has accepted a challenge to take part in a live television debate with Gordon Brown in the build up to the General Election.

 

Mr Cameron accepted after Sky News launched a national campaign inviting the Conservative leader, the Prime Minister and Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats to take part.

 

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, let slip in July that Mr Brown was planning to use his keynote conference speech in September to discuss the idea of live television debates taking place between the party leaders during next year's campaign. If they take place it would be the first time in British political history.

 

Lord Mandelson, effectively Mr Brown's deputy, claimed previously that the prime minister would come off best in a debate with Mr Cameron.

 

"I don't think Gordon would have a problem with that. While Cameron is good with words, he doesn't have the ideas or policies to back them. I think people would see through the smile," he said.

 

"The more the public sees of them, the more they'd realise that Gordon is the man with the substance."

 

At that point Mr Cameron made it known he would take part in the debate, writing to Mr Brown saying it "would help to energise our democratic process, engage the electorate and restore trust in politics.

 

"Your previous objection was that a televised debate was unnecessary as the issues were aired each week in parliament. But Prime Minister's Questions simply cannot compete with the accessibility of a prime time studio debate.

 

"I want the chance to set out the choice at the next election to many more people than those who watch on a Wednesday lunchtime."

 

John Ryley, the head of Sky News, said: "There is a chance here, not just to do something that has never been done, but to energise an electorate, to reconnect with the millions of people who have been alienated by politics and the way it is so often covered, to achieve something that is truly democratic."

 

At the last election, BBC Question Time staged a show in which each of the three main party leaders took part and answered questions from the audience, but they appeared one after another rather than on the stage together.

Source: The Telegraph

It'll be interesting to see if the other parties are willing to become involved in this.

It certainly couldn't do any harm.

By all means, I think that we need strong free speech legislation in this country and that people should be able to hold and express any views that they like. If the practice of those beliefs is to the harm or disadvantage of anyone else, that is grounds for regulation. So specifically, the BNP as a registered political party is not allowed to restrict membership on the grounds of race, just as an employer isn't allowed to racially discriminate in hiring practices.

Try telling that to our equality minister;

The Equality Minister defended plans to encourage firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

 

The new Equalities Bill is also expected to force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to make the pay gap between men and women more transparent.

 

Responding to criticism that the plans could discriminate against white men, Ms Harman said "you don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward".

Source: Independent.co.uk

they shouldn't be given a platform to preach their policies of hate and division.

Of course they should.

No one has to listen mind you, but they have as much right to a platform as any other political party in the country.

I'm off to the Notting Hill Carnival on Sunday for a great time mixing with people of different colours and creeds, there is a whole world of different people out there to meet and make you a richer person for meeting them.

Have fun.

You may want to be careful though. Some of the people you'll come across at the festival are intent on making you poorer, not richer.

The chairman of the MET had this to say on the radio a few years back;

In my experience, the level of reported crime is far below that which really happens, and the whole process is down-played for political reasons.]

 

Police are actively discouraged from making arrests by senior officers for fear of sparking a riot situation, and I have seen serious criminal offences taking place while we are powerless to act... There is a significant criminal minority who exploit it in the full knowledge that the police will tread extremely lightly... The record of the Carnival is pretty appalling.'

Whilst the London Evening standard also said;

Organisers of the Notting Hill Carnival have finally agreed to an earlier starting time to avoid a repeat of last year's rioting.

 

Police and councils had threatened to refuse permission for the festival on 30 and 31 August unless strict new measures were introduced to reduce noise and violence.

 

They have insisted that the carnival begins at 9am and the last float is judged at 6.30pm so that the parade will have left the road by nightfall. Last year 50 police were injured in violence, with mobs throwing bricks and bottles while following a late-running float.

 

Organisers will also be forced to turn down the music after noise levels breached 140 decibels last year.

So keep an eyeball on your wallet chief

I thought this would be a good idea for those politically themed topics that didn't quite make the cut for their own thread.

The UK's equalities watchdog has begun legal action against the British National Party over concerns about ethnic restrictions on its membership.

 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said limiting membership to those of an "ethnic origin" described as "indigenous Caucasian" was illegal.

 

It has issued proceedings against BNP leader Nick Griffin and two officials.

 

The party called this a "pathetic attempt" by the commission to divert attention from its own problems.

 

But equality minister Harriet Harman said: "No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain. I welcome the action."

 

The commission has issued county court proceedings against the BNP after voicing concerns in June.

