villa_chemist

Respect

Walking along the Grand Union Canal the other day I happened across this little fellow...

Maybe he's sitting behind Isembard Kingdom Brunel?

Cod and chips anyone?

I love ice rink!

Hairdressers (I know!) in Great Wyrley called Wyrley Curlies

So excited to contribute to the greatest thread on VT: Sad looking backing tab from a compeed cold sore patch...

You nonce! :-)

I like Stevens (great shot in the second half), but he looked extremely heavy legged in the last ten minutes. Short of match fitness, carrying and injury, too slow or a mixture of all three?

I'd happily read this shite all day! Carry on... :-)

Of course "rich do this, poor do that" arguments are by their nature simplified because we don't have the time, intelligence and typing ability to go through detailed breakdowns of statistical analysis of population data on a non-specialist forum. Well I don't :-) Yes there is variability within each group and considerable overlap between the two populations, but I still believe that poorer people would on average spend more of their bonus than rich people, just because they would have more things they needed rather than just wanted. Anyway, the main point of my argument that I put across poorly is that putting money into people's pockets would be a better way of stimulating the economy than putting the money onto bank's balance sheets through quantitative easing.

We've heard of him, we just keep it quiet.

'Course it's true! :-)

What proportion of a footballer's salary do you think they spend? 50%? What proportion of a person on minimum wage's salary do you think they spend? It just seems obvious that if the government's motivation was to get the economy going, then giving people a grand would be a pretty efficient way of doing it.

*sigh* a beautiful example of why arguing on the Internet is so pointless Maybe I should have said that... taking a level of income that provides a comfortable living for a family as an arbitrary threshold above which we can label people "Rich" and below which we can label people "poor", those in the "rich" category would on average (based on a normal population distribution) recycle less of that money back into the economy by buying goods and services which create employment opportunities for others and more likely to seek tax efficient hides holes for their extra income than those in the "poor" category. The reasoning being that those who live miserable lives scraping by would be more likely to buy something nice or go on holiday than someone well off buying a second 47" TV for the bog in the East Wing. However... The comparison i made was between giving cash to people rather than institutions. Tell me what wealth creation Barclays or Nat West have done with their quantitative easing and compare that to what you would have done if the Chancellor had stuck a grand in your back pocket. Which route would have got the money into the economy more efficiently? Yes I am stupid, but that comes of being educated in the worst LEA in the country under The Tories

Charlie Chaplin, born just over the border in Black Patch Park Smethwick.

Randy came in after his family had sold MBNA and had a load of cash. At the time you could reckon that 100 million could get you close to Champions League. BUT... Banking sector collapsed (I would assume that a fair amount of Randy's fortune was in banking shares considering his background, so diminished his wealth, AND... Oil millions distorted the market. The Man City effect distorted the market in the Premier League meaning that you need 200 million to get CL.

Strange, but I logged into this thread to post Dave Nellist as my favourite. I always hated Betty Boothroyd because she took up the Speaker's job (and therefore lost her voting rights) at a time when the Tories had a wafer thin majority...but it has to be the Grantham Gargoyle.

If you give money to poor people they spend it and it is recycled into the economy. If you give money to rich people they stash it away in Switzerland. Giving "ordinary" people a grand each would stimulate the economy a hell of a lot more than lining the pockets of bankers (quantitative easing).

The Phantom Flan Flinger

George Boateng is exactly the player we need. Someone so hard that when they get elbowed in the face (by Gazza no less), the player breaks his arm. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/fa_carling_premiership/643971.stm

Looks like a gibbon to me (for laughs, not intended to offend anyone's offspring ;-) )

Now then, now then.

I would not put any child of mine in with that monster.

That's very cool. When I was sixteen it was Spike, Jimi, Alex (Higgins), Steinbeck and McGrath