thetrees

Yeah but that was very very close though. I remember the odds plummeted from 25/1 to something like 2/1 in about an hour because tons of people (myself included) on here were chucking money on him. Ah the good old days. I remember being so gutted that we didn't get OGS and got PL. Looking at it now seems we could've done without either of them. OGS would have won me several thousand pounds. The fact that PL's odds went right out and I laid off on him ensured that I didn't lose money. I reckon that if I had won the several thousand, I would have witnessed more home victories these last two seasons so, on balance, OGS would have been the best pick! I find the comment about wishing we had OGS bizarre. He's done utterly woeful with Cardiff (who have a decent squad with some quality). If you gave me the choice to go back in time and change him for Lambert knowing what I know now I 100% would not. No wish, just a comment that I would have scored some dough, and we would, most likely, have won more home games in the last two seasons under OGS, on the basis that I doubt whether any one could have a worse home record than Lambert. What is bizarre is judging a manager who was dropped into raging fire, with the arsonist owner continuing to poor petrol on the flames, in comparison with a guy who has had two pre-seasons and a reasonable chunk of money to spend. And no, I do not want OGS to be our next manager.

Yeah but that was very very close though. I remember the odds plummeted from 25/1 to something like 2/1 in about an hour because tons of people (myself included) on here were chucking money on him. Ah the good old days. I remember being so gutted that we didn't get OGS and got PL. Looking at it now seems we could've done without either of them. OGS would have won me several thousand pounds. The fact that PL's odds went right out and I laid off on him ensured that I didn't lose money. I reckon that if I had won the several thousand, I would have witnessed more home victories these last two seasons so, on balance, OGS would have been the best pick!

Wasn't the minimum wage introduced to eradicate low pay?

The drop during the last administration was silly, because it was supposedly to stimulate spending during a deep crisis. So the 2.5% drop meant that the £1000 telly was now £975, but you can't afford the telly any way. Just another example of playing with taxes for the sake of political point scoring, something that both of our major parties are guilty of. Whether sales tax is regressive or not is a separate discussion that's not for me.

And that her son is still a clearing in the woods!

If you get a date with her, perhaps you could ask her dad to come to the Villa, as we need a 'football person' on the board

We dont! As usual its a split down the middle. I like him. A passionate fan on a national station is never a bad thing in my eyes! Although rare, it is possible to like ex-footballer arseholes who have moved on to media. Look at how popular Gary Neville has become.

Wasn't it dropped from 20% to 17.5% in a politically motivated, but highly ignorant moment, only to be raised again? It was 17.5%. Then they dropped it to 15%. And then they raised it to 20%. Thanks. I remembered the silly drop, but clearly forgot what the rate was at the time.

I wonder about this morality thing, with tax. It's become a kind of stick with which to avoid a "problem" - it blames the Co. or individual for something quite legal - directing our anger at the wrong target. Sure looked at from our "little people" perspective, it's hard to take that we pay income tax and vat and NI etc that makes up a huge chunkof our income - 30 or 40% or so. Meanwhile a company pays next to nowt on their money earnt in the UK. so on the face of it, "it ain't fair". On the other hand, if any Gov't wants to introduce more morality or fairness into things, they can. Stop blaming the Co.s and change the law. It's a political get out and excuse for inaction. I am totally infavour of these CO.s and individuals paying more tax, but not through appealing to their morality, or appealing to "little people" to direct anger at them. Just get on and change the law, where necessary with the EU and other countries. The company thing is highly emotive. In my opinion companies like Vodafone and Starbucks are in the UK economy for what they can get out of it, so no sweeteners necessary. If you look at manufacturing, a couple of examples that spring to mind are HP and Peugeot. In the case of HP production was switched to a Dutch plant with higher production costs, but one that was more costly to close down than a UK plant. With Peugeot a similar situation. They wished to devolve some production to Eastern Europe, so the easiest plant to close was the UK one. So, tax breaks for companies that create manufacturing jobs, I am in favour of. But 'deals' with companies that are only in the UK for revenue purposes should not be considered.

Wasn't it dropped from 20% to 17.5% in a politically motivated, but highly ignorant moment, only to be raised again?

If the message that you are trying to convey is that only Tory voters participate in tax avoidance schemes, I would suggest that your view is even more blinkered than it normally appears. I know a number of reasonably well off, potentially Tory voters, who were offered such schemes, which were perfectly legal, but turned them down for one reason, and one reason only. Because they were wrong. In the end, no one should baulk at a 40% higher tax rate for earned income in this country, which worked up until the final squeals of the last Labour administration. You have to earn it to pay it. You have drawn the wrong conclusions. The message I'm tying to convey is we have tax loopholes and a mainly Tory coalition government who seem disinterested in closing them. Therefore, if you benefit from tax loopholes, like Barlow, and don't want your tax avoidance methods closed, then a Tory vote would be a good one. If like me you find the rich avoiding tax immoral, and greedy, vote for the Green Party as they seem serious about ending tax avoidance for the rich, something none of the three major parties are. One thing that Gordon Brown was very good at was closing tax loopholes. Tax avoidance schemes were available under the last government as they are this. The morality of them, as I alluded to in my posting, is highly questionable. In the example that you cite, if a Tory vote is a 'good one' then why is a government department pursuing the individual in question for avoided tax? As for your suggestion, and I haven't read up on them, but I would imagine that the Green Party view someone who earns more than £50k a year as 'rich', so I am unlikely to be seduced. Mega rich people hire accountants to reduce their tax bill, so the only people to hit are PAYE, which is why any further attempt to further persecute higher earning 'workers' would be flawed. But it will happen.

