peterms

... some policies are just ridiculous and would require bankrupting the country to fund them.

Which policies are you thinking of?

Green policy on Drugs I believe to be quite sensible, similar to the dutch model, but more support through NHS for hard drug addicts (e.g. Heroine addicts)

Their Energy policy is good in principle but would either not be different to what is being done already, OR will need a HUGE sum of money to get it done in a relatively quick time (30 years or so). They want pretty much 100% renewable energy, which can't be done, not until technology in renewables significantly makes them more efficient.

Drugs policy is an interesting area. If you approach it from an economic standpoint, I think it might be more cost-effective to have a policy based on treatment and intervention aimed at managing the problem, coupled with looking for alternatives for those using the stuff - which in turn gets into trying to understand why they are using. Is it a personal issue around addictive personality? A social thing about peer groups and lifestyle? Is it related to limited economic prospects?

In most cases, money spent on trying to understand and treat the issue would be more effective, and would produce a better quality of life for the rest of us, than an approach based on trying to catch them after their four hundredth burglary and bang them up for a few months, releasing them to go back to the same old thing.

But we seem to have a policy based a little more on the idea of punishment, and treatment as something which should play a minor role rather than the main plank of policy.

I reckon this more liberal policy wouldn't cost more, probably less, and would be more effective in curbing both drug use and the unpleasant impacts on the rest of us.

Energy - tough one. We've known since at least the 70's that our current energy policy can only lead to recurrent energy crises, economic destabilisation, and environmental catastrophe. We also know that there are alternative technologies which can help deal with a large part of the problem. We know that they require big investment to make them work, that the private sector won't lead the way, but that if there are enough tax penalties for bad energy use and rewards for good energy use, then people very quickly change their behaviour, firms (for example) start making windows and boilers with greater thermal efficiency, the costs fall because production is on a larger scale, and it all becomes a bit more affordable.

If you see a change in energy policy as something which must be wholly state-funded, then it's unaffordable without massive tax increases. If the government chooses to create costs and benefits to encourage and discourage certain behaviours, then it starts to look more affordable, as in Germany for example (they haven't got their energy policy sorted and foolproof, but they seem a bit further down the road than us).

But really, the question is not whether we need to invest much, much more in renewables. It's how, and how quickly, we can do so. Timid nods in the direction of a few wind farms while appeasing the oil companies really won't work.

In the same way, recognising that radical changes in energy policy are needed, while voting for people who won't make this change, won't work either.

... some policies are just ridiculous and would require bankrupting the country to fund them.

Which policies are you thinking of?

So Walker didn't say he had threatened to resign but that the Chiefs had - ie, the heads of each service and not Walker as CDS - a political appointment. It sounds to me like he's saying to the PM: "don't worry, although they may be pissed off now I'll be able to throw it back in their faces for wanting the big ticket items (Navy = Carriers, Army = FRES, RAF = Typhoon) they need to perform their roles, and cuts will be dressed up as, er, modernisation.

The post of CDS is to essentially manage the Armed Forces for the politicians, not to look after the interests of servicemen and their individual arms. For example Peter, my own unit was 'modernised' out of exisitence as part of the army restructuring that cut four infantry battalions. Political use of language by a CDS doesn't exactly sink the broader premise that they were underfunded for the roles they were required to undertake.

That won't wash, Jon.

MOD has been overspending for years. They knew years before 2004 that they would have to make cuts in their wishlist in order to keep in line with what they knew was available to them. Instead of doing so, like every other department had to, they both continued spending on big expensive projects which were allowed to overspend to a criminal extent, then they tried a trainee accountant's ruse to break the known spending rules, but it wasn't allowed.

So they disbanded four divisions, because that was something they preferred to do rather than control their budgets or rein in their pet projects.

And also, I have no doubt, because that was more visible and more politically unacceptable, as a means of trying to make people feel they were being downtrodden by a heartless Treasury.

Now, we hear all the stuff about "Ooh, I was so cross! I nearly gave him a piece of my mind, I nearly did!".

What a bunch of bullshitters.

General Lord Walker, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, has said that defence chiefs threatened to resign over the cuts they had to make because of the 2004 settlement.

Mr Brown insisted that the chiefs had been happy with that budget. [!!]

"The spending review of 2004 was welcomed by the chiefs of our defence staff,” he said. “They were satisfied at the end of the review that they had the resources they needed.”

That claim has been challenged by senior military figures, with one former head of the Armed Forces calling it “disingenuous.”

Here's a slightly different take on it:

In the final section on funding, Brown was dismissive of General Lord Walker of Aldringham, the former chief of the defence staff, who told the inquiry that Britain's military chiefs nearly resigned in a row over funding after the war. Brown read out a letter from Walker following the 2004 financial settlement.

"Although the settlement is tight I shall be able to make it clear that the chiefs have been the architects of the modernisation plans and they are not the result of inadequate funding," Walker wrote.

