Frank's cousin

Of course it was restrained... terrorism, is afterall an issue for the police, not the army... we were not war in Northern Island, but dealing with terror groups from both sides intent on causing as much trouble as they could... My dad did 2 tours in the 70's and 80s, and I remember well Army barrack bombings in Germany as a kid, having to have the local school bus inspected by armed squaddies before entering the school gates, or the shootings at Ferry terminals in Calais as they could recognise army personnel, by their number plates i those days...not nice. So the fact that those dehind the scenes driving this, have moved on and now take a political route is something we should all be pleased about. If this has been riven by a more economic pragmatism, so what, bt I still think in part at least its that ordinary people were just sick and tired of it and no longer supported it... change was demanded, even if it meant for uneasy aliances and strange bedfellows. Good on the Queen, she has my respect for that.

er... I'll bite When we us 'lefties' talk of the NHS being a marvelous institution, we are talking about the concept of 'free at the point of care Healthcare for all' - a healthcare system fully funded by the people through taxation meaning equal quality standards applied to all. To me this is not about left or right, but the mark of a mature civilised society that it uses tax payers money to train helethcare professions who can then provide treatment to all. A brilliant, ethical, moral and humane ideology of which we ALL should be proud. ... but there is a problem...several problems... like many governement funded services, the investment, funding, management, infrastructure and procedures are at the mercy of political games. there has been so much money wasted just on changing the systems between successive governments... Working in the healthcare industry, I have been lucky enough to look in detail at many systems around the world, and although Cost Rica has a dan good one, the best that works with a larger scale population is in Germany... but such a service costs - theye spend 3 x the amount on healthcare per head as we do, some 370bilion per annum for 85 mil people, we spend around 125bil on 65mil - they also contribute 7% of gross to their health insurance fund, with employers contributing anouther 7odd % which is how its possible. National and local taxes + some private companies pay for infrastructure (nice shiney new hospitals), your insurenace pays for treatment - its a fixed % and everyone gets teh SAME standard of care... unlike in the states where level of care/coverage is dependent on how much you pay (think Bupa They are Prepared to pay this level, because they know it goes to healthcare, not part absorbed into other government spending plans, and the service is the best. Thos eunemployed or on low income, have tehir contributions paid out of any benefits tehy get, so everyone still gets the same standard - best of both worlds IMHO. Sp yes NHS is great idea, now sadly underfundered and badly managed through years of change driven by political ****ing about.

Do not worry, my public shame is for all to share... maybe in punishment I should be forced to watch the 2008 cup final rerun... but surely even this forums rules are not that hideous?

is that like ' I've got this mate... see...er... who...er... ' They all have nice legs though granted.

I guess though that such 'political' games are part and parcel of all politics - and miuch better than blowing people up. If SinnFein see a political route to their goals so much the better. Personnnaly I have never understood this ingrained need to be labeled or worry about flag/borders - most view these things based on short term historical claims - max 1000 years - if the 'history' of a border is used to justify nationaism, then surely I am equally justified in extending that history to 100,000 year or 100 million which just highlights the total boll ox that it is. Sure there have been injusticies that have left bitter tastes and the beliefe that alternatives would be better, but thats political not national. The sooner folk on this planet realise we have 80 or so years if lucky to enjoy our lives and not a lot lse matters, the sooner we can consign nationlistic BS to the bin and realise we are afterall all humans...

I think I read that if a club is left owing football creditors, then the league has the right to withold the regular payments and pay football creditors directly from these. I suspect this will include any PPs owed. I believe this is why the PFA lodged the 23mil claim for monies owed eg. the cost of resolving all contracts + deferred wages. This way its registered as footballing debt, and the league would pay this money direct if the players dont compromise (which they are currently being emotionally (or motionally ;-) blackmailed to do). If Pompey do not agree to a football creditor repayment plan in full, then golden share is not going to ahppen - its why whichever way you look at Chinney will only buy IF teh players agree to compromise as if they hold out, PPs as well as league income will be auto diverted.... and he will not beabl eto get his hands on that. It does beg the question, that if the players Do compromise, does this constitute a failure to pay all footballing creditors in full - as even though they have agreed to amend/cancel contracts, Pompey will have had a competitive advantage based on players contracts that ultimately were not honoured - this is perhaps why the FL insisted on the the golden share points clause being at their discretion. It would not be beyond the realms of possibilty that should players leave and Chinney take over, that the FL impose a penalty for these failed contracts and acceptance of this is conditional on them receiving their golden share... which would at least be some sort of correct moral punishment... will the FL have the moral balls to do what is RIGHT?

