CB Fry

There are loads of properties available in London for less than £2m, though. Loads.

This forum needs a new people's hero now that everyone has forgotten St Ched of Evans.

If we actually had dreams and ambition, he wouldn't want to leave.

In fairness I think we should all sit back and relish the UKIP supporting, fully paid up member of Nigel's "anti-establishment" people's army Lord Duckhunter complaining about "dog whistle politics". Arf. Here boy, here Ducky, phweeeeeeeeeeeep.

So, looks like there's a few direct quotes that the lazy scumbag journalist has completely made up. Like earlier in the season, I imagine it is yet another case of one of the big clubs paying journalists to write made up stories to destabilise us, like all that nonsense about out head of youth development going to Tottenham. Who is paying the Sun this time though? I reckon Man United.

I'm thinking more of the impact worldwide when the YouTube of it goes viral. Them Turin Ultras and those fans with the arrows pointing to the goal will be sick when they see how creative we can be.

It would be awful if anyone "deluded" themselves that they were somehow "superior" to other posters wouldn't it.... Good luck with your next razor-sharp "parody" that dopey old me could never hope to "notice".

Just seen the #milifandom thing. I think it's quite amusing that some people on twitter are saying "it's fake because it's run by a card carrying young Labour member". Well, yeah. Who else would start a Miliband hero worship thing on twitter? A retired Colonel? A 28 year old plumber in Sevenoaks? Neil Hamilton? "Labour in own supporter expressing support hypocrisy scandal"

They've got a big old (new) ground to fill and we haven't. We can just about fill ours at a high price so no real need to take prices down.

There have been taxes based on house values for a very long time, you'll be paying one now.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1702262/Nice-little-earner-Cameron-rents-out-his-London-house.html £2.7m in 2010?

Like them all, particularly this one. But still, Bearsy???? ??

Er, no. I got the lame joke. I think the phrase that best describes you is "not an original thought in your head". Sweet you are still patting yourself on the back for your "parody". And me describing it as "moronic" is not "getting all precious". Yet another misfire. Anyway, I accept your apology on your pitiful misunderstanding of my charity comment.

Of course they would. And the nation's biggest charities have a media/advertising/communication budget that is easily comparable to any number of consumer brands/service companies. Because their objective is to get people to spend their disposable income. And once you spend once you are encouraged to repeat spend through further tailored communication. Basic marketing. And good luck to em.

Nice try on a cheap point score but a pitiful misinterpretation of what I said. Obviously, as Hypo pointed out in my absence, I was talking about the act/active choice of giving to charities and not what charities actually do. Big difference. Lord Trousers himself talked about donating his "spare" money so that point was never in debate between us anyway. But hey, well done on getting all precious. Oh well, at least you won't be able to most anything more moronic than that today. Sorry, my mistake.

I think you are the one 'framing' it.

In fairness a charity is more like a retailer/service than a "wealth redistributor". Spending on charity is in its rawest form, is simply a lifestyle choice like going to Tesco or joining Bupa. Your purchase may help others but you are also purchasing your right to go on Web forums and talk about your charity donations you don't like to talk about. And you can bin it all off tomorrow. Not quite wealth redistribution.

It's a simple case of fixing the credit card while the roof shines. Or something.

We've done that. Just before you said "way to kill the thread guys".

You also know perfectly well my post #244, which you quoted and you also understand what I was referring to. The topic of thread did have witnesses and did happen. It's why it isn't hearsay.

The person running the investigation interviewed witnesses, the person the tree fell on, and the flaming tree itself. Kinda why it isn't hearsay. Apparently that's, like, a legal term and everything.

Why is tax rate the only relevant metric? In the entire spectrum of fairness, that's your go-to measure as the "only" fair thing to do? Wouldn't the single most fair thing be if every single person had exactly the same income? Just as dopey as your suggestion.

Apparently it did but it's all legally "hearsay" because someone on a football forum can't stand up in court and say it did. That's definitely what "hearsay" means.

...and the results of an investigation into that tree falling is published across every media outlet in Britain, then a tree has fallen down.

This. Remember being baffled when at Villa Martin O'Neil threw away a Europa Quarter Final just to try and break the top 4 that season, which obviously they failed to do. Ended up back in the Europa again. I hope we go for it and are still in it come next March. And if we're 12th in the league then, so be it.