The9

I don't think he is.

How is removing access for everyone by default "not a restriction". It's a complete restriction. If it's ok with you, I don't want to have to declare my personal preferences about anything (this includes being a football fan, Toffifee addict, My Little Pony fetishist or gimp mask collector) to an organisation before I am permitted to be allowed to see something that is completely legal outside the computer anyway. I once had to go into O2 to remove their block on adult sites on my mobile (which I also didn't ask for) in person to prevent them from charging my account and then recrediting it as some kind of weird "adult authentication process" - the URL looked dodgy and there was no way I was sending my account details across what seemed to be an insecure site and too cheap looking to be O2's so I went in store. Turned out that was legitimately how they did it, but all I wanted to do in this case was browse a sports blog that for some reason had an over-18s block on it, and even without it being "yes I would like to view porn, look at me, I'm a porn-fan", that's not something I want to repeat.

You don't even know what you're arguing about do you ? I'm saying that people can block it at source now if they wish and that's sufficient for anyone who wants to stop children seeing it. If they really worry about it there are plenty of things they can do. As people actively have to have a computer, log in, have access and knowledge of how to use a PC and a search engine and be actually looking for porn to find it in the first place that's already a significant preventative measure to begin with for some of the most vulnerable, and I'm afraid "my 12 year old is better at computers than me" is not sufficient grounds for blocking porn (or anything else on the internet which is legal off the internet in the UK) as a de facto position. I'm astonished that Cameron actually thinks it's a vote-winner.

"Affect". And how won't it affect people ? It's a restriction on doing something many people already do perfectly legally and with no problems whatsoever which the law currently states is legal. If they're not changing the laws on non-digital porn as well it's a massive, unjustifiable waste of time and effort, and they're also doing nothing to address the problems they seem to be claiming are caused by porn, because it's still going to be readily available to anyone who wants it in paper form.

You can do the same thing at the moment by choosing to use parental filters on any browser or by requesting it from your ISP. If it's not illegal to view certain images on a piece of paper, why should it be to look at the same thing on a computer screen ?

Your argument has no logic and makes no sense. There's already a law to say porn (of certain types) can be bought and viewed legally by anyone of a certain age, and that age range doesn't include children. There's also already a law to say children can't view 18 films. This new law extends the restrictions of the existing law to include all adults as well as all children, which is a completely different type of argument. In fact, it's saying that fully-formed adult human beings who obey the law are no longer granted the choice to make their own decisions on a subject which the same legal system says is acceptable. And that new law is the equivalent of saying that no adults should be allowed to watch 18 films, not that children can do so.

It hasn't started with this, it started long before this, though the torrent site stuff was the first time it had any impact on me. And FWIW I've got no kids and the rubbish filth advert channels are locked on my Virgin Media at home purely because they're inconvenient to have on the planner 99% of the time. I haven't been keeping track, when's the next election ? Is this one of those "clearly not going to be implemented before the election" things ? Given the "liberal" origins of the Lib Dems I can't see them being in favour of OTT state regulation and why would they vote for it as part of the coalition ?

Let me get this straight. They're planning on completely blanket-banning something which is already legally only available to over 18s as it is, but only if it's a digital version? Paper-based porn is still going to be exactly the same as it is ? Is Paul Raymond a significant contributor to the Conservative Party ? Talk about an under-the-radar vote loser that no-one is going to admit to any kind of pollster on election day, anyone who wants to win an election can just put undoing this in their manifesto.

Did a little research into all of the adidas Prem teams and their releases of home and away shirts and training kit. We're lagging behind everyone else. We're also the only club with a widely disliked home kit.

I believe they are demob happy due to "up all night" Steve Grant's "busy weekend" away in Preston, he's asleep on watch and the pigs are out of the pen.

Didn't sound good when it was posted three days ago either : http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?45336-%C9ver-Banega&p=1739260#post1739260, leading to this thread going spectacularly off topic in the way only a doomed un-signing thread can.

Yup, think I'd rather have a team of turgid workers and a mobile creative genius goal-machine up front than a superb pressing and possession-keeping team with no finishing ability.

I wasn't there, playing them a zillion times in cup competitions as well as endlessly in the Championship between 2005-2009 has sapped any will to revisit Leicester I may have had. It's nice to know he might have been good there one time though, cos his effort at defending Sissoko's run at Newcastle for their first goal up there last season was pathetic for a bloke that's meant to be able to play there.

I've come to the conclusion based on recent selections that if I'm happy to watch our reserves I can do that for nothing. That may change this season, but it'll take me thinking I'm missing something first.

I no longer discuss certain players.

