um pahars

It's deffo lead as was well ****ed off when lifted floorboards and saw this big lump coming through the bricks?!!!!??

Saw that leaking thing and thought "how do you make it leak, when it's under the ground?? Who replaced yours and what was the damage £££££ Their stopcock is right outside my front gate, and mine comes in through footings under floorboards right by front door with 5m of Tarmac in between. So access both ends looks ok and not bothered wrecking old Tarmac drive

Need a bit of advice and some work done and wondered if anyone can help???! Need lead supply pipe replacing (about 5m from stopcock in street to entrance by front door) and then need some advice/work regarding the configuration of the internal plumbing (after stopcock at front door, pipes go up to bathroom first and then down to kitchen after). Looking for costs, options, workarounds etc Cheers Steve

Exonerate = to absolve from blame for a wrongdoing (with absolve being used in the context of freeing from responsibility). Mitchell was in the wrong, he accepted this and apologised for his wrongdoings, and these new revelations do nothing to alter that fact. Therefore they do not exonerate him. I personally felt his apology was sufficient (even if his subsequent comments and failure to be open about what he said made me somewhat distrustful of him), even if others like Boris were calling for those who abuse the Police to be arrested.

I think that despite the Hillsborough scandal, the potential similar cover up at Orgreave, the apparent faking of this witness statement and a few other misdemeanours, I still think the UK Police force is trusted & espected, and rightly so. It is one of the pillars of our society, and instances like this one appears to be, need to investigated and serious action taken if it turns out that this copper was implicit in twisting the knife in to Mitchell. The apparent actions of a rogue copper doesn't exonerate Mitchell though.

I thought exactly the same. Mitchell has admitted to swearing/being rude (would still like him to come clean on exactly what he said) and only ever thought it was a one way tirade, and there's nothing in that video to suggest otherwise. The other witness thing sounds like someone is jumping on the bandwagon, but that doesn't change the fact that the altercation took place and Mitchell was swearing and sounding off. It looks as though someone was trying to put the knife in, when in reality Mitchell didn't need any help!!

That's pretty awful. I'm presuming she just struggled with being unwittingly thrust on to centre stage.

Like many people who raise their head above the parapet I bet Murdoch & co have something on her!!! (had a friend who worked at NOTW and he used to tell me how they had files on most "famous" people that we're regularly reviewed to see when would be the best time to print them). But like The Mail, you seem to have misinterpreted Chakrabati's point of view as her comments don't even refer to any of Leveson's reccommendations.

But whilst that piece provides more information and background to the story, I don't see how it in an way justifies or explains the linking of being UKIP members and therefore the unsuitability of being foster parents. Have not seen anything to suggest that this couple lied about being told being UKIP members was a problem and as others have pointed out RBC haven't withdrawn that shout either.

Deciding on Public Interest already happens in Criminal Law, from deciding whether it is in the general interest to prosecute right through to be considered as a line of defence. And whilst there is no overriding Public Interest defence, the DPP Have issues interim guidelines on this, which all seem rather sensible and reasonable to me. http://www.thelawyer.com/clearing-up-the-public-interest/1012666.article The fourth paragraph listing all the examples would cover many of the worries you have. Public Interest already exists (and generally seems to work).

But that offers no solution to Jeffries et al. They probably don't buy these papers, but they still got slaughtered.

But that offers no solution to Jeffries et al. They probably don't buy these papers, but they still got slaughtered.

And whilst I have some sympathy for your argument suggesting existing criminal procedures are enough to curb the worst excesses of the press, it does not adequately address the various issues not covered by criminal proceedings. For example in the Jeffries case I think only a couple of papers faced criminal proceedings, leaving Jeffries to pursue civil action against the others. Sadly for many individuals the option of taking these big corporations to court in civil cases is beyond them, and the press know this only too well. Plus of course the existing criminal laws have not stopped a plethora of abuses (do those laws need toughening, do the CPS and Police need more support, do sections of the press think they are above the law, is getting caught a small price to pay???).