 

The UK's equalities watchdog has begun legal action against the British National Party over concerns about ethnic restrictions on its membership.

 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said limiting membership to those of an "ethnic origin" described as "indigenous Caucasian" was illegal.

 

It has issued proceedings against BNP leader Nick Griffin and two officials.

 

The party called this a "pathetic attempt" by the commission to divert attention from its own problems.

 

But equality minister Harriet Harman said: "No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st Century Britain. I welcome the action."

 

The commission has issued county court proceedings against the BNP after voicing concerns in June.

 

"The commission has a statutory duty to use our regulatory powers to enforce compliance with the law, so we have today issued county court proceedings against the BNP.

 

"However, the party still has an opportunity to resolve this quickly by giving the undertaking on its membership criteria that the commission requires."

 

The BNP's constitution - last framed in September 2008 - does not explicitly mention the word "white" when talking about restrictions on membership.

 

The term is only used in the section on the party's political objectives: "It is... committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white make-up of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."

 

The BNP's constitution limits membership to a group it describes in this way: "The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of 'Indigenous Caucasian' consists of members of: i) the Anglo-Saxon folk community; ii) the Celtic Scottish folk community; iii) the Scots-Northern Irish folk community; iv) the Celtic Welsh folk community; v) the Celtic Irish folk community; vi) the Celtic Cornish folk community; vii) the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic folk community; viii) the Celtic-Norse folk community; ix) the Anglo-Saxon-Norse folk community; x) the Anglo-Saxon Indigenous European folk community; xi) members of these ethnic groups which reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them."

 

Lee Barnes, legal officer for the BNP, told the BBC: "We think that the commission has brought this action at the behest of the Labour Party.

 

"It is also a galvanising thing to focus the commission's attention away from its own problems and internal issues."

 

Six commissioners have have left the EHCR in recent months and there have been criticisms of the leadership of chairman Trevor Phillips.

 

The communities and local government committee is set to investigate how the watchdog is run later this year and may ask Mr Phillips to give evidence.

 

Mr Barnes said: "It has nothing to do with discrimination; it's all to do with internal politicking."

Source: BBC.com

I'm guessing that there will be a deluge of non-whites racing to join the BNP if this legal action comes into play.

Another time and resource wasting exercise it would seem.

The latest book to sit proudly upon my British made coffee table is "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West" by Christopher Caldwell.

A rather splendid read, which, even though I am but a quarter of the way through, will surely rank as one of my favourites.

Below is a review from the Guardian;

Mass immigration into Europe in the past 50 years has profoundly changed the continent and is likely to change it even more over the next half century. Yet it is a subject so immersed in fear and wishful thinking that it often seems we still don't have a proper language in which to discuss it.

 

It is partly for this reason that Christopher Caldwell's new book, with the melodramatic title Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, will seem rather shocking to some readers of this newspaper. For he asks some unusually direct questions: can you have the same Europe with different people? Why did mass immigration happen when so few people actually wanted it? Immigrants want a better life but how many of them want a European life? Why is minority ethnic pride a virtue and European nationalism a sickness? Is political correctness just fear masquerading as tolerance?

 

As you can tell from those questions, the book is a sustained attack on the well-meaning liberalism that is still the dominant note in official immigration debates. Yet although Caldwell, a conservative American, believes that European immigration has not been a success, at least for the host societies, he is not anti-immigrant and says that he is a great supporter of the American melting pot. The book, or most of it, is written with the bemused but decent "native" European in mind.

 

Even if you disagree with his premises, Caldwell is worth persevering with because he is a bracing, clear-eyed analyst of European pieties. And that is partly because, as an American, he knows that mass immigration is not only compatible with a strong, confident, patriotic society, but may even require it. He can see Europe from the outside and has a genuinely pan-European view of the immigration issue, something rarely encountered in domestic commentary.

 

Caldwell cuts to shreds the conventional wisdom of the "immigrationist" ideology - the view that mass immigration is inevitable and in any case a necessary injection of youth into our ageing continent. He shows, contrary to the immigrationists, that the flows of recent decades are unprecedented. He also demolishes the economic and welfare- state arguments for mass immigration and points out that in most countries there was no desperate need for extra workers in the 1950s - in Britain's case, Ireland still provided a reserve army of labour. One of the most startling figures in the book is that the number of foreign residents in Germany rose from 3 million to 7.5 million between 1971 and 2000 but the number of employed foreigners stayed the same at 2 million.

