myb

JAVIER GARRIDO, MARTIN PETROV, GELSON FERNANDES, FELIPE CAICEDO & BENJANI to that list.

bloody hell... that proves your point how exactly!!!!???!!!

he's just given himself one hell of a shot of getting it

some really sensational stuff! Well done Kevin Mac.

already regretting not renewing. first home game i've missed in years!

will the rock and stone cold ever return? those were the days.

On a lighter note, just seen Mandelson's 'memoirs' advert for his book being serialised in the paoers over the weekend. What a prick.

While I agree with most of what you say Trent. Forest didnt dominant English football for long periods. And there are still some cases of miracle successes imo - Fulham last season and Blackpool.

I think those cases support what Trent says. That Fulham finishing just above mid table and losing a 2nd rate Eurpoean final is a 'miracle' shows exactly what the problem is now. As for Blackpool, imagine them now going on to win the Premiership this season and you have an idea of how competitive and unpredictable football used to be. It's just not remotely interesting anymore. I know who will finish in the top 5. I know that we will finish anywhere between 6 and 10th. And I know that will continue for as along as I can see forward. Until that chnages then I can't be arsed anymore. I don't want us to go and spend billions to compete. I want the whole sport to be just that - a sport.

Just watched a great (and very emotional)programme about England in Italia 90. The game has irrecovarably changed for the worse. That was a team. As Trent said, they had Butcher, we had Terry. One isn't fit to lace the others boots.

http://tinyurl.com/2u6wk9h

meant to post this earlier... Wrighty is a legend.

Lets face it, Heskey is the top earner.

Pretty certain that right there is bollocks.

Pretty certain it isn't. Pretty certain it was released in some document by Deloitte and Touche about 3 months ago regarding players wages against club turnover.

Villa top earner - Emile Heskey - 60k per week !.

And if you think, it makes sense, he has been around for 13 yrs at top level, and is for some god forsaken reason, an England regular.

It is fact (well if you believe accountants which I do)

I'm pretty sure that's another bit of your often made-up nonsense

I consider myself a supporter, not a customer. If i don't like the product it's not like I can go elsewhere!! This is part of modern football nowadays.... it's getting compared to all kinds of other industries whilst people (Clubs and Fans) are forgetting it is fundamentally the same game it was 30 years ago!!

I missed the Telegrpah question (got in late). What happened?

Shock...

Its same team as started Pompey.

Hull: Duke, McShane, Sonko, Mouyokolo, Dawson, Fagan, Cairney, Boateng, Kilbane, Bullard, Vennegoor of Hesselink.

Subs: Myhill, Barmby, Altidore, Geovanni, Cullen, Cooper, Olofinjana.

Aston Villa: Friedel, Cuellar, Collins, Dunne, Warnock, Downing, Milner, Petrov, Ashley Young, Agbonlahor, Carew.

Subs: Guzan, Luke Young, Sidwell, Delfouneso, Heskey, Reo-Coker, Beye.

Referee: Mike Dean (Wirral)

Woeful management.

And the game hasn't even kicked off. Nice one. :yawn:

Great day, on the train home and really pissed. First goal was the crucial one and they snuck it. Best fans day out I have had. Hi cup

There are plenty of trains back from Marylebone/Wembley to Birmingham. I have just spoken (2 minutes ago) to Chiltern Customer Services and they said that this is the timeable that WILL be operating on the day.

(Look at the Birmingham/London PDF).

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/plan-your-journey/changes/647

any idea what time boozers open? 11.00 or do they delay a bit to avoid everyone getting platered early doors?

Joey, what part of BOFs post did you not understand? We have had to remodel pretty much our whole back line because of injuries and seem to be competing quite nicely, thanks.

It's another typical Spurs arguement! picking and choosing to suit!

They're having somewhat of a defensive crisis at the minute i think they just said on the radio Terry is their only fit centre half

I cannot wait. The last trip just whetted the appetite for success - I think we will win. I think people on here seem to be very lukewarm about supporting the Villa, not just in an FA Cup semi-final. really not sure what is going on in all honesty.

Another sack of shit performance.

Terrible tactics from an exceptionally overrated manager.

We're lucky Blues did us a favour cos I could've seen Everton overtake us.

Just picked up a couple of gems from that piece. another!?!? yeah right.

Overrated manager - league and cup performance would suggest otherwise.

luckily they did. also unluckily we didn't get a winner at the end.

If you're happy with a point from a game like this you don't deserve 4th, nor will you get it.

If you get a point, that's a fine result, fair play. But if you're happy with one then you're a long way away from where you need to be.

