mockingbird_franklin

yeah someone at the BBC has obviously had a brain fart momrnt, 8 finals yet have only ever won the first leg of a semi on 2 occasions sort of makes their fact obviously bollocks,

oh we've only ever played Bradford twice in the league cup winning both times and putting 11 past them

after looking up a few facts, hopefully we can take a little hope from the fact we've had 19 league cup ties against fouth division clubs, we've never failed to progress and have scored 95 goals at an average of 5 per tie (or 3.5 goals per game over the 27 games these 19 ties have taken place over), In fact we've never failed to score in the league cup against a fouth divsion side, Hopefully these facts will bring a little settling effect on this thread (well until someone mentions runs are made to be broken)

had a similar thing a few years ago, car infront stalled at an island just after they had started to pull out and I was following them, I just about touched their rear bumper, no damage to either car, same as you Jim, couple of months later I get a letter claiming I rammed into the back of them causing damage and whiplash, unfortunately I out the country for a few years shortly afterwardf so have no idea if the Insurance company fought the claim as they indicated they might, I bloody hope so, I hope they arranged a gang rape for the lying git and tore him a new arsehole as a lesson. Best of luck Jim, I'd like to say cheets and lyers don't prosper, but unfortunately it appears they actually do in this day and age, Truth and whats right and fair don't seem to matter much anymore.

From experience, my son has a recognised disabilty thet severely effects his everyday life, this is what is happening with the genuinely disabled, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen articles about the changes to Disability Living Allowance with quotes from various mambers of the Government on how the changes are designed to stop the benefit being seen as a means of avoiding getting a job, when the reality couldn't be futher from the truth, for one DLA is a non means tested benefit paid to people who's sickness or disabilty puts then at a severe disadvantage in getting or holding down a job and who may incur extra everyday expenses because of their disabilty, Its there to help people out who through no fault of there own are disadvantaged, You recieve DLA wether you work or not. and after experiencing the biased and basically fixed system for ESA (Employment support Allowance) that PIP (DLA replacement) will also use, i fear for my sons future finacial security and indipendance,

was in the middle of quoting this when you corrected it I think, It sems to have caused some delay in posting my response, The facts are even more at odds with the BBC's representation of them, we've only ever won 2 first leg games, both finals we progressed to we lost btw (in 1963 and 2010), other fisrt legs we failed to win yet progressed that i can remeber are 2-2 with Arsenal in 96, 3-1 loss to Tranmere in 94, 0-0 with QPR in 77 and 2-2 with Chester City in 75. Our record of first legs is Won 2, Lost 4, Drawn 7 with eight finals to show for them

Mickey Rooney

Two versions of the same song, both versions are on my short christmas song favourites list http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iplr6h4Uy_Q or the acoustic version

unfortunatetly see another loss to make a truely horrible Christmas results wise

been checking out their other stuff on soundcloud, fantastic, cheers for introducing me to this band

Flipping this subject around, and coming at it from a different angle I've been presented with a way to legally make quite a lot of money out of the state by some clever rearrangements in my families finacial circumstances, there are some very minor negatives and none of them are monetary or that big a deal if I'm careful how things are set up, I guess it could result in a minimum extra £250,000 tax free by the time i retire if i take 65 as retirement age (20 years time), It was my idea (came to me when researching a related subject) but I have been advised by a solicitor and tax expert competent in this area that it is perfectly legal, but morally it's up there with the legal but dodgy dealing Mp's are doing renting out there second homes to each other at tax payers expense. Question is who would take advantage of such a legal but arguable morally wrong loop hole if they had the chance?

Big differences, only 2 S.A batsmen (recognised) scored 10 or less in the match, 7 English batsmen achieved this unwanted accolade, all series, everytime England have opened the door to possibly go on to get control of a match, they either let it slip or S.A bust a gut to slam the door shut, when S.A have been in the same situation, they metaphorically have kicked it in with what seemed little resistance from England. Overall S.A have been the better team in every department and showed much stronger fortitude. For England Stauss' form continues to be a big problem, and his ability to get out early in an innings or at a restart seems to becoming contagious, Positives for England? Possibly Bairstow and the fact that despite being below our best it was a pretty close series for a 2-0 scoreline, obviously ignoring the appalling performance post first day in the first test

I'm shocked people are surprised that we're doing so well, after all taekwando is almost the same as our favourite weekend night pastime at throwing out time of trying to kick someones heads in

depends by what yardstick you measure with surely ? if you take straight economic terms then In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was actually in balance ..by the end of the end of 2009-10 the annual deficit had ballooned to £170.8 billion that figure is now somewhere around £130 Bn isn't it ? so in straight terms it's reduced and "cleaning up" of course there are other yardsticks and impacts which could be making "it worse" but it depends if you subscribe to the Labour camp of unprecedented debt or the Tory one of reducing the debt Guess a good yardstick could be who's paying the price for this clearing up, if indeed that is what it is they are doing. Is it everyone, individuals and businesses, obviously depending on there ability to contribute no matter how large or small a contribution, or those less fortunate and far more vunerable in our society like the long term sick and disabled, (through benefit changes dressed up as stopping workshy scroungers), those that have served their country in the many conflicts they have been thrown into whilst being poorly supplied due to budget cuts (by redundancy or being expected to do more with less), or just the poor suckers who can't legally avoid any tax because they are unfortunate enough to be taxed under the very tightly regulated and pretty loophole free PAYG (paying higher taxes and hence taking on more of the burden at a time when there disposable incomes are under threat), more of the burden than they otherwise would need to because those legally avoiding tax pay relatively very little. lets call it the fair and all in it together yardstick, think using that one they may very well be making it worse.

grab a ganny mid 60's?