 

Caldwell is at his best describing the confused cultural and intellectual condition of much of Europe at the time the first waves of immigrants were arriving. It was hard, he points out, to follow Europe's rules and embrace its values when Europeans themselves were rewriting those rules and reassessing those values. After the brutal experiences of the first part of the 20th century - two world wars, the Holocaust and de-colonisation - European elites had embraced a liberal universalism that declared the moral equality of all people and implicitly questioned the legitimacy of most racial and gender hierarchies.Liberal universalism could, in theory, have been compatible with confident nation states and national identities, but in practice it seldom was. The idea of national traditions and solidarities came to be scorned by liberals in many European countries.

 

Caldwell reverses the conventional argument, which says that if immigration has been a relative failure it is because the host society has been too hostile and unaccommodating. On the contrary, he argues, it is because most of the host societies were too weak and insecure to make newcomers an offer that was sufficiently confident to secure their loyalty and integration. Most European countries, constrained by liberal universalism and the immigrationism ideology, were simply too laissez-faire towards migrants. For the first time in modern history, European societies were set up to allow a big group of citizens to lead their lives as if in a foreign culture.

 

Caldwell somewhat overstates the case - surely the failures of European immigration can be attributed to both the hostility of the masses and the insecurity of the elites. But then he is not seeking to be balanced and reasonable. This is a declamatory, polemical work and no more so than in its treatment of Islam. In fact, the book is really two essays - one an insightful probing of Europe's confusion about postwar immigration; the other a rather cartoonish polemic about the potential Islamic takeover of Europe.

 

There obviously have been, and are, particular problems associated with the arrival into an increasingly secular and liberal Europe of large numbers of Muslims with a strong, often illiberal religious world-view. But Caldwell here abandons his clear-eyed reporting in favour of recycling a mild version of the neoconservative "Eurabia" thesis, which sees a decadent, irreligious Europe overrun by militant Islam.

 

He provocatively points out that there were fewer Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 than there are Islamists in today's Europe. He also invites us to imagine that at the height of the cold war, Europe had received a mass inflow of immigrants from communist countries who were ambivalent about which side they supported. Again, it is fine to square up to the issue of Muslim commitment to national citizenship (one-third of British Muslims say they place their commitment to fellow Muslims before Britain) but to equate the war on terror with the cold war is outlandish.

 

In other areas, too, Caldwell has a tendency to heckle from the sidelines, rather than grapple with dilemmas. Yes, Europe did overestimate the need for migrants and underestimated the cultural and religious upheaval they would bring, especially those from outside Europe. But does Caldwell want to reverse the postwar liberal universalism and its associated playing down of national identity, which was partly inspired by the US itself? How do we in today's Europe nurture a sense of national belonging - and a sense of a collective "we" strong enough to sustain generous welfare states - that is compatible not only with mass immigration but also with the postmodern individualism that has been an even more striking feature of recent decades? Liberal nationalisms should not be built against the feelings of the majority, as elite-driven multiculturalism sometimes seems to be, but that in itself does not get us very far.

 

Moreover, Caldwell is far too sanguine about the US experience with race and immigration and does not seem aware that the idea of the "melting pot" has been under sustained attack in the US for decades. He is also too pessimistic about the UK and ignores, for example, the great success of Indians and Africans in climbing the professional ladder. And he is too ready to take official Jewish accounts of the return of anti-semitism at face value.

 

And yet, compared with most literature on migration, so often dull and clich

No its not that at all if you watch it, its just on about how wrestling influences society from an unbias point of view

Well, i've yet to see the full documentary, but it certainly seems to be portraying wrestling, and WWE in particular in a bad light.

Showing clips out of context and the like, portraying men "forcing themselves" on women etc.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ikDXcfzA848

 

great little 5 minute documentary about the WWE

It doesn't look that great to be honest. Just some more blame being laid at the door of wrestling for America's shitty social problems.

So D-Lo is going to ROH, might be due to there relationship with NOAH. Good or bad?

Brown was always a decent enough wrestler, which he showed during his time in Japan, so he would be a good addition to the ROH roster, even if it is just for a few shows or whatever.

Apparently it is now back on, sort of, with Arum flying to see Pacquiao this morning - well that's what Radio 5 were reporting.

I certainly hope so.

My info is up to date as of Buncy's boxing hour on Setanta last night. That was the last time I heard any updates about it.

EDIT: Apparently, it's 100% on now.

link to article.

Anyone watching the Margarito/Mosley fight this weekend?