Rubbish.

I hate it when people write bollocks like this. Drawing away at Stoke does not decide our top 4 credentials. On the flip side you have wins v utd, liverpool and chelsea. It's a 38 game season, not a 1 game season.

heskey offers twice as much at the back as carew and is winning plenty of headers from the long throws. would have been daft to leave carew on.

All in your opinion.

"Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand." From a legal perspective maybe and it's very easy to hide behind that as some kind of way of patronsing an audience. (although i'm guessing you are wrong here as she was probably a witness during the trial at the very least.)

In your world, do people get convicted before witnesses are called?

In my world, her 'involvement in the legal process' doesn't end when they get charged. Prosecuted maybe, but not charged.

As for the rest, i'm not so sure it is as black and white as you're making out. I believe that only 3 people in this country have ever gone through the process of having an identify rebuilt so this is a pretty unique case. In any other criminal case, where a person has reoffended, his first victim would know about his reoffednding as it would come out in the public domain (like the "facebook killer" over the last 24 hours) - on a side note another rehabilitation that went really well.

I think we are in pretty unchartered territory here and i'm unsure if the law does take that into account.

I felt the same as myb to be honest when I read what you wrote, I think it just feels shocking because the initial point you chose to make about the whole subject is the fact that you don't understand what it's got to do with the mother of the child that the man previously killed and why she is involved.

As Bicks said, it's not her business. I'm sorry if people don't understand that, but it isn't.

If you think it is, you're plain wrong.

Your comment there seems to be just passing off what I would percieve to be your opinion, as fact.

Jack Straw hasn't said it's not her business either, he has in fact said he does not want to prejudice the investigation by giving details at this stage - which I think most will accept as a fair point, whether they believe she has a right to be involved or not.

Mrs Fergus says she was told in 2001 that if either of them were to breach the terms of their licence, she would be informed straightaway. I imagine a large reason as to why she is 'getting involved.'

From the point of view that if he has missed a few appointments, it might be possible to come to the opinion that she has no right to know, but what if - and we don't know of course, so just an example - he has commited a similar crime. I would think very much so she has a right to be informed.

I won't often say this, but here my opinion IS fact. She has nothing to do with it, that's just the case. The only way she would is if he had done something that directly impacted her, which you'd imagine he hasn't since she appears not to know anything about it.

Jack Straw is electioneering. It's disgusting but he knows to gauge the popular mindset, he's doing something to make him popular. If he said what I have, he'd be strung up, by idiots.

Fergus should not have been given that promise. Someone either made a mistake or again was electioneering.

She has no right to know regardless of what he's done. That's just the way it is and should be. She has no right to sit in a trial for him any more than I do. She no right to know what he's apparently done than you do.

And to speculate on what he may have done is irrelevant.

Again, that isn't "fact." I can clearly see why she should have more access to information surrounding this case than you and I. She has a vested interest in anything this young man goes on to do, given that he killed her son, she campaigned for him not to be released on the grounds that he was likely to reoffend and low and behold, he seems to have gone on and done just that.

You're hiding behind the law and lawmakers. It may be 'plain wrong' when viewed in black and white, but when taken in the context of what happened to her, the impact that this lad has had on her life and what he has taken away from her then it has everything to do with her. It's your morals that are 'plain wrong' i'm afraid.

I have no cause to hide behind anything thank you.

She has no right to be told anything. She is not related to whatever Venables is accused of doing (if she was, you'd imagine she'd not need to demand that the government tell her what he's done) and thus she is no more important to any case that might arise against Venables than you or I. Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand.

My morals are fine.

All in your opinion.

"Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand." From a legal perspective maybe and it's very easy to hide behind that as some kind of way of patronsing an audience. (although i'm guessing you are wrong here as she was probably a witness during the trial at the very least.)

And just a point, she is quite clearly related to what he is accused of doing as the reason that he has been recalled to prison so qucikly is because he is out on license for killing her son. As I said previously, if she wanted to know everytime he went to the toilet then she should have that right.

I felt the same as myb to be honest when I read what you wrote, I think it just feels shocking because the initial point you chose to make about the whole subject is the fact that you don't understand what it's got to do with the mother of the child that the man previously killed and why she is involved.

As Bicks said, it's not her business. I'm sorry if people don't understand that, but it isn't.

If you think it is, you're plain wrong.

You're hiding behind the law and lawmakers. It may be 'plain wrong' when viewed in black and white, but when taken in the context of what happened to her, the impact that this lad has had on her life and what he has taken away from her then it has everything to do with her. It's your morals that are 'plain wrong' i'm afraid.