Not sure that's a sustainable belief when even the Football Supporters' Federation are only campaigning for £20 Prem tickets for away fans on top of travel costs... http://fsf.org.uk/campaigns/away-fans/score-campaign-twentys-plenty-for-away-tickets/ For friendlies, fair enough.

I also feel like this about most League Cup and FA Cup games nowadays. Stevenage away was the last Saints Cup game I went to, purely because it was a new ground. Don't think I've been to any of the home cup games since we were in League One.

Given that the prices for the Austria friendlies against well known European sides are both under £15 I think this is pretty steep, and was surprised to see people saying otherwise. It's a friendly, nothing of consequence will happen, and it's by definition not competitive and the team isn't ready for the season. I paid €45 to watch Granada v Villarreal in La Liga about 18 months ago, but £18 to watch a Saints v Real Sociedad friendly ? Nah. And I will be considering going to a cheaper match on the same day (even if it costs more for transport to get there instead, which suggests to me that it's not JUST the price, it's a lack of interest too).

Cork is a bloody terrible right back who I've never seen play even averagely in that position. We'd be insane to consider him the back up.

You'll find out at the first game of the season.

Can't argue with the bit about playing well without, but I've always put that down to building the system to play to his strengths, which is not necessarily the best way to get the best performance out of a different XI players.

Will be a very similar story for any striker who has mostly played in the lower leagues, has one or two vaguely successful years in the Prem, has previously got a team up from the Championship, has a year left on their contract and is over 30 but under 35. The Prem club will want to sell for whatever they can get which isn't the "nothing" they'll get a year later, and if they want to stay in the Prem they'd better be signing players who are better than their over 30 player who has already peaked.

Oh and as far as "future name changes" go, the best way is just to change them for 2012 and lump it, as I'd rather have them correct from 2013 onwards than just be right for the first season. Also solves the Barry and Llanelli issues, just make them extinct for 2012 (Barry didn't finish the season and promote someone southern to the WPL if you can't get the league to run with 11 clubs), then create the new Barry Town United and AFC Llanelli clubs and link them and dump their renamed selves into the south wales senior or amateur leagues (assuming that's where they end up at the end of this summer, bit of a political mess with the blazers there).

Since I posted that I've added the other Gwent Leagues (Gwent East, North Gwent and Gwent Central) so there are now a few more divisions below Gwent County Div 3 and the very bottom tier 11. At the moment I'm trying to work out if there's any way which doesn't involve editing every single team's "Regional Leagues" to not have loads of promotion and relegation problems where teams go to the wrong local leagues, because I've run a few multi-season sim tests, and unfortunately Newport-based teams (which should go up from Npt & District 3/2/1/Prem into Gwent County 3/2/1 then Welsh League 3/2/1 then Welsh Premier) keep jumping across into Wrexham and Clwyd-based leagues, which is REALLY tedious. I took the original Wales update file supplied by someone else you can download to begin with, so I'm currently trying to update all the teams with the correct routes through lower leagues (some of them had gaps and they leave logic holes which are filled by "wrong" teams, and I've added "Welsh Lower Leagues" for teams to drop into when they hit the bottom division, which hopefully will work even though the bottom divisions are all at different levels). That's because I think part of the problem is that the lowest football in Clywd is only at Tier 7, and even though I've said "no relegation from the Clywd East League", teams still get promoted into it from other Tier 8 Leagues from other areas. I notice the Gwent teams appearing in the Clywd leagues because I know all of the Gwent teams having played against a lot of them when I lived there AND of course having just edited them all into the game. So if I can steer every time into the right league, then I hopefully won't get any sides jumping up into the wrong divisions. I'm also sodding about with all of the reserve teams because at that level there are Welsh League sides' 4th teams in the district local leagues and as you can only have 3 teams per club, even though you can affiliate a side and give them a similar name to create the link, it's hard to stop the "D" team from doing better than the C and playing in leagues above the affiliated club. And you don't want the D team to be in a league above the C... There's also one league where the "big" County-level club has three reserve teams in the same division, FFS. Until I get all that working (and until I get permission from the original db creator) I won't be sharing it. I could send the hundreds of (real) Gwent county and district team badges I've created too, but without the teams to link them to they're not much use. So you'll have to wait a bit to play as Infusion Sports Bar (formerly the Ivy Bush) in the Newport and District Div 3, or the particularly problematic (4th team) Veterans side one of the bigger clubs has in the East Gwent... I had to create 5 teams for that to get the Vets to play in a reserve league as they do in real life, and not assign the veterans' first team to anything. Oh, and I think I solved the "all teams want a new ground" thing, by setting a load of the default grounds to have been built in 2000. Allegedly (and it seems to work), there's some kind of rule that then prevents them moving within 20 years - and after about 7 game-years I'd happily put up with them all shifting about a bit more.