bridge too far

As an asset of SLH plc (in administration), surely?

Bu$$er - I'll be on holiday on Monday!

I'd be happy with that

Now I'm confused :confused: Or do you mean the bottom four (of League 1) go down and the top three (of League 1) go up, with the top four of League 2 going up to League 1?

My claim to fame: KK very nearly bought one of my dad's houses. This was around the time my dad built Mick Channon's house near Fair Oak and Peachy lived in the same road as my dad. 'Twas a long time ago TBF but the best I can offer on the 'where does KK live' debate.

BBC South regional news slot reporting that the club, in response to rumours, has denied any involvement with KK

BBC South regional news slot reporting that the club, in response to rumours, has denied any involvement with KK

I haven't attacked you're spelling or grammar. HTH

Probably because you and I and most other people wouldn't understand the finer points of news broadcasting and financing? How can they have a decision go against them when they haven't made a decision to 'go against'? God, your logic is famously flawed

So how would you manage a consultation Nick? Or perhaps, being a supporter of Chameleon, you'd plump for dictatorship?

Oh FFS Nick - stop twisting my words. Or are you so myopic that you see things that aren't there / don't see things that are. I have never said this - I simply pointed out TO YOU that there was to be a consultation process and that it wasn't a done deed. I then went on to postulate that ANY government is damned if it takes decision without consultation and damned if it engages in consultation. That's a simple concept - why can't you understand that? I have never favoured commercial broadcasting (NB I'm not including news bulletins here), mainly because I think it's crap as a rule, and therefore I don't watch it. Commercial broadcasting is too influenced by its advertisers and owners (viz. Murdoch). The BBC retains its impartiality precisely because it is not funded commercially. You see, Nick, one thing people with a real interest in furthering their knowledge do is to engage in 'what ifs'. That's what consultations are for - brainstorming. WHAT IF commercial broadcasters lose a huge portion of their advertising revenue? WHAT IF they then decide to cut programmes that don't 'make money' (such as news bulletins)? WHAT IF the population is then denied an alternative take on current affairs? Even if I don't watch it, I would be far happier if there was more than one news broadcaster. Unless, of course, you think there should just be a State Broadcaster?

Bungle, I think JB has a limited imagination and vocabulary. I've noticed that he latches onto what he thinks is a clever phrase and then uses it ad nauseam for weeks on end. Let's hope someone gives him a dictionary / thesaurus soon.

The same Citizen Dave who has apparently made a xenophobic blunder? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/17/david-cameron-german-accent-gaffe

Fine - then the consultation will mirror your views since they are those of the common man. I only ever watch BBC News so it's no skin off my nose. It will then be up to the other news broadcasters to fund their bulletins out of their own revenue from advertising. Oh hang on - advertising revenue is falling fast! I wonder then how alternative broadcasting can be funded? And let me get this straight - if a / the government just does stuff it's being dictatorial and not listening to the electorate but, if it does enter into consultations, it's forming a quango? There's no pleasing some people

"Ministers will consult on whether 3.5% of the fee should go to ITV and other public service broadcasters from 2013." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8103321.stm Did you spot the word 'consult', Nick? It means 'talk to, discuss' etc. Normally people of your persuasion knock the BBC for the quasi-monopoly it is supposed to have on news (and for its perceived left wing stance). Since it would appear that commercial broadcasters can't / won't provide public service broadcasting to the same degree, how would YOU propose that they are incentivised to do so to provide what you would probably consider 'balance'? Your constructive solutions would be welcome.

You obviously don't understand the word 'pragmatic'

I think you meant 'moot'? I am a Labour Party member but for pragmatic reasons. I don't think the Labour Party in its present guise represents my views but there's no party in mainstream (and therefore electable) politics that does, so I go with the best of the bad as the alternatives are even worse. I agree with you about TB's charisma but beneath that? I'm not so sure. I am further to the left than TB (that's not difficult) but who is to say how far to the left is too far? You may think so - others may disagree. I think GB will lose the next election, barring a catastrophe in the Conservative party. Time will tell if the electorate will have made a wise choice. In the same way as others look to history to reinforce their views about the Labour Party, I'm entitled to do the same about the Conservative Party. I remember Black Wednesday, rip-roaring interest rates, the crash in the property market and so on and so on of the Tory years. On this forum, I try to redress the balance.

What exactly do you think I'm biased towards? I'd be interested to know.

Are you not able to read? I said he had an awful accident THAT LEFT HIM BLIND IN ONE EYE. I did not say or imply that he ONLY had an eye injury - indeed I postulated that the 'awful accident' may have caused damage to his face as well. But hey - you carry on judging people's credentials and appearances in a sad and twisted way. And I'll maybe judge you by the same criteria.

I wonder if it's something to do with that awful accident he had playing rugby - the one that left him blind in one eye and nearly losing the sight in the other one. Don't know - just hazarding a guess.

The only reason the Tories aren't releasing policies is because they don't actually have any. Whenever they've tried to say they have, they then have infighting (viz. Kenneth Clarke) or retraction (cuts to public services) or they come up with an idea that benefits less than 1% of the population (IHT for estates worth £1m). We'll see next year. But I do think that unless something damaging crawls out of the woodwork they will be elected. They say we get the government we deserve

Yes Alan Johnson would be a good shout. Man of the people etc. etc. Probably not having the intellect of GB but I don't know that for a fact.

Politics aside, I thought John Major was weak and ineffectual and not that intelligent. That strangulated voice did nothing for the image - let alone the 'underpants in the shirt' and 'screwing Edwina Currie (allegedly)' although image is of no importance to me. I agree with you that GB is dull but the day we elect 'personalities' on looks and presentation rather than on substance is the day I know this country is going down the plug-hole.

Same difference

Well I didn't know that, honestly! It's only recently changed then? So much the same as the Labour Party then. Except that there is no shortlisting by MPs in the Labour Party. The shortlisting is done on numbers of votes cast (by all members) in the first round. This shortlist is then put to all members for them to choose.