If the message that you are trying to convey is that only Tory voters participate in tax avoidance schemes, I would suggest that your view is even more blinkered than it normally appears. I know a number of reasonably well off, potentially Tory voters, who were offered such schemes, which were perfectly legal, but turned them down for one reason, and one reason only. Because they were wrong. In the end, no one should baulk at a 40% higher tax rate for earned income in this country, which worked up until the final squeals of the last Labour administration. You have to earn it to pay it.

A dodgy Russian linesman will aid a team to the World Cup? Azerbaijani linesman, no less.

Interesting about ambition and age. My parents drilled into me the importance of owning property, so at the tender age of 22 I took out my first mortgage and got on the first rung of the ladder. This wisdom I have tried to impart to my 22 year old, who has now opted to leave the nest and rent. When I questioned this he put his arm around me and said "Why do I need to buy a property dad, when I am going to inherit one from you?" How could I argue with that?!

Let's hope that they all bring you samples!

Glasgow. One good thing. Yummy

You called me a Lambert apologist when I made the same point the other day, glad you're learning! 19 home defeats in two seasons - half of his home league games. I would venture that being more cherries than enough.

From the BBC website: '....the Daily Mirror, which said it had hired "audio forensic experts" to analyse the clip that it had obtained.' So, in the light of the fact that absolutely no one was offended on any way whatsoever, the DM hired experts to make sure that at least someone, somewhere, was offended, and presumably outraged. You really couldn't make it up.

The CPS needed a win, and they have it. It might be an idea to take Rolf's shoelaces from him.

That's a quality performance - way to shoehorn in a rant showing your own political prejudice. It's not quite top drawer, though: you omitted 'liberal elite'. A bit personal Snowy, and unworthy of you. The hyenas are having a good run today, for sure

Sorry but that is rubbish. So being outraged at racism is left wing faux outrage? So being outraged at threatening young kids is left wing faux outrage? So being mocking physical disability is a left wing faux outrage? Maybe you are saying / admitting that the right wing elements, and yes Clarkson certainly is one of those, has different morals and acceptable social awareness? This is not a left wing witch hunt at all and you know it mate, it's one about common decency and the fact that Clarkson who has shown over many many instances to be quite an obnoxious person has been caught out again. Trying to make it a left vs right thing is wrong on your part and frankly disappointing The point is Ian, in this instance, it is not racism. I don't follow Clarkson closely enough to be aware of the 'threatening' and 'mocking' questions that you pose. But it's a nothing story, which I understand was perpetuated by the Daily Mirror. He's outspoken, and apparently people with views of a certain standing don't like him, which is fine. But it's hardly of any interest to the majority of people.

I am ambivalent about Clarkson who, as a popular individual, in the public eye, and who generally appears to disagree with switched on leftie correctness, is a threat to the left, which is why there is a constant witch hunt against him. If he had called or referred to a black person as a N, then I would have a problem with him. Mumbling a nursery rhyme that people of his age knew as kids is of no significance whatsoever. It gives no indicator of his views of black people at all, yet it suits some people to spin it in the way - he's outspoken and generally against left wing thinking, he MUST be a racist. Left wing faux outrage at its ugliest.

Not quite sure what the point of that comment is.A recession is measured by decreases in GDP (over a certain period) therefore increases in GDP following a recession would have to be a recovery.We could have a discussion about whether that is a satisfactory way of looking at things or whether GDP measurement is always or, even, sometimes a good measure or whether a recovery will have occurred when you get back to your starting point from before a recession but I get the feeling that wasn't what you were after. I don't know where you got the idea that I think they did a good job from.Given that this recovery would appear to have largely the same foundations as the booms of the Blair/Brown years (consumer spending led; stoking of the housing market), that you weren't critical of it or those presiding over the ship at the moment implied either that you think it isn't as I describe or that your initial comment betrayed a clear partisanship. I largely agree with you on a lot of things. We differ in that you make a more studious appraisal of the situation, which may be more accurate, but is nonetheless different. I personally haven't declared an 'economic recovery', i was responding to another post. My comment that it feels better is because it does, and some of my 'back of fag packet' indicators in my day to day business suggests that things are getting better. My 'slow and steady' comment is in line with your observation that the 'recovery' has the indicators of previous booms, which is a concern, as the least that we can ask of those who govern or will govern, is that they learn from the disastrous period that we have been through, and handle things in a more controlled manner. Of course, in order to do this, they will need to put the people before themselves, which Blair/Brown governments certainly did not and, as we are often reminded by the vociferous VT left, the bay eating Tory party never do. 'Partisan' suggests that someone is on one side. My vehement dislike of the Blair/Brown regime for their crimes against the people of this country does not make me a 'partisan' of their party's old adversary.

Just seen a discussion on this Clarkson 'story' on sky news. There is a new film featuring said dog coming out soon and one of the sky news panelists said the dogs name should be changed because under no circumstances should that word be used. I completely disagree, it's all about context! seeing as Guy Gibson is almost certainly going to be American , in the US Air Force and flying B-17's as a result of another historical rewrite by Hollywood changing the dogs name to dog the II junior would be parr for course anyway We have a couple of flat coat retrievers in the family. The first my uncle wanted to name after Gibson's dog, but elected to substitute the 'N' for a 'D', in deference to the modern times. The second was bought from a German breeder and is named Gibson. The breeder was enquiring about the origin of the name, but they didn't tell her!

It's a slur for East Asian people coming from the shape of their eyes. Which was largely unknown by even the most worldy of people. You can't beat a bit of outrage for a story though.