aintforever

If you actually read up on the science you would realise how retarded that comment is.

Of the people I know I would say it is much more to do with what you do and your skill set as opposed to how hard you work. The richest guy I know (a good salesman who started his own company) spends half his week on the golf course, he doesn't work nearly as hard as my carpenter mate. I earn more than my mate and I don't work any where as near as many hours because I happen to have a degree and more 'valued' skills. The thing is everyone thinks they work hard, wether they clean loos or run a bank, the idea that pay in today's world is proportional to how hard you work is complete b*ll*x. The system is completely screwed up, people who add no value to society can make millions with a click of a mouse dealing shares while soldiers risk their life doing the hardest job imaginable for absolute peanuts.

Maybe, but I just can't help thinking Labour have messed up. They already had the left wing vote in the bag all they had to do is steal the middle ground and the tories would be screwed. Promising this and that with no thought for the maths behind it will just send alarm bells ringing in most voters.

I did think there was a slight chance of labour winning the next election with the collapse of the Lib Dem vote and the tories losing votes to UKIP. In the last few days Milliband has ruined any idea of that. The way he has been promising this and that reminds me of a 12 year old running badly for school president. The fact that he looks like a wallace and gromit character doesn't help either, you just can't take him seriously. What have labour done? The thought of being stuck with the tories for 5 more years is just depressing.

It is p!ss funny when you compare it to what another League 2 club are getting out of a deal with a property investor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-23950993

Just saying what I was told, and as I was told it way before the kit came out so I can only assume it was correct. Maybe his preference was for solid red all along and only last year he decided to make the unpopular decision to change? If he didn't want a solid red kit, we wouldn't have a solid red kit.

WIN - Palace h LOSE - Swansea h WIN - Utd a DRAW - Fulham h LOSE Stoke a WIN - Hull h

No one is stitching UKIP up, if any politician of any party called a room full of women sluts they would get the same treatment.

I heard the same about stripes, solid red is NC's preference. Not sure why the SWF mong crewe feel the need to jump on anyone who posts a rumour.

Last time we finished above them was 1989/90 when we finished 7th, they were 13th.

It's great to see Man Utd get d!cked, their fans are going to hate getting used to being just one of the big clubs instead of being the best. They should never have given the job to a manager who had won nothing.

Just ignore him. Reading posts from people like Turkish just reminds me of being back at school where you are stuck in a building with a bunch of f*ck-wits you don't want to be around and you are forced to interact with people you would never usually have to. You then go to college and it's refreshing to have fewer ***ts around because they are all down the building site, then at Uni it's great because you have filtered them all out. In the work-place you have the occasional idiot but generally you are around like-minded people so it's OK. Then you go on here and it's back to school with the mongs.

Could have been a penalty but still think we deserved the win, defence looked sound throughout.

Liverpool are a Champions League rival so this is a must win. 1-0 Saints

Of course there is, there is such a HUGE motivation for governments, companies and people to not believe climate change is happening, scientists have been trying to get the message across for donkeys years and people just don't want to listen. Back in the 70's and 80's scientists were warning about climate change, that was years and years before the 10 warmest years on record (all since 1998 ) - maybe they were psychic, or maybe they just know what they are talking about? Problem is this; Scientists warm of climate change - No one takes the slightest notice Scientists emphasise the possible worst case scenario to try and get the message across - people actually listen Now, when the worst case scenario hasn't happened straight away the ignorant use it as an excuse to attack the science which is perfectly sound. If you want to learn about climate change ignore the cherry picked data, politicians, headlines and the newspapers and read the scientific papers.

The Premier League is dull and predictable compared to what it used to be. We pretty much already know that the top 4 will include Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City and one of Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool. Maybe it will be a really exceptional year this season and Arsenal will finish 2nd - wow, the excitement! Sky's money has ruined the game IMO, I prefered the 80s where the stadiums had atmosphere and clubs like Saints could challenge at the top through talent and hard work.

from the Independent... Halfway to climate change catastrophe: Total amount of carbon burnt since the industrial revolution must not exceed one trillion tonnes, say scientists Experts have calculated that about 570bn tonnes, or 57 per cent, has been burnt in the past three centuries - meaning the tipping point on carbon emissions is now only 30 years away The world has already burnt more than half the maximum amount of fossil fuel that can be consumed if catastrophic levels of global warming are to be avoided, scientists have calculated. In a finding expected to be included in the most comprehensive report ever made into climate change, researchers also warn that we are on course to use up our entire global carbon allowance within 30 years. Scientists estimate that if global warming is to have an above-average chance of remaining below the crucial 2C level – beyond which the consequences of climate change are expected to become increasingly devastating – the total amount of carbon burnt since the industrial revolution must not exceed one trillion tonnes. This is because CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for more than 200 years, giving the greenhouse gas a cumulative impact. The scientists calculate that about 570bn tonnes, or 57 per cent, of the trillion tonnes has been burnt in the past three centuries. However, the rapid economic growth in developing countries has put the world on course to burn the remaining 330bn tonnes at accelerating speed – by about 2040, unless drastic action to curb emissions is taken. Although the final numbers may differ slightly, they are among the key findings likely to be published next week in the most authoritative report ever conducted into climate science – the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment, known as AR5. This section of the report will be strongly influenced by two papers co-authored by Professor Myles Allen, of the University of Oxford, who is also a lead author on the forthcoming IPCC report. He would not comment on next week’s report but his research – published in Nature and the Journal of Climate, in 2009 and 2013 – is known to form an integral part of the study. The publication of the IPCC report on Friday will come five months after the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere breached the symbolically important level of 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in five million years after rising at its fastest rate since records began. Experts blamed most of the increase on rising emissions from China and India, which still rely heavily on coal for their energy, but said other factors could also be partially responsible, such as reduced absorption by forests and plants. About 50bn tonnes of CO2 is emitted globally a year, with the average global citizen producing 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide, compared to about 10 tonnes in the UK. Scientists estimate global emissions need to come down to about 20bn tonnes a year if the world is to have a fair chance of limiting global warming to 2C. Professor Allen stressed that with so much still unknown about climate change, the findings in his research and, by extension, the IPPC report, deal in probabilities rather than certainties. However, the vast majority of scientists agree that the fundamental trends are clear. Next week’s IPCC report is expected to make clear that scientists have never been more certain that humans are causing climate change. According to a sentence in a draft of the report, which could still change: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

"The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant"

0-0 would be a good result so yes.

How does that tie in with "This rapid change in the world’s climate caused the climate change body of the UN to call a crisis meeting."?

The only thing that will make it a decent World Cup in Qatar is if Israel qualify and take 50,000 fans.

Thats a disgrace, the problem is everyone at FIFA is on the gravy train so there is no appetite to confront the corruption. I have no interest in a World cup in that middle eastern sh!t hole.

I wouldn't care in the slightest. I would probably ask them why they feel the need to wear it. Security is obviously an issue at airports, banks etc but Muslim countries seem to cope somehow without banks being robbed and planes being blown up all over the place so I don't see why it has to be an issue here. I used to live in London so saw plenty of veiled muslims, I thought they looked a bit weird and spooky but that's my problem not theirs.

I don't expect visitors of my country to dress how I want, I expect them to wear whatever they choose.

It's about tolerance. The way muslim's dress makes no difference to me whatsoever. If they want to dress like a Jehdi ninja that is up to them. Just like if a Western woman wants to wear a mini skirt on holiday it doesn't effect anyone else. I find the way people make an issue of it quite bizarre.