meregreen

Those ratings are a tad generous. Frankly we didn't have to be particularly good to beat a game, but limited, Rotherham side. A lot of our players barely broke sweat. You simply have to take account of the opposition when judging these things. I gave most of our team 6's because thats all they needed to deliver in order to win comfortably. My three exceptions were Weiman , Benteke and Okore, who all got 7's.

The day anyone defending these zero hour contracts requests that their employer puts them on one, is the day I might take their callous reasoning seriously. I don't expect any takers.

Service sector is the weakest sector for an economy to rely on. Jobs can come and go at an alarming rate. Many of these jobs will be part time or zero hours, not to say generally low paid . Until this country adopts the German model of high tech, high pay, top end manufacturing, in partnership with, not in conflict with its labour unions then we will continue to become a nation divided between the have lots and have very littles. Good that jobs are being created. But that is by no means the whole story. Balls generally has a better grasp of this than that idiot Osborne.

when you view it by deaths per capita we are streets ahead of the US ....i.e you're more likely to die in a UK hospital than a US one That's probably a better gauge than how efficient they are .... Doesn't change the fact that the NHS is far more efficient than most others though.

In a survey quoted in the Guardian , of 25 Health care systems studied worldwide the NHS was the second most efficient per capita. Ireland was top. the USA with its largely run for profit system was amongst the worst. Doesn't quite fit the image painted does it.

Without doubt the greatest Prime Minister ever. Such an unassuming man in stature, but a true giant. When you think of the time he came to power, just after a World War, with the country virtually bankrupted by that great conflict, his and that great Labour governments achievements were quite staggeringly wonderful. Just saying like.

We'll have to disagree on this one. To me if a player is playing well, he stays on. If he isn't he comes off, simples.

How old are you? Has to be the daftest reason ever given for making a substitution. I don't see what age has got to do with it? Neither do I see whats so daft as to thinking players get tired over 90 minutes so you should use substitutes? We are talking about professional athletes here. Prior to the 1960's substitutes didn't even exist. You bring on substitutes when you think they will make a difference, end of. If thats the reason why we use Substitutes, then why is it that Weimann comes off in games when he's working his ass off and doing well? Weimann is usually subbed on about 70-75 minutes because he's running all the time! Surely thats a substitution to combat the tiredness of a player? EDIT: I suppose I should add I don't believe the SOLE reason for using substitutes is to combat tiredness. I believe there are a number of different factors that determine when/whether a substitution should be made. You were advocating making substitutions simply because Fulham were. If Weimann was substituted because he was tired, fair enough. That has nothing to do with Fulhams subs coming on.

How old are you? Has to be the daftest reason ever given for making a substitution. I don't see what age has got to do with it? Neither do I see whats so daft as to thinking players get tired over 90 minutes so you should use substitutes? We are talking about professional athletes here. Prior to the 1960's substitutes didn't even exist. You bring on substitutes when you think they will make a difference, end of.

How old are you? Has to be the daftest reason ever given for making a substitution.

you can take your view of Bannan from the TV if you like. But speaking as someone who was at the match, I think he was shit.

Peter Withe had some interesting observations on Gabby while commentating at a match . He noted that Gabby was far too often a spectator on the pitch , that he only became animated when the ball was in his immediate vicinity. Withe said that when he personally was playing he had always prefered to keep on the move in order to work the defenders. Withe has a point, Gabby is a very easy player to mark. Not sure you can actually coach this kind of thing into a player. Outside of pace, he doesn't engender the kind of guile that separates the best from the rest.

Here's one from this week, specially crafted for the by-election and aimed squarely at potential Ukip voters. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/380278/David-Cameron-vows-to-get-tough-on-freeloading-foreigners I don't really see anything xenophobic there. Should have gone to spec savers.

Our best players over the last few years have all been poached by other teams. He's still here. Thats because none of the top teams rate him. Neither do I. An at best,very average player.

Nothing in open play ? You must have got in late. Weimans chance came from open play did it not? Oue midfield aint too good at the best of times, but it's better without a Scottish twelve year old in it.

Thats my opinion. If you disagree, fine.

. I too wish him well, but he was a pretty average player. Thats not negative, its an honest opinion held by many. Other people are entitled to disagree with you.

No new jobs at Land Rover. They are simply giving permanent contracts to workers already there who were on temporary contracts.

Not entirely sure what your argument is here. In your earlier post your claim that the 19th century was a Golden age seemed to be based upon the fact that we had an Empire that scanned the globe and were undergoing an industrial revolution. I replied that ordinary peoples lives at that time were hardly condusive to labelling the era as a Golden age. You then counter this by stating that the whole world was suffering these depradations and that an awful child mortality rate of 38.1% was an improvement on an even more dreadful earlier one. Both of these facts would I think rather confirm that that particular period in history was most certainly not a Golden age. Personally I think we have yet to see any age deserve that accolade. Empires and industrialisation are not the best benchmark to measure such things. The quality of ordinary peoples lives is in my opinion of far greater imporance, and as you say,at that time, that was pretty awful on a global scale. I suppose it comes down to what the individuals criteria is for measuring such things. Ours obviously differ somewhat.

During that so called Golden Age most of our population lived in abject poverty and struggled to find enough to eat. Housing was rank and life expectancy for working class people was below 60. Trade Unionism and a determination by ordinary people to oppose the worst exesses of the Capitalist Market system slowly dragged our people from that squalor. The present Government seems to be doing its best to return us to those days.

All hail the "Beast of Bolsover". What you see is what you get. Not too many of todays politicians qualify for that accolade.

It annoys me that wages for some hard working people in this country are so disgustingly low that they have to rely on benefit top ups to achieve a living wage.

The point to remember is that a universal benefit is now a means tested one. That 50,000 ceiling will I believe be eroded in real terms over a period of time, ie by not uprating in line with inflation, something already being imposed on welfare benefits, until it is simply paid to fewer and fewer people. Ultimately the Tories will have a long term aim of destroying it altogether.

Sometimes it is possible to tell very quickly if someone is good enough. He simply isn't good enough.

It isn't the Governments role to ignore sections of society either. Society has obligations too. It isn't just about ourselves and our families. What she advocated turned our country into a pig trough. Those with the biggest snouts got, and continue to get the lions share. There is, contrary to what Thatcher said, such a thing as society, it is made up of individuals, but it most certainly exists and has responsibilities to those wthin it. Thatcher believed in the right of the individual to put their own interests above all else. Many now follow that path. We are a poorer country for it.