villaguy

Anyone watching the spurs game? What are the two teams playing like? Just seen 23 shots and 10 on target for spurs versus 4 shots off target for Cardiff. They'll be regretting the Benteke transfer failure even more if it stays at 0-0

If you backed this MU to beat city away you should never gamble again mate. ;-) City hadn't looked that good until now apart from the first 45 against Newcastle

Maybe a bit ott from me but I'm feeling a bit sore from them ruining my bet

Van Persie is vital to United, they're no better than us without him, I'd love Villa to play United without him in their side

Going to be a landslide

bets out the window Can't see us getting a clean sheet next week if this Man City turn out against us, gonna be a high scoring game so I hope we have Benteke back

Still early days. Long way to go, but signs don't look great

He was an English talent doing quite well for himself, he'll leave on loan and then probably permanently or end up on the bench like Young. Of course, Moyes believes Young is better than Kagawa so maybe he'll get a chance. God knows. Moyes has always liked Young, used to pay him quite a few compliments when he was with us

Win for United and I'm sitting on a nice few quid from my weekend bets Come on United!!!!

Bannan has a typical game that we would see from him, looked neat and tidy on the ball, a few nice passes, but ultimately didn't make any challenges, never helped out defensively and was anonymous for long spells. I think they'll soon realise that he isn't a very good premier league player

Their fans are raving about him, they reckoned he was one of their few decent players up to now in the game

Stoke are playing decent football under Hughes, lots of possession

A fair amount of talk that Chris Hughton will be sacked from Norwich management on Monday, seems harsh if it's more than rumours

He tweeted he'll know more tomorrow

There's a lot of nutters in this world, I'm unashamedly atheist

Early goal for Swansea, pretty catastrophic defending from Palace. Bannan has started for them

Anyone think he looks like Chuka Umunna, just seen him on TV and thought of Delph immediately

On energy, it's not a matter of persuading people, so much as redirecting investment, subsidy and taxation away from dirty and into clean energy. On a smaller scale, when we went from leaded to unleaded petrol, it wasn't a case of persuading people to switch, but of requiring manufacturers to change, allowing a lead-in time, and enforcing it. Some people didn't like it - they thought they could detect tiny differences in how their engine sounded or performed, which were worth other people's kids having their brains damaged by ingesting lead. But it happened, because there was political will to make it happen. With energy, some countries are investing a lot in renewables, while others are in hock to the vested interests of corporations whose owners get vastly rich by poisoning the rest of us. We could do what Germany's doing. And developing countries in sunny areas (that's quite a few of them) can be helped to develop solar power; they don't need to make coal-burning power plants. They need help in doing that. Increasing their wealth via renewable energy will do more for global warming than trying to reduce their populations. As a side-effect, their increasing wealth will almost certainly mean they choose to produce fewer children anyway; that tends to be what happens. It's not long ago that we used to repair things instead of throw them away. That's partly about having the skill and time to do it or else access to someone who can do it at reasonable cost, and it's partly about taxing deliberate waste. We recycle a fair bit more in this country than we used to a few years back, though not as much as we used to a few years before that. It's not a given that we must be the powerless puppets of corporations who prefer us to buy new than mend and use again. A combination of community resources and clear political leadership would go a long way. Food production and consumption changes fairly quickly. Tastes can be influenced and changed by education, by advertising and other propaganda, by taxing some foods highly relative to others. As you mention, crisis would also give a push. There was a piece on the radio recently about how in Greece, people are being taught again how to grow their own food, including learning from what was done in the UK in the last war to stimulate self-production. Of course this activity produces all sorts of benefits but doesn't appear in gdp, so it looks as though the economy's getting worse when in fact it's getting better, at least in that limited respect. Instead of allowing land to be hoarded by speculators hoping to make fat profits from doing the square root of ****-all, we could appropriate the land and massively expand access to allotments. We could limit the amount of land allowed to be used for producing animal feed, and restrict animal imports. Just punishing people for eating vile burgers made from extruded scraps of cow and horse gristle won't work - you have to provide an accessible, more palatable alternative, and use taxation to change prices to shape behaviour. And so on... Even if people chose to be vegetarians, once the population gets to a certain figure, you are still going to need to chop down the rainforests, drain the wetlands etc. to make enough land available for crop production. The conflict between conservation and economics is the fact that bio-diversity doesn't have an intrinsic value, only things that can be profited from will be seen as a priority to be preserved. This will leave a future environment that is very sterile and artificial. Doesn't sound like my idea of a great planet, the economy might be maximised, but at what cost to the quality of life. That's the reason behind my beliefs essentially

Looking at the table I can't believe how Everton have amassed 9 points, they haven't played that great so far, especially for the first few games and had a bit of luck against Chelsea.

Jose's just come out and said that Mata has not delivered thus far and has subsequently been dropped. Got to be something wrong with their relationship. Also said he doesn't want to play defender type players in midfield, not his style. That would explain Luiz's omission, I think he's a class player

You're definitely on the side of the majority, that's why democratic governments seem to chose this option. They wouldn't get re-elected if they took the environmentally friendly, harder to stomach and less popular choice

Apparently Di Canio was asking the fans whether they wanted him to stay or not The Sunderland forum is not a happy place at the minute

You sound like an idiot to me, anyway show me evidence I'm a racist and also that the world can support 10 to 15 billion at Western living standards where the worlds eco systems haven't been wiped out in order to make way for arable land With respect calling Levi an idiot is both dumb and disrespectful But getting it back to being light hearted Now Levi will post 600 lines of programmer code showing how he is right ... And when he does I'm holding you responsible Villaguy Ok, fair enough. I take it back Mr Levi, I'm a lowly racist moron, sorry for having any kind of position on the topic

We don't have to have unheated homes (though it's worth noting that even in Aberdeenshire, one of the colder parts of the UK, there are modern unheated homes where people live perfectly comfortably because they've been designed well). We don't have to subsist on lentil soup, but we do have to get away from the late C20 idea that three servings of meat a day is either sensible or sustainable. We don't have to live without using energy, though we do have to live with renewable energy, not having continual wars to drag more fossil fuels out of the ground to poison the earth even more. We don't have to have a crap standard of living, but we do have to escape from the idea that a good standard of living is buying endless plastic, disposable shite that's deliberately designed to break down once out of guarantee. The idea of continuing with current patterns of consumption, while telling others to reduce their population and at the same time causing wars, crop destruction, forest logging and mass population movement as a consequence of the wars we foment to win and keep control of fossil fuels, is simply insane. Barking, saucer-eyed, howling-at-the-moon mad. Yeah I agree with all of these points, however we don't seem to be doing a good job of it so far, and the exponential population growth isn't making things any easier for future generations

The problems with the global environment (the man-made ones) have been caused by the type of economic development we have pursued. An individual in the US uses about 250-300 times the amount of carbon as an individual in Mali. The answer is clearly not population reduction in Mali, but behaviour change in the western economies. And the answer is certainly not preserving current rates of resource usage in the West, while drawing up the gangplank to deny entry to others and hoping that solves the problem. In comparison to the problem of western lifestyle and consumption, population growth is pretty small beer. This is why it's difficult to take seriously what Population Matters are saying. It's like the house is on fire, and they're telling us all to look at the garden shed. But surely birth control measures are the only solution. It isn't Mali that is the concern, it's the combination of the whole of Africa, India, China, Bangladesh etc. wanting a western life. This is understandable and they should, but unfortunately the finite Earth cannot support all those demands from 7 billion and climbing people. Just what is the alternative? Why differentiate that the global environment is man made, there's not an inch of the planet that is out of limits to being affected by over burden surely