Bart Barry of CBS sportsline wrote an interesting column on the fight, and Mosleys chances of winning;

So much of prizefighting is about will: If you let your opponent do things his way in the ring -- no matter who he is -- you're going to lose. Making opponents do what they don't want to do, making them hate the experience of boxing you, is about the only way to become and remain a world champion.

 

Over the years we've learned it's very difficult to stop Shane Mosley from doing things his way in the ring. In July we learned it's nearly impossible to stop Antonio Margarito.

 

That means we're in for a treat. Saturday at Staples Center in downtown Los Angles, Margarito and Mosley will swap blows and willful impositions for Margarito's WBA welterweight title. Better still, the fight -- one that would have landed on pay-per-view in 2008 -- will be featured on HBO's first Championship Boxing program of 2009.

 

This will be an honest fight between two veteran punchers devoid of gimmickry. Both are set in their ways. Both have enjoyed great success with their ways. Neither expects anything he hasn't seen before. Both train like the next opponent will be the best opponent. Then both get in the ring and fight like the opponent was overestimated in training camp.

 

This will inevitably be HBO's second major broadcasting success of 2009 -- in large part because it will be HBO's second welterweight clash of 2009. The welterweight division is where it's at as the year begins.

 

Last Saturday night HBO began its Boxing After Dark season with a fantastic match between Andre Berto and Luis Collazo for Berto's WBC welterweight title. Berto won a unanimous decision because Collazo gave middle rounds away for no discernible reason. Maybe the veteran got fatigued. Maybe he was surprised how easily he bent Berto to his will early. Hard to say.

 

Collazo lost a regrettable decision to Ricky Hatton in 2006 and made a regrettable showing against Mosley one year later. This time, though, the regrets are all Collazo's. He had Berto confused and discouraged. He had Berto doing things he didn't want to do. Then Collazo gave it away, dropping his hands, dropping his activity and letting Berto decisively win the second half of the fight.

 

But mark this: Collazo was a lot more evenly matched with Berto than he was with Mosley two years ago.

 

That's another way of writing that, regardless of how many times he defends his WBC belt, Berto remains a contender in our sport's toughest division; you don't enter the welterweight championship argument until you've beaten either Margarito or Paul Williams. That's something Floyd Mayweather should keep in mind once fortune (or a lack thereof) brings him out of retirement.

 

Entering that argument at the age of 37 is what Shane Mosley hopes to do this weekend. No mean feat, that. It's hard to see a way Mosley can beat Margarito. Which is why we should ponder it. After all, it was hard to see a way Bernard Hopkins could beat Kelly Pavlik in 2008. That same year, it was also hard to see a way two of the world's largest banks would ask the U.S. government to nationalize them.

 

Over and again, friends, our collective certainty about everything was the great casualty of last year.

 

Those who expect Mosley to win, a small number that is different from those who give Mosley a fighting chance, believe his hand speed is still greater than Margarito's. They also believe Mosley's foot speed is greater. They may even believe Mosley hits harder. Heck, maybe they believe Mosley takes a better punch.

 

Trouble is, none of those traits seems to matter against Margarito. Cotto had most of them. Lotta good it did him.

 

Well here's a contrarian view of things. To beat Margarito, Mosley must go chest-to-chest. And mean it. He mustn't try to avoid Margarito -- after all, that just encourages the Mexican champion.

 

Mosley cannot flick his metronomic jab to set up his overhand right. Why not? A flicking jab by Mosley makes his left shoulder a target for Margarito's right cross. And Margarito's right cross is exactly that: A way to get his weight cross his body to his left foot. Along the way, Margarito shuts his opponent's lead shoulder. Then he fires off his left foot, putting his whole life behind a left uppercut that is gloriously oblivious of defensive consequence.

 

Pepper him with right crosses, Shane. Eschew the timing jab and leap in with right-hand leads. Leap all the way in. Get on Margarito's chest. Nobody's fought him there since Paul Williams. He doesn't seem to like it much. Stay inside his long arms. Keep throwing right hands -- make him taste leather every time he turns to cock his prized uppercut. It might make him uncomfortable.

 

Of course, it might also make him mad. That's one reason it might not work. See, Margarito's not going to get frustrated and switch to southpaw, drop his hands and try to steal a round with defense, or go into the Philly shell and pot-shot Mosley with right uppercuts.

 

Margarito's going to start with Plan A: pressure and left uppercuts. The best Mosley can hope to do is frustrate him into Plan B: more pressure and more left uppercuts.