Think the point is though that there were no winners in all the years of the 'troubles' - just losers on both sides, with viiolence achieving nothing but pain for families of both sides - The recognition by Adams and McGuniness that there was never going to any chance of a resolution and political influence until weapons were laid down, may not have been a 'victory' but was far more important than any ****ing contest over who 'won'... The policy of devolved powers probably ahd a great deal to do with the direction things have gone and only for the better in my opinion. Ultimately, enough people realised they would have a better life if they were less obsessed with what flag was flying where, but focussed on having a political voice on issues that effect ALL the local population... they grew up.

Think its good to see - proves what futility there was with the whole issue and despite not being a royalist, think the Queen has shown her quality and is an example to all on how to accept and learn from the past, yet recognise that the only way forward is through such reconciliation. Doffs cap to HRH (something I would normally struggle with ;-))

We voted for for this approach in 1979. Thatcher's approach was always about low taxation at income level, but regain it on Fags, booze, fuel, VAT etc. It may be simplistic, but its common sense that Country A needs £x bil in taxation to deliver the service levels its population expects... Her policy was to hoodwink voters into thinking lower income tax equalled lower taxation... reality is all parties need to try an balance the books. Problem is that all parties now do the same - pretend to give with one hand and take from the other, but then come out with further BS that its to do with another policy - eg Fuel tax escalation linked to 'reductions in use, linked to reduction in emmissions, lower congestion, greener Britain' rhetoric... yet after having neglected investment in DECENT public transport for 40 years, we need our cars, use our cars and top up the exchequer's coffers. Why All parties are not forced to provide a simple pie chart detailing total tax revenues (inc NI which goes into the same pot anyway) v total planned expenditure on services with details of service level that expenditure provides, without having to delve into mountains of manifesto, policy documents or political BS, and then let folk decide on taxation levels they are prepared to put up with to deliver the desired service quality is obvious... we would think they are all totally fecking mad. Thatcher's concept was that people get to chose what they pay their tax on - yet inevitably such a policy hits the poorer in society more than those paying additional VAT on luxuries. Sick of the lot of them - all far too childishly immature, backstabbing, Spin obsessed, w ankers more obssessed with elcectoral gains than what is in the best interests of the countries people.

Folk that get bored so easily, usually have the attention span of a 5 year old and sh it for brains.... explains a lot.

I'd rather be a bore than an ignorant right wing fantasist troll.

Bastardo! (getting in the mood for Portugal V Spain) My head hangs in the shame of it all....

You truely are a joke living in some sort of imperialist past...

Thankfully times and attitudes change and society matures 9otherwise we would be stuck in that endless and futile cycle of violence) - Good on the Queen I say. McGuinnes and Adams renounced violence and ended their terrorism - yes there are justifiable claims that they did not get punsihed for their involvement in the atrocities of teh past, but as Mandela showed in SA, the only way everyone can truely move on is through truth and reconciliation, and not by revenge - that way you just ingrain bitterness and resentment for the future.

darn... that's twice today

And to be honest they would have a strong case. Yes their ages are extreme and excessive, and diffifcult to justify, but the campaign that the club has been using, motional blackmail and a very public level at that + you know what teh fan pressure and abuse will be like, is still discusting way to treat anyone. I would sue their arses for constructive...

LOL... That will put him off! Went in 1987 - when you could still get Interail tickets that were anywhere in Europe for a month for about £90 - slept mostly on trains, met loads of Scandinavian ladies , great time.... was 18... perfect free summer of excess.