And whilst I have some sympathy for your argument suggesting existing criminal procedures are enough to curb the worst excesses of the press, it does not adequately address the various issues not covered by criminal proceedings. For example in the Jeffries case I think only a couple of papers faced criminal proceedings, leaving Jeffries to pursue civil action against the others. Sadly for many individuals the option of taking these big corporations to court in civil cases is beyond them, and the press know this only too well. Plus of course the existing criminal laws have not stopped a plethora of abuses (do those laws need toughening, do the CPS and Police need more support, do sections of the press think they are above the law, is getting caught a small price to pay???).

Scandalous decision and someones head should roll. Not Gove's biggest fan but his recent speech on adoption, social workers, courts and addressing the failings of the current system was on the money. PS didn't Dangerous Dave label UKIP as fruitcakes and racists not long ago??? Seems as though our PM is n the same wavelength as some dinlos join Rotherham!

They were always Scummers - its a universal term for your rivals used throughout the leagues. (and no need to embarrass ourselves by making up a cringeable story about how SCUM is really an acronym for Solent Confederation of Unemployed Men who stole So'ton jobs, or some other girly fable LMFAO). Think the reason its hazy, is that for 20 years after that game we only played them 2 or 3 times and once again they just slipped off the radar, languishing in the lower leagues whilst we got stuck in to playing with the big boys. We weren't really bothered about them. Which is why 84 was such a big game, as for the previous 20 years we only managed 4 derbies as they were just so awful (and just like now, were regularly having financial troubles). In the last 50 years, alart from the brief 2005-2011 period, they were never in our league (in more ways than one). And given their current state, this may be true for another 50 years!

Dont confuse the heroic struggle for democracy and enfranchisement with the debacle we saw yesterday. That was an embarrassment to those who fought that struggle with honour and dignity. As Mark Easton so eruditely points out the electorate felt there was no democratic deficit here that needed correcting. And people can indeed change, but what is different is the describing yourself as an Independent and people believing you truly are independent, when in truth you have been a part of the political establishment.

So the independent candidate who will represent Southamptonshire secured a whopping 3% of the electorate's support. Plus of course despite the tag, he's not actually that independent given he has been a Conservative politician throughout his political career. No mandate

I see no solution, just a continuation of what we have seen for decades. Whether it just rumbles along or whether it literally blows up in to something massive, God only knows!!!

An appalling policy, appallingly implemented and quite rightly snubbed by the electorate. Not wanted and not necessary. The first PCC got 5% of the vote!!!!!!!! That is no mandate and an insult to our democracy. The regions overwhelmingly voted against an elected mayor, and this snub should be seen as a clear rejection of this crass policy.

I think you're right, in that to many it is more than just a club, it's their Club (excusing the obvious fact they don't actually own it!) , a cornerstone of their community, something that has a history of over 125 years, something that generations of their family have supported (and occasionally criticised) and something that's dear to their heart. You only have to see the fantastic outreach of The Saints Foundation in challenged parts of the City to see the impact it has on the local community and of course how do you quantify the feel good factor of recent promotions. It's probably the highest profile organisation this City has and something many people feel an integral part of, so there's always going to be interest in much more than what's happening on the pitch. It's always been that way, and our history is littered with events when supporters have voiced their displeasure at players, managers & owners. It's nothing new.

Really??? I thought that tickets are allowed to be transferable, as long as not for profit (mate has tickets In company name and takes different customers each week, another shares a ticket with a friend alternating games, and others pass on if they can't make the game). Im sure you can refer to section 4.7a of the season ticket charter where it states they are for sole individual use, but as an ex accountant, I would use the term, substance over form. It happens, we know it happens, there's nothing wrong with it happening, (unless of course it's part of a bigger btichfest). And that's not taking one side or the other in this immature battle of egos, just suggesting that the application of your "dont see what's wrong with that" has everything wrong with it if you can't pass a ticket on to a mate when you can't make a game.

When the General speaks, I would suggest you all listen. The very fact these people are now whining about his response tells me all I need to know about them. If you're going to give someone stick then don't get all shy and retiring when you get some back

I really like these kind of stories. Fair play to him

Warner Lambert?? up Eastleigh way?? Remember all of the above on my list plus WL taking part in an It's a Knockout up at Delcos ground, with all the props and challenge things (inc huge swimming pools, frames, carousels etc) having been built by the various apprentices of those companies in their respective workshops. Was a fantastic day, with thousands coming to watch. A real community spirit, unthinkable now.