nrogers

Wesley Sneijde would be the right answer.... but it wont be... it will probably be Marlon Dingle, I mean Harewood. :roll:

She's hearing Voices - Bloc Party

im a racist....

I MEAN ATHEIST! :shock:

i love the idea that when you die u just get out your body and do whatever,

but i'm a man of science so i dont believe, but it still is a nice thought.

and nick rogers, you cant just dismiss religion altogether, your offending billions of peoples beliefs.

Religion offends me.... So it's OK for the religions to offend me is it??

Atheist, I despise religion!

Absolutely not.

The idea that this sort of treatment, even to convicted sex offenders, can work is complete guff. Despite the fact that the treatment borders on Dr. Mengele-ian, the main problem is that it completely pisses all over the principle of individual re-assimilation of criminals back into society - the whole point of a justice and rehabilitation system.

It takes away the responsibility of the individual to re-assimilate - the only way you can truthfully prove that the individual has remorsed over their crime and has worked to make sure it never happens again. "Castration" on the political will of headline-hunting politicians takes the responsibility to assimilate and truly repent away from the individual, and it puts that reponsibility into the hands of the state.

No thanks.

And what do I think of the story? A knee-jerk solution to appease the right-wing tabloids and out-flank the opposition. This government has'nt done that before, oh no..... :roll:

Just a question, why is this a right wing thing? Didn't Stalin commit mass genocide???

Anyway, on a voluntary basis, great, also on repeat offenders great, in a none voluntary basis, on a 17 year that has consensual sex witha 15 year old, it's just stupid.

Some sexual offenders are preditors and they can't be be assimilated back into society, they can't help themselves and when they re-offend where does that leave the poor victim, probably likely to cause the same offences and the cycle continues...

Yeah but DDID, no confirmed links, no bids... and he got Carew.... Plus the facts of Gabby and Moore with the same attributes, says alot to me!!

We were after SWP but not Defoe. As far as I know that was the only target we didnt get for reasons that were later made known.

It could be that we go back for SWP. I suppose it depends on whether Chelsea see him as having a future with him. I see no reason why MON would have changed his mind in 6 months unless he has a better target in mind.

Young can play on the left, SWP on the right with Maloney, Berger, Barry and Steiber for cover. Works for me.

I think perhaps Young replaced SWP in MON's mind, thus we're not interested now?

And he was never interested in Defoe, perhaps??

The only "story" I can find is this, doesn't look anything like legit to me!!

Jez, not being funny, but when did Villa bid (Legitimately) for Defoe??

For all these reasons, what I've said is not 'none Villa ... shite' and so is probably (I'm guessing) of interest to at least some of the posters on this thread - yourself obviously not included.

I have some interest because it effects MON's interest in Defoe.

Which is Nil.... Not seen one credible story!!

What apart from when we bid for him last season? I think that warrants some interest from MON.

Did we... I can't remember any concrete bids.. Tabloid rumours only... IIRC.... i.e. not one credible story!!

Anyway weren't we desperate last season??

We still have Carew, Moore, Gabby, Maloney, Young, Sutton who can all play up front

Good post, but I don't think Sutton will play footie again....

And if he does.... it should be for another team.... NOT GOOD ENOUGH.... send him back to Blose!!

For all these reasons, what I've said is not 'none Villa ... shite' and so is probably (I'm guessing) of interest to at least some of the posters on this thread - yourself obviously not included.

I have some interest because it effects MON's interest in Defoe.

Which is Nil.... Not seen one credible story!!

No your post was about spuds and the reasons why you think (deludedly IMO) Bent will sign for your tin pot outfit...

THIS IS A VILLA FORUM!!!

Which papers, if it's The Star (as Ml1dch points out) and The Sun, it's most likely bollocks.... I'll wait until it's on SS as a rumour... I believe the UK tabloids as much as I believe Blair.... i.e. not a lot (as one Paul Daniels would say)!!

Where this Bent rumour (to the shammer on 80k) coming from Jez, nowt on Skysports???

Any link??

Alan Smith - Nooooooooo

(I don't really have a tin-hat)

You can borrow mine if you want, its had plenty of use!

You can have my Kevlar helmet, I don't need it anymore!

Bit old, but would definately still do a job, out of all the strikers available realistically, he is the one I would want!!

Jez, I would also love to see Gudjohnsen in a Villa Shirt, how old is he these days?

Why not go in for Alan Wright?? :wink:

It's not that I disagree with you, but surely a mixture of smoking and none smoking pubs is the fairest option at the landlords discretion....

.

We have that now. If you want smoke free pubs, it hasn't worked.

Baring in mind I am a none smoker, I just don't see the issue with this...

Ex smoker, big difference.

Maybe so, and most "ex" smokers are worse than never smokers... BTW I am a NONE SMOKER!!

Then why should Landlords have this rule forced on them??

Maybe you can, but there are huge amount that can't, 10 pints and fight anyone?? Take a walk down Broad Street, and I don't know if it's still as bad, but John Fight Street was a pissed up no rules boxing match to anyone who walked down it... Lets ban booze!! Solve the issue, no need for pubs!!

I agree that the binge drinking culture is a problem that needs sorting out.

However, the comparison to smoking just doesn't stack up. Nobody's suggesting banning smoking, or stopping smokers going to pubs. Is it it really that much of an affront to civil liberties to just ask them to go outside for five minutes if they need to smoke.

I think the key thing is, in places with the ban, after a while, even a lot of smokers seem to agree with the ban. They can all congregate in a nice social huddle outside (and if they can manage it in Toronto when it's minus 20 outside, they can manage it here!) yet the inside of the building is a far more pleasant environment.

Everyone's a winner.

It's not that I disagree with you, but surely a mixture of smoking and none smoking pubs is the fairest option at the landlords discretion.... Baring in mind I am a none smoker, I just don't see the issue with this...

But I also make the point that yes this ban is in force and none smokers should be pleased with this, but I get really **** when people bitch, moan and pull faces when smokers are outside and people still moan because they want to sit outside!! You can't have it both way, without an outright ban..

Well I stand corrected, but there's no doubt it's a noxious sustance.

I can go for a drink without it harming anyone else whatsoever. Without it affecting anybody's else's health, or making their clothes stink. You can't say the same about cigarettes.

Maybe you can, but there are huge amount that can't, 10 pints and fight anyone?? Take a walk down Broad Street, and I don't know if it's still as bad, but John Fight Street was a pissed up no rules boxing match to anyone who walked down it... Lets ban booze!! Solve the issue, no need for pubs!!

Choice people, it's a wonderful thing.

You still haven't said HOW you'd choose which pubs would be smoking and non smoking.

:roll:

How about Landlords choice?? Whats wrong with that??

What, like we have now you mean?

Well yeah, it's the Landlords livelyhood and in most cases home, so surely he has some choice in the matter, will they be banned from smoking in their flat, how about if you rent a room in your house, are you banned from smoking in said house as, essentially it's a business of sorts!

Choice people, it's a wonderful thing.

You still haven't said HOW you'd choose which pubs would be smoking and non smoking.

:roll:

How about Landlords choice?? Whats wrong with that??