Yes that is true.... but the context in which footballers use this 'rational' to defend their need to leave a club and go elsewhere for more money, is that they are justifying their cash chase as if they cant work after football. Why not be honest and just say you want to max your income so you dont have to work after football... not an unreasonable choice as most would love to be able to do the same and not have to work after 32.

Perhaps not the best word to get 'wrong' in the context of the post:blush:

Is it just me or does anyone else think the old 'its a short career' is always a stupid thing to say? It sort of implies that footballers are not odinary folk and deserve not to have to work after they get to 32 ish - There was me thinking the retirement age was 67 odd for most, and how many these days only ever have stay in one type of job? Its not as if he cant do what others have to do and retrain, get a job or start a business.... and having been a footballer at that level, unless they have spunked it all on champagne, designer handbags for WAGs or gambled it all its not as if they could not afford to live whilst re-educating themselves... Should they just not be more honest and say 'I need to maximise my income from playing as I missed school playing football and dont have any qualifications. I really dont want to have to get a proper job, so like most people if they have a chance to earn several million before they are 32, they would go for it to...'

Think this is because they have a lower than us alcohol/blood limit of around 0.5mg/ml or something like that (which means you can be over the legal limit after a glass of stronger wine). This places teh onus on the driver to check...so NO excuses if caught.

...getting to the point where I no longer care what happens to that stinking cesspit created by what was shat out of the the infected, wart encrusted anuses of of the 'bestest' fans... with the Footbal league snuggling up so close to the maggot infested ring, any disease they pick up alomng the way will be fully justified... But hey I'm not bitter;)

Thing is the FC Rule is not a legally binding rule... FC creditors do not get legal priority over other creditors, so froma leagl perspective as teh Judge said, there is not alot that can be done. The FL need the FC Rule, because unless a global wide policy of pay al monies up front on transfers exists, then one club defaulting would in effect create a domino effect and push other clubs into admin. In addition the argumnet is that if players are not paid in full, then you have had a competitive advantage so will suffer a massive points deduction/golden share removal etc. From a legal point of view how can this be done? Well when a CVA proposal is put in place, the non footballing creitors are voting on what is being offered to them, not what teh total cash available is or teh distribution of it. In addition the Footballing creditors can also be paid from withheld cash from the league, as this case is not included in the offer to creditors... so legally the FC Rule does stand up. If the creditors do not like it or accept it, they dont vote for it and the CVA is not passed and huge point penalities exist. So whilst the concept of rich footballers being paid ahead of small businesses is immoral, and leaves a sickly feeling, from a football perspective tere is justificatio in having such a rule. The issue that HMRC have is that in most cases non-footballing creditors would be happy with a tiny fraction of money owed rather than nothing, and HMRC usually dont ahve enough voting rights to bock the CVA... so they always lose out. Simple things that could sort this out: 1. All transfers and agent fees must be paid up front 2. Make players resppnsible for their own PAYE/tax and NI contributions from their gross - administered by a central PFA fund. MOnies must be paid in for wages on time. NO further cheating the tax man 3. A club that defaults on wages is automatically deducted 3 points for one month, 10 if its more than 1 month etc 4. With strichter rules as above a club that still went into admin is automaticaly relegated 2 divisions. Further relegation for failure of CVA. NO club that has assets tranfered to a NEW CO can remain in teh same league but has to start form 5 divisions lower. Draconian maybe, but only way to stop this shietd once and for all and would have te added benefit taht transfer fees might go down a bit as well.

Its the CVA1 v CVA2 that rankles most. The fact that to dayte not a penny has been paid towards CVA1 creditors and now we have in effect a situation where the amount owed to non footballing creditors (around 100mil) will be 500k - expenses... how the flying feck the FL consider this to be aligned with their constant stance on integrity is beyond a joke, its shameful, dispicable ... They are a complete and utter joke... both the cheating club and the FL...they deserve each other.