Jimmy Jimson

Hardly all 'new music' sucks. There never did exist a golden age where all the bands were wonderful, where a festival line-up started with Bob Dylan and ended with the Who. There have always been turd bands, turd music and there always will be. However I think there are plenty of people around making great music today if you look hard enough.

I agree, Roddy was amazing and it was bizarre to see him in front of so few people. The Hazey Janes sounded very, very good live - much better than the two studio tracks of theirs that I've heard. However, much as Mark Radcliffe is a legend, I thought his band sucked a big one. It was amusing for about two songs...I guess if you like that sort of thing it would have been ok.

ALL the home nations used to play 'The Queen' before international matches until Scotland decided it would be a good idea to play, first of all, 'Scotland the Brave' (of which very few know the words) and then eventually 'Flower of Scotland' (which is now past its 'use by date'). Wales obviously have always played their own. I believe Northern Ireland play 'God Save the Queen' before their matches. After criticism from some quarters for continuing to do so one of their political leaders said, "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and the national anthem is a legitimate symbol of the country". I suppose the English could say the same. And to be honest, I wish it was played before Scottish matches as well. It's time solidify the Union. I have no problem with "solidifying the union" but not behind a hopelessly outdated concept such as a monarch. Not very 21st century.

It all seems pretty pedantic to me. I am 100% sure that anyone referring to our delightful collection of islands as "the Shetlands", and whoever it was at BBC Scotland that was responsible for writing "on" instead of "in", was not cynically trying to do Shetland down.

Says a lot about the current Labour government that I have to agree with a comment like that. My impression is that he is likely to be successful in his bail application - the legal team (rightly) feel that his case is incredibly strong - and if he does get back to Shetland, surely the immigration services wouldn't be so stupid as to attempt to take him away again...Apart from anything else the spectacle it would create would be appallingly bad PR for them.

They are far from alone in struggling for form. Brazil weren't amazing against Croatia (though admittedly much better than England), Germany have yet to convince - particularly defensively, Italy were a bit fortunate against Ghana etc. The games between the big sides in the latter stages can almost go to the toss of a coin - look at England's exits from Euro 96 (penalties to Germany), World Cup 98 (penalties to Argentina), World Cup 02 (narrow defeat to Brazil), Euro 04 (penalties to Portugal) - on the one hand this suggests they bottle it a lot, on the other the same thing happens time and again to teams like Italy and Spain. If Rooney's fitness improves over the course of the tournament, and they have enough tactical nous to use a holding midfielder against a bigger side, England will still run anyone close.

Sorry for them be damned - how about they stop pandering to the prejudices of the shameful 'newspapers' you mention and, on a case-by-case basis, start doing what is right and proper.

But it's not just when England play, every world cup match the commentary usuallys descends into chat about England. Player scores a hatrick - "oh just like Geoff Hurst in 1966" Someone scores against Germany - "just like England did in 1966" David Beckham eats his breakfast - "Just like the England team in 1966" I think the problem lies not with England, but with the fact that people in Scotland have to watch English television all the time. This would be just as problematic if Dutch people had to watch German TV all the time. But just because 1966, David Beckham and Wayne Rooney are rubbed in our faces all the time, it is not really those players' fault. If you look hard enough you can find unbiased coverage of English teams in Europe, and England in international competitions. And however bad English BBC's coverage gets, it is still preferable to parochial World Cup coverage with Pat Nevin, Dougie Donnelly and Gordon Smith pretending to have a clue what they are talking about.

By the same token you could say England are making it seem better than it is - funny as it may sound, Rooney and Eriksson are in the worst position to decide whether or not he is fit. Rooney is an exuberant 20-year-old on the verge of being a star in his first ever World Cup, so of course he's gonna want to take risks and paly; Eriksson, as you say, does not have to suffer any consequences if the gamble fails and Rooney ends up out of action until November. I imagine that, as expected, he'll be fit for 2nd round games but to play him any earlier would be foolish as they really should negotiate the grup without any difficulties even with Crouchy in the team. To anyone who thinks the injury was 'faked', I urge you to watch a re-run of the incident where he was injured. If so, he's the best actor in the world.

