Awol

Blandy, I'm pretty sure I've done worse..

If we're not all in there with you then someone's keeping a BIG secret!

I reckon that's it. The law of infinity says anything that could happen will happen at some point or place. If the universe is infinite then there must be life out there somewhere. Aren't the NASA/ESA bods all excited about that frozen moon Titan? They seem to think there's a good chance of turning something living up under the ice. Wouldn't fancy the Sigourney Weaver moment of actually making contact though..

Controversial... but funny as hell

Is the Pope a Queen?

No, but her ancestors shat on the Pope!

Absolutely, if we have one striker who can hit those numbers it's Gabby. My faith in LM is slipping tbh and we know Carew will never be prolific. Marlon well, less said about that the better. So Gabby, 18-20 this season, 20+ next season I reckon.

^^Radical Liberalism. A genuine third way? I think Chris Huhne is better but either would be a good option against Camermoron and Broon. All they need now is some policies.

FWIW and for similar reasons to you I agree on the Euro, but again I think it is too big an issue to be decided by government alone. We have already established that manifesto commitments are liable to change for expediencies sake so I'm not filled with confidence there. As to the free vote for MP's I couldn't agree more, it would be great if that happened for every vote, along with an annual publication of their voting record for consumption by their respect constituencies. It might even go a long way to sorting out the current lack of accountability among freespending MP's - of all shades.

What about if the euro comes up again, no referendum? Yep that is clear, it will be interesting to see in a few weeks when this has been thoroughly chewed over by the experts to see exactly what is "on the table". Your opossition is based on the differences between those documents so if they are proved to be substantially the same your position may change.

Not at all Drat I know the Tories are as bad as Labour, the sleeze of the late 80's early 90's was awful. My problem essentially is with the incumbent political party - whoever that happens to be - actually delivering what they promise to do. Arguing that "well the other lot are/were/will be just as bad" is no argument at all, it implies that we the public should suck it up. Why should we? We can pick around the wording of specific 'commitments' all day long but it is the spirit and the intent of the commitment that is important, not trying to exploit wording to avoid doing the thing you implied that you would. I'm struggling to grasp why you cannot recognise what the major beef is for all of those who think we should have a referendum. Honesty and transparency are the ideas notable for their absence. Per se I am open to hear the arguments from both sides but only one side is willing to make it. If the government don't have the confidence to 'sell' their own policies to the electorate WTF should we let them brush it under the carpet?

As I said before I haven't read Labour's '05 manifesto and I doubt many commenting on here have. That isn't really the point if all parties acknowledge that a commitment was made then reading myself isn't necessary. I don't read every law or piece of legislation passed but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on them based on the accepted facts of each case. As for your final dig, my motives are based on making politicians do what they promise they will do and nothing more. However Iraq does prove my point though doesn't it. Can you acknowledge Labour have serious form for lying to parliament and the nation? Is that in itself not a reason to be suspicious of their calm reassurances?

You are better than them at not answering a question! No I didn't read labour's 2005 manifesto, are you disputing that their pledge was made? Labour aren't so I think you're on to as loser there. The messenger - in this case Camermoron - is irelevant it's the message you are squirming to avoid, ditto with Ahern's point. Labour made the pledge, they have not shown that the treaty and constitution are substansively different and they are going to break their word, again. You are also completely avoiding the issue that these two documents are virtually the same as Tony29 has pointed out a few times. So no own goal, just you resolutely avoiding an answer to the central points. The alternative is admitting that Labour are liars and if Iraq didn't convince you of that then nothing will.

Wrong on so many counts Cheers for that.. clicky Three questions. 1) Can you accept that Labour pledged a referendum on the Eurpoean Constitution in their 2005 manifesto? 2) Can you accept that in the rest of Europe the treaty is accepted as being a re-namned constitution that is at least 95% the same thing as the document we were promised a referendum on? An example of thoughts in Europe on this: clicky 3) How so?

Good enough for me. The government promised it, they should deliver. Regardless of what my Guardian, or anyone else's Mail says. God I hope the Lib Dems get their act together before the next election - I can't vote for these clowns any more. I'd agree with all of that. Yes the government are honour bound to deliver on their referendum pledge, if it's in their manifesto how can they not? Very few professional commentators in this country dispute the analysis that the new Treaty is essentially the old Constitution re-named. No worries but if the government are confident of their position why not open up the debate, make the argument in favour, then go for the referendum? I don't accept people would be unduely swayed by the media, of course news barons have an agenda but it's pretty patronising to suggest people can't be trusted to make big decisions about the nations future. If you go down that route you may as well abolish elections completely. It's this tendancy to treat the public like so many numpties - and politicians and the media are equally guilty - that is driving people nuts!

CL qualification or England winning the WC? England, no doubt for me. Villa have a chance every year for CL but winning the WC is a class above.

I agree with that but do you think sometimes people get a little overly-sensitive?..we're all big boys after all.. Edit to add: ...also, if someone is deliberately winding you up, what's wrong with a swift 'feck off'? It's pretty easy for Mod's to discriminate between that and torrents of abuse surely?

Appreciate your take on things, ta.

Anyone who uses a few 'tinterweb message boards will have come across this issue before. In my experience, censorship of posts has often been justified for treading a very fine legal line that could land the website owner in hot water. Fair play, no-one can really argue against that. Then you have cases of severe and heavy editing or deletion of posts when the legal justification is not relevant and the reasoning, unless for being wildly off topic, oftens seems to be holding a contrary view to moderators - please note THIS IS NOT A CRACK AT VT. I think of these boards as being similar to an online pub and as such I expect free, frank and flowing discussion but recently this seems to have dropped off considerably due to excessive and imho unecessary use of red ink. In turn this obstructs free discussion and imho starts to undermine the whole point of using message boards. Any thoughts?

No, he's leading the raid up t' north!

I'll take a piece of that.

BCV^^^ I tried today mate but I was in the posh seats - through work - about 10 yards from the one and only RL. Spent half of the game arguing with stewards for wanting to stand up. As for singing, should have seen his face when I launched into 'Garry Barry's magic hat'! Cock. UTV, what a day

To the tune of 'Lord of the dance' Shaun, Shaun, you're magic and your wee, men wear skirts in your coun-try, But it could be worse, you could be a nose, dressed head to toe in their bur-b'rry clothes! I'll get me coat.

I'm reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins at the moment and as a non-practicing Christian it doesn't do much for your 'faith'.