 

Chest-to-chest, though, Mosley might have an advantage. Mosley throws his hooks in an odd sort of way, snapping his shoulders and torso to bring each fist along like the knot on the end of a bullwhip. Chest-to-chest, a place where nobody expects him to be, Mosley may also have an advantage of surprise. By the time Margarito adjusts to Mosley's attack, which he will, Mosley may have changed the balance of the fight.

 

It's an idea anyway.

 

But frankly, if you can barely imagine a way a fighter can win, you shouldn't pick him. So I won't. I'll take Margarito: UD-12. But I'll do so knowing conventional wisdom is batting about 0.100 lately.

It would also seem that the Hatton/Pacquiao fight that was set to take place in May is virtually dead;

Manny Pacquiao's refusal to accept terms already agreed to by his promoter has apparently scuttled the planned May 2 bout between him and British fighter Ricky Hatton.

 

Promoters for both fighters said Wednesday the fight is off, with little chance of it being revived.

 

"You never say never, but right now it's off," said Bob Arum, who promotes Pacquiao. "Hatton's shopping around for a new opponent now."

 

Arum said the original agreement was for the two fighters to split their shares 50-50, with Pacquiao having a $12 million guarantee. That deal fell through when Pacquiao demanded the bigger percentage, and a new agreement called for him to get 52 percent of the purse.

 

But Arum said he couldn't get Pacquiao to sign the new deal, and that Hatton's promoter, Richard Schaefer of Golden Boy Promotions, decided Wednesday to cancel the ongoing preparations for the 140-pound bout.

 

Pacquiao is coming off a dominating win over Oscar De La Hoya and is generally considered the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. Hatton was an attractive opponent because he would bring ticket and pay-per-view sales from England for the fight, which had been scheduled for the MGM Grand hotel in Las Vegas.

Apparently Manny was arguing that he deserves a bigger slice of the profits because of his popularity in the Philippines.

Hatton countered that they could go 50/50 on the gate, with Manny keeping all revenue from Filipino TV, whilst Hatton keeps the British revenue, but Manny didn't want any of that.

Watched "W." earlier on.

 

Must say I was pleasantly impressed by the whole movie. It's not a film seeking to demonise Bush like some would expect, just more of a film to show it how it is and basically show he had his countries interests at heart.

 

Josh Brolin is a fantastic actor and in my opinion this proves Oliver Stone is back on form.

I was just going to post here and ask if anyone had seen that movie, as i've got plans to watch it tonight.

Was hoping it wasn't just a few hours of Bush-bashing

I've been trying to log onto the SWA website with no success, instead being diverted to a forum.Does anyone know what the line-up of events are for the company over the next few months or so?

Thats worrying. they know Shieky is a nubcase but still give him a chance to embarass the wwe

Iron Shiek & Jimmy Snuka segment? explain please. sounds tasty

It was during McMahon Appreciation night I believe and The Shiek cuts a strange promo about playing Racket ball with Vince

Just wondering if anyone has ever come across the infamous Iron Shiek & Jimmy Snuka segment from the Vince tribute Raw a few months back?

Nash is a fucking liar. It's that simple. It's amazing how easily suckered some people are. Also, let's not forget how much we all hated him for his "vanilla midgets" bullshit and then wonder where Benoit got the paranoia about his size from. Fuck Kevin Nash.And Parkamarka, you're right. The wrestlers AREN'T in a position to do anything much. Of course, if they all stood together, things would change overnight, but the difference between an undercard guy's money and a top guy's money is too great to make that a realistic prospect. So the only people who DO have any power are the fans. If everyone stops watching and tells WWE and its sponsors WHY they've stopped watching, EVERYTHING will change. If you're too gutless to turn off your TV for a couple of months and send half a dozen emails to help prevent the deaths of your favourite wrestlers then you're a fucking piece of shit coward and you ARE complicit in any future deaths. It's that simple. If you believe the industry is fucked up and you want it to change, YOU as a consumer have the power to make difference. But as long as you keep watching the TV and buying the PPVs, you're as guilty as Vince.

After all the misinformed rubbish i've heard from the "mainstream" media recently, i'm not really believing anything they write, especially when it comes to steroids & drugs.Everyone knows by now that they are simply looking for the illegal drug angle, regardless of the facts.

I see that Italian TV has cancelled Smackdown.What's the likelihood, or what would it take, for Sky Sports to cancel WWE programming altogether?!