I missed yesterday, but got a message saying it was "quite a twist" - what happened?!

Myspace has also been acquired by Rupert Murdoch, so has forfeited it's right to a soul.

When do you think you'll find out? Should be great...

A team with a fast striker would love to come up against Terry and Carragher playing together. That's why they need the absent-minded, wobbly-gobbed tosser. Even if I ignored the media outwith the football itself, the commentary and "punditry" (Ian Wright anyone?) is too much to stomach. I don't mind watching England playing, but everything else that goes with it makes me feel nauseous. As Wheesht says, the Dambusters spirit of the supporters is very off-putting, as is the diluted BNP-style that many of the fans seem so eager to shove in everyone's face.

How's this for a forward-looking initiative http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1782423,00.html Not married, with children? Not in our town thanks · Missouri council defends policy to 'protect values' · Unmarried couple could be fined $500 a day Oliver Burkeman in New York Thursday May 25, 2006 The Guardian The town of Black Jack, Missouri, got its name from the variety of oak tree that once grew nearby. "Those stately trees represent who and what we are today, a proud city with strong roots, providing the safety and respite of community," its promotional literature explains. It is the kind of place where family is valued - just as long as the family in question meets certain criteria. Olivia Shelltrack and Fondray Loving's family, it seems, do not. The couple could face fines of $500 (£270) a day, and Black Jack is already facing the unwelcome glare of national attention, as a result of a local regulation that bans unmarried couples with more than one child from occupying homes there. "The character and stability of a city is not an accident, it is the result of years of hard work by the residents," Norman McCourt, the mayor of Black Jack, said in a statement after the city council rejected a proposal to abolish the regulation. Mr Loving and Ms Shelltrack now plan to file a lawsuit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, while the US department of housing, in Washington, has launched an investigation to determine whether Black Jack's ban is illegal. Mr Loving, 33, and Ms Shelltrack, 31, have lived together for 13 years. They have two children and also live with Ms Shelltrack's daughter, who calls Mr Loving her father. They bought their Black Jack home earlier this year. "We're just like anybody else," Ms Shelltrack told the Guardian. "It's not like we're purple with polka dots or something. I just really feel like this shouldn't be anybody's business." The couple were not opposed to getting married, she said, but wanted to wait until they could afford a "nice big wedding ... I don't think a piece of paper is going to validate our relationship, though. We love each other, and our kids are happy, healthy individuals. You can't define family." Other American towns have regulations similar to Black Jack's, which technically bars any group of more than three people from living together unless related by "blood, marriage or adoption". Generally, such rules are intended to stop rowdy college fraternity houses from being established on residential streets. But in a country increasingly riven on issues of social morality, housing regulations represent an easy way for towns to try to give their definitions of acceptable lifestyles the force of law. In an earlier dispute, in 1999, Mr McCourt wrote that city officials "do not believe that an unmarried couple having children, residing in our community, is an appropriate standard that they wish to approve". The family in that case broke the restriction because they had triplets. Black Jack has backtracked on the mayor's earlier warning that Mr Loving and Ms Shelltrack might be evicted, but if it takes them to municipal court and wins it could fine them up to $500 a day. Sheldon Stock, the town's special counsel, said a 1977 supreme court judgment had affirmed the view that a city could uphold traditional family values by limiting the number of unrelated people who share a home. "I find it curious at best that housing laws are being used to define the relationships that count," said Frank Alexander of Emory University law school in Georgia, who has researched the phenomenon. "It seems a dangerous way to do indirectly what we may not be willing to confront directly, which is social control over the definition of family." Rules were being used increasingly, he said, to target immigrant communities - "where extended familial relationships are common". Michael Watson, a former marine who lives in Black Jack, has been taking a special interest in the case, since he too shares a home with his girlfriend and their children. He told the St Louis Post-Dispatch they had contemplated getting married, but were unwilling. "If I do get married, am I getting married out of super love, or am I getting married because Black Jack says I have to? If we're forced out of our house, what do our neighbours get? A sex offender? A drug addict? A drug dealer?"

Well they're hardly the biggest band in the world...