Special K

No way. when you were on Red Dwarf, you just used to like fish.

What a load of old gash. But that is enough. Now onto something far more important.

Cheek.

Doesn't mean shyte. I was a dyed-in-the-wool marxist when i was at Uni!

IDS was on the Today programme the other morning and was careful to stress it wouldn't be wholesale (i.e. not everyone under 25) but aimed at those unwilling to work or at least seek to find work. Low paid under 25's, for example would not suffer. But as with all policy changes, the Conservatives have fallen foul of not really thinking through the detail and also failing to gauge the immediate questions that will be asked, instead hoping for a quick "hurrah!" amongst party rank and file. Pretty daft IMHO, much the same as Ed ****** and his "don't know what i'd do to make the economy right, but the Coalition is doing wrong" gaffe last year.

Expected reaction. Do grow up a little bit.

Who says it is. On the other foot, i dont think its too much to ask to insist layabout scroungers stop having kids they cant afford to keep and expect me and a whole load of other to pay for.What came first, the shyte work ethic or the 6 kids?

****s me you must have been there!

I think Delldays still misses you from the arrangements youse had during those evenings down at the docks.

How would he, or you, know unless he tried?

How can clothing that looks like second hand army surplus cast offs be considered as sartorial elegance? And how some of the asexual preppy clothing badly plagiarised from the flotsam and jetsam of a late 50's Ivy League university is fashionable beats me. And just because a pair of homogenous adidas trainers is coloured pink, doesn't make it cool.

I haven't listened to Radio 1 since 1996. Therefore, i cannot comment.

I haven't ****ed over a snake before, but i did **** over a couple who were copping off once. And not in a dodgy euro flick type way, but i was at a house party in the country (Owslebury way i think) and went into the barn for a jimmy. It was pitch black and started having a slash when i realised there was a lot of movement and thrashing about. Scared the **** out of me to be honest, so similar in some ways to the story above.

Brilliant stuff. What a terrific opening fixture, just the job.

We were talking about new build schemes, where, for bigger sites, there is no infrastructure or services. And Housing Associations already issue minimum requirements for their housing (size, spec, etc) and tender their works all around, so the current system is no different to what you propose. But they cannot just go around buying up land at will. It would fracture any withering confidence in the market and if they chose the wrong site, they would be left with the same issues as private developers.

Far too simplistic and inaccurate. Most developers cannot afford a) to buy spec land with no chance of getting a ticket anytime soon and b) wait for an undefined time before developing it. Berkeley's and Lindens (to some extent) were the only Developers i know of who made sure they had enough reserve to buy distressed sites in 08 and 09 and enough reserve to buy land "cheaply" whilst all the others were fretting about refinancing and renegotiating their convenants. Look at Taylor Wimpey's figures from 3 and 4 years ago for example. And all Developers WANT to build on any land they have, but more often than not, it's the bureaucracy of local authorities that hold up the process.

Generally the largest individual cost, yes.

Well it's a start, but by the time you factor in land costs, architects fees, engineers fees, (hugely overinflated) 106 contributions, 278 works and bond, air tests, sound tests, building warranty insurance, SAP calcs, Part L Bui;ding reg upgrades, finance costs, gas, electric, water and BT upgrades, not to mention the actual cost of building the house and any BREEAM assessments and/or specific planning consents, then guess what, you pretty much come up to the level that house prices are at present.

Why aren't house prices "real"? How would you value the price of a house? I am interested. And restrictions on land is not so much about who owns it, more like who decides what is gets used for (i.e. LA's, Planning Departments, Central Government).

It's not the property they lend on though. Over the last 15 or so years, the lending of mortgages to individuals is generally well within the valuation of the house, because the buyer has been able to use any equity to reduce borrowings further up the line. Obviously this doesn't apply to FTB's. The Banks main problem was not on lending for purchasing existing stock, but for new developments. Developers had land prices and project GDV's devalued in the face of a falling market. But i agree they were far too quick to pull the plug. However, if you were a bank and you had the option of a) supporting a huge slice of your commitments through the bad times with little or no return or b) pouring all your **** (and some good stuff) into the well of toxic debt knowing that the taxpayer will bail you out, what would you do?

House prices are not at unsustainable levels. Most borrowers have managed to keep up with their mortgages. The amount of repo's is nowhere near what it was in the late 80's and early 90's. If you are talking about first time buyers, then there are not the numbers of FTB's that there were, but they are still around, if they are a deemed a good risk by the lenders.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame Interesting article, this controversy will follow him for some time to come I guess. Hope the latest allegations are not true as it would re-open the book on all the previous.

That's looks pretty bleak. 10 / 10 for perseverence of the driver caught out on the right hand side there.

Spot on. I was accused by my OH of flirting with a friends wife at a Christmas do in 1998. I wasn't, but to this day she still brings it up.

Good signing. Should be real competition for forward places next season, great to see. Can't wait to see who "gels" as a forward pairing.