Any relation to sid?

Congratulations Tony on making Your most accurate observation yet on VT, shame it's taken so long to arrive.

I am tempted to take up your kind offer, would be nice to put a face to the persona that is tonyh, however I am due to be working that weekend so can't, we're down two guys so will be all on my lonesome so can't even take any holiday to take you up

not my feeling at all, as I have no Idea what someone did to get the shiney big mobile status symbol, So until I have some knowledge of how they gained enough wealth to own and run one I would prefer not to jump to conclusions. For all they know they could have earn' t it on there knees as the worlds hardest working toilet cleaner, regularly busting out 20 hour days with the Jiff. in that case if that's what they want to spend their well earned cash on, fair enough as I'm sure under PAYE they will have paid there fair share of tax. Equally they could have whored there way to a small fortune, and all those years performing lewd perverted sexual services (provided they declared and payed their Tax) means they have every right to express there wealth however they like. I don't particularly aspire to own a rolls, I prefer to be far more introverted and understated when it comes to cars, but as It's not a choice I'm likely to face I'm safe knowing I'ts unlikely I will be proved a hypocrite, if I ever do work hard enough to afford one of course. As an aside I'd be very unlikely to damage someone elses property if they were a toffy nosed git, just my sense of respecting other peoples property no matter how detestable they are.

This question also goes out to the post above yours, but care to explain why you believe the cap would be at the levels you suggest? Especially when an article indicates our cap was about 26,000 just a few seasons ago

not if it's on the books

Probably true. And it's one of things I like best about this country. But if it were just a case of some people being a bit more comfortable than others it would never go beyond that. If somebody has a nicer house or car than me, I don't think I have any right to try and bring them down. But when it's a case of some people sitting on TRILLIONS of pounds while millions are dying through poverty, malnutrition, disease and violence, I think we not only have the right to bring them down, it becomes a **** OBLIGATION. But Mike that ignores the undeniable fact, rich people are only rich because they work so much harder than anybody else, and poor people are only poor because they are lazy deadbeats who could so easily join the super rich but for the lack of a bit of hard work under their belts. Surely if we are going for the full sterotype then rich people only got rich by inheriting money from their families who exploited poor folk back in the day ... I've not seen anyone argue the case about poor people being deadbeats but now you mention it the pub opposite me is full of builders and has been since lunch time .. and they are chatting to all these chain smoking single mothers who probably don't work ahh stereotypes , gotta love them better pop over there, maybe you can entice a few builders to dodge some tax by offing them a bit of cash in hand work. even things out a bit like.

Probably true. And it's one of things I like best about this country. But if it were just a case of some people being a bit more comfortable than others it would never go beyond that. If somebody has a nicer house or car than me, I don't think I have any right to try and bring them down. But when it's a case of some people sitting on TRILLIONS of pounds while millions are dying through poverty, malnutrition, disease and violence, I think we not only have the right to bring them down, it becomes a **** OBLIGATION. But Mike that ignores the undeniable fact, rich people are only rich because they work so much harder than anybody else, and poor people are only poor because they are lazy deadbeats who could so easily join the super rich but for the lack of a bit of hard work under their belts.

that's kinda double standards though isn't it and suggests more a chip on the shoulder attitude because it's not fait that someone else has more than me (not intended as an insult so please don't take offence) like I said , one group is blatantly breaking the law , the other is legally manipulating around it .... there is a difference whether we like it or not / fair or not well law and justice are two completely different things, but then it's easy to legally manipulate yourself around paying tax when the system is set up to make it easy to for people with enough wealth, poorer people have to resort to plain breaking the law to avoid tax

small point but if they are legally avoiding ways of pay tax , then how do they become crooks and thieves ? As it was in the news today it reminded me , but whenI had my new kitchen fitted the other year I paid the Plasterer , electrician and the fitter in cash ... I suspect that not one of them declared that income .. so that IS theft ... what these other people are doing doesn't appear to be breaking any current laws , other than maybe a moral one Ok my electricians couple of hundred quid isn't in the same league as few trillion but I bet when he went down the pub that night and told all his mates that he had a result with a cash in hand job I bet they all said "Nice one mate" rather than pointing out the laws that he had broken and going into outrage mode on the interweb not paying tax, just because a legal loophole has been provided is still dodging paying it, especialy when that loophole has been provided for the very rich only to exploit, It's amazing how few loopholes there are for you average working stiff. But I'd sure be surprised if there is no illegal tax dodging going on, and that's before we explore how plenty of this 13 trillion was attained, weather in a legally or morally fair way. All because money wasn't attained illegally doesn't always mean it was gained fairly and without a bit of dodgy dealing. As for your scenario regarding you builders, I guess avoiding VAT had nothing to do with paying in cash, so if full VAT was charged than surely the income would need to be declared to tally up the books, otherwise they would be guilty of VAT fraud as well as denying Income tax. but getting away from the aside I've gotten into above, it's strange how someone almost painting 13trillion beng ferreted away for tax avoidance reasons as a good thing has been ignored.