Seems like the Torygraph missed that bit. Still, I expect it's hard to maintain concentration all through such a long hearing. Or perhaps the journo had to nip to the toilet at that point. Could happen to anyone.

So, do you believe a raft of people for whom honesty and integrity is a way of life, or, do you believe Gordon Brown whose record of speaking the truth is at best, highly questionable? Still he selected the inquiry members so it's not really surprising they allowed him to sail through it.

So, do I believe the claims now being made by these people that they were so outraged that they threatened to resign but, er, didn't, or do I believe the quote from the letter Walker wrote at the time?

Should we accept the account they are now giving on the grounds that you think that honesty and integrity must be necessary parts of their makeup, or do we believe what Walker wrote at the time?

It's not really a hard call, is it?

Another ref - I think Jeff Winter - has been on R5 saying that because Gabby's direction at the moment of the foul was not directly towards goal but slightly to one side, there's scope for not giving a red. And that stuff about last man etc doesn't come into the rule. So we was defending it on the technicality of the rule rather than what most people understand the rule to be aimed at.

He also said that refs will apply common sense and be mindful of the occasion, which means that the ref will give himself time to think and look for a reason not to send someone off, which is a strange one because he is saying that different standards of rules apply for different matches, which I would have thought goes against the whole ethos of the game.

Though he did say it should have been at least a yellow.

Thought this was a balanced account: Aston Villa matched United all over the pitch, but were undone by the human force of nature known as Wayne

One day last week Martin O'Neill summoned his players to a meeting at Aston Villa's training ground. This was their moment, he told them. They had an opportunity to make it a season they would never forget, and it would begin by them playing the match of their lives. The door was locked and, for an hour and a half, he went round his players, telling them what he liked about each of them, why he trusted them and why they should line up against Manchester United and know they could outdo them man for man.

As inspirational speeches go, it was an epic demonstration of the man's powers of motivation. O'Neill has always had that knack of knowing what to say to get under his players' skin.

Villa played with width and penetration. They were quick to the ball, strong in the tackle and they did something that not many teams have done over the past few seasons: they made Nemanja Vidic look ordinary. Even though Sir Alex Ferguson's men had marginally more chances, the only difference really was that United had the human force of nature otherwise known as Wayne Mark Rooney.

It used to be said of Rooney that his only flaw was his heading ability, and probably with some justification given the fact he had scored only four times this way in his first 316 games as a Premier League footballer. He now has nine this season, and seven of his last eight goals have come from that freckled forehead, which is the kind of record to remind United's older supporters of Tommy Taylor, the club's equivalent of Nat Lofthouse and one of the Busby Babes to lose his life in the Munich air tragedy.

It was difficult, though, not to sympathise with Villa as the 27th cup final of Ferguson's career ended with Patrice Evra hoisting that funny three-handled trophy and the fireworks and ticker tape adding to the kaleidoscope of colour at an end of the stadium where the green and gold mingled with red, black and white. O'Neill was a picture of misery but at least he will not be tormented by the sense that his players let themselves down.

Just because they lost, it does not automatically follow that they played badly. Richard Dunne, that serial scapegoat, may find himself waking in a cold sweat after his mistake for Michael Owen's equaliser, the sort that epitomised his last season at Manchester City but that he seemed to have eradicated this campaign. That apart, however, there was plenty to admire about O'Neill's side, from the way James Milner distinguished himself in front of the watching England manager, Fabio Capello, to the wing play of Stewart Downing and Ashley Young and the latest demonstration of how the largely unsung James Collins has developed into a centre-half of distinction.

United just had that little bit extra. Michael Carrick and Darren Fletcher gradually emerged as the more authoritative midfield pairing. Dimitar Berbatov will always do something to exasperate his audience but there were some lovely moments from the Bulgarian, too, and he played a significant part in both United goals.

Antonio Valencia's penetrative right-wing runs and accurate deliveries won him the man-of-the-match champagne. As for the man of the moment, when Rooney came on for the injured Owen he set about winning the match as though he had been affronted to have been left out of the starting line-up.

As Ferguson remarked last week: "The hallmark of a truly great player is the ability to grab a game by the scruff of the neck." Rooney did just that, making sure his impact was the most important on a day when virtually everyone on the pitch contributed to one of the more enjoyable finals since the opening of the new stadium.

Or, rather, everyone but the referee. Phil Dowd made so many erratic decisions, booking players for one offence but then letting off others for almost identical infringements, he was fortunate that the players conjured up a spectacle that was engrossing enough to divert the attention from his shortcomings. For that, Villa can take their share of credit, but Rooney has something special when he can be rested from the team but still inflict all the damage.

I want to see Villa win things, but we were **** awful all game, not one player looked like he wanted to take the game to the opposition.

As soon we get into the opponents half we look to pass it back to defence, with stuoid little passes that have no weight on them and are easily intercepted, Cuellar couldn't pass the parcel....... his distribution is terrible for a premier league defender, Young thinks every game is about him, and that he is the only player on the pitch..... step over step over, straight into the defender.... time after time.

Not one player can say they tried 100% today.

What a surprising view.

I thought we were up for it today, generally played well, put them under pressure probably more than most teams they play, and made chances. We looked a bit tired at the end, and didn't make the most of the chances created. But we looked competitive, threatening, and played our full part in what was a pretty entertaining game.

I didn't think it was a penalty live, but then I was a good hundred plus yards away and I'm a one eyed biased Villa fan with a grudge.

The tackle itself was a foul, but Warnock was fouled by Lee hitting him in the face before the tackle was made. I assume the ref didn't see that bit, rather than deciding it was a fair challenge. It looked quite deliberate, the way that Heinze used to do a rugby handoff every time someone ran past him, while looking the other way to make it seem accidental.

I desperately hope the players never read this board. It depresses me but it would probably destroy a players confidence. 5-2 with some amazing play and still negativity. Some days I find this board brilliant but most match days it's terrible to read. Nothing quite like having a GREAT day, driving back to Wales and having your sunshine pissed on. Every week. We as fans have become sh*t, frankly.

I think it's appalling. Today we equalled our record for goals conceded during prem games at home. How shit is that?

It's just lucky that so many teams are worse than us, or else we'd be relegated.

Hope the 2 goals will give Downing a bit of confidence, he's been poor of late.

He's been very disappointing, but the goals really did seem to make a big difference in how he was playing. Definitely more confident and adventurous once he'd scored.

I suppose he's had a difficult time with a long term injury and then trying to get fit and in form, but I hadn't been too impressed with him. If he can play a few games like most of today's second half, I'll be very happy with that.

We need to figure out how to brake down a team who sit and defend

Just hit the left pedal.

How will the clutch help?

Automatic?

Can't you just buy 2 tomatoes?

Yes perhaps bad example.... Eggs... You get the idea though...

Yeah buy Japanese. Those Toyotas are pretty reliable, I've heard.

Might be a good time to get a good deal on a Toyota, though.

ta! printed and ready to shop - took you 7 mins however! Wondered what the methi was. Looking forward to using decent Gavin Masala - big supermarket stuff has ruined a few dishes of mine.

Who's Gavin Masala? :winkold:

Some recipes may also call for green cardamom, black cardamom, fennel seeds, mustard seeds, black onion seeds.

This book has some great recipes, if you don't mind a mix of old favourites and some innovation.

A Xsara? The C4 Picasso is supposed to be better. But the C3 Picasso gets the best reviews. Don't think there are many second hand yet, it was only launched a few months ago. The 1.6 diesel pays £35 a year road tax, apparently.

Latest mantis pic - still not very big!

Have you entered the Guardian competition? This month, the theme is macro, and I think it closes on Monday.

Ok here we go, masala dosa

First make a batter from rice, urad dahl and methi seed

Rob, I think this may need a bit more explanation.

They're great.

Also like

Well I went for 70-80%, and I'm very much a MON supporter.

It's true the standard of marking is getting softer these days.

A salesman goes up to a house and knocks on the front door. It's opened by a little twelve year-old boy who has a lit cigar in one hand, a glass of whiskey in the other and a Penthouse magazine tucked under his arm.

The salesman say, "Hello, son. Is your mum or dad home?"

The little boy responds, "What the **** do you think?"

Rob, doesn't that merit the award of a pic of a solid defender in a refuse receptacle three or four times just on your own account, never mind the times other people have posted it?

It really **** me off how many of you guys think that was pathetic. One of the best teams in the world,and we are unhappy with 4 points from them. Every claret and blue player on the pitch played their absolute **** hearts out and worked soooo hard for each other.

god damn, fickle is right.

I should be pissed we drew cause if we had won I woulda cashed an easy $850. But I'm not, 4 points from them and the way we played in this game lifts my spirits, we have what it takes to be top 4. if you think otherwise go see a doctor.

At the start of the season, 4 points would have been a very acceptable prospect. But after 20 minutes of the second game, with the situation as it was then, it's a real disappointment.

It would have been OK if we'd played better and still not been able to break them down, but that really wasn't a good performance.

Is anyone managing to watch it rather than just listening? Should that have been a penalty?

I thought so. Held his arm and pulled him down, like a judo hold.

I've got twenty quid on this, and I don't think I'll be collecting.

Giggs off. His wanking claw is playing up again.

Berbatov on.

I can't remember. Was the fact that he was asian relevant or was it just 'normal' nightclub violence? i.e. are people incorrectly using the race card to worsen the crime?

I suspect it was the use of the term "Paki"before committing the assault which gives a clue.