pap

I'm an independent software developer with a multinational as my main client.

Are the EDL how we eventually get to the events of V fo Vendetta? For once, I'm in agreement with FIFA. Precedent is important, and apart from one England-Germany unofficial international in No Man's Land in December 1914, football has had nothing to do with war.

I didn't come to the conclusion - just asked the question, pointing out that one of the most successful companies in the world eschews the slavish insistence on everyone looking more or less the same. That it doesn't equate appearance with competence. And since you asked, I have had one bad experience, during an interview, twenty years ago. I was applying for a Saturday job at MaccyDs in Above Bar, and was rocking a long barnet at the time. The manager essentially told me that I'd have to cut my hair to get the job. I didn't take the job. If I'd have had my head screwed on, I could have probably taken some legal action ( after all, they don't insist that their female staff cut their hair ) but I didn't. After graduation, it just hasn't been a problem - I've been lucky enough to work for people who appreciate what I can do, not what I look like - and any prospective client that would discriminate along those lines isn't worth having, because getting het up about personal preference tells me straight away that they don't really understand the game we're in.

Who would you like to see as Labour leader? Until recently, I would not have had a clue out of the current crop. I happen to agree with you that Cooper could be a decent leader, but Andy "Max Factor" Burnham impressed me hugely during the recent Hillsborough debate.

Well, I don't know about that. You're pretty much on record saying that you discriminate based on appearance, going further and saying that it gives an insight into their self-respect. Seems like you're exercising a degree of prejudice in making that leap. Companies like Apple operate a T-shirt policy, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their business very much. Are you saying that your enterprise is so fragile that it depends on everyone conforming to your corporate standards?

Actually, there are so many exceptions to that rule that it isn't even a rule, and that it is no longer being taught.

It makes no assumption at all, Special K. The point is that by discriminating based on appearance, you're going to miss out on people who can bring more to your business than someone who plays the game, but doesn't actually bring that many moves to the table. I also don't agree with smartness having anything to do with self-respect. There are people out there who spend hours getting ready, with meticulous attention to detail, but still wouldn't satisfy the credentials of conformity. You can't tell me that goths or punks don't spend any time getting ready, yet you still probably wouldn't give them a job. Ultimately, all successful businesses share one characteristic. They make more money than they spend. While I appreciate that some roles almost demand a measure of conformity, most don't, and if you're putting your prejudice before your bottom line, you can and will miss out.

You may well be right, but you've no right to be It'll probably go the way you say, but if we were smart about it, we'd knock it down and put some housing there. Yeah, I moved £11.5K worth of machines in one week, and got a bollocking because I'd only done about £500 worth of guarantees. When you join, they make it very clear that the G ( industry term for extended warranty ) was effectively "pure profit".

Whatever happened to the Popular Front?

I used to work at Comet, selling computers in the late 90s. Like many electrical retailers, their main reason for existence was actually selling insurance. I gave it up because my colleagues were sharks, my manager was a **** and the customers were basically treated like potential victims. Got a bar job to supplement the rest of my Uni education. Made a lot less money, but had a lot more fun and a lot less stress. As for online vs physical store presence, I'll stick my neck out. There are very few things that you need to buy in person these days. Food, furniture and clothes. That's it, really. For anything that is mass produced, there is practically no advantage to going to the shop over looking at some trusted product reviews online. I would expect most of these shops to be gone in the next ten years.

That's a laudable sentiment, but we've been here already. If she turns out to be blameless, fair play. Still, I would expect a slow trickle of media tittle-tattle (as you put it) which increasingly proves that she knew full well what was going on. And there's also a case to make that whether she ordered it or not, she's accountable for it regardless. Big job equals big responsibility, not big excuses.

Mary Beth Hicks is of course, entitled to her opinion. Personally, I applaud the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements around the world. Collectively, they're asking the big questions. The author of this article seems to be starting from the position of "it is the way it is". I'm sorry, but that's not really good enough. Having a pop at students for pointing that out doesn't strengthen her point too much. As for the notion of smartness, I'll say this. Any employer who knocks back someone because of their appearance, especially if the role isn't client-facing, deserves all the faceless automatons they eventually employ. Personally, I wouldn't give a **** if someone turned up in burlap sack. You need two things from an employee; competence and care. Suits don't come into it.

So, small question. Does Germany now control Italy? At least Hitler let Mussolini pretend to be in power

Interesting stories about the power of personal acquaintance. I'm pretty much the same. Apart from the HMRC, my priority has always to people I know, like when I rented digs in Ireland. I must say, I do find it quite sad that we're prepared to go along with this. I know the massive rates of interest on these particular loans are built on the principle of them being out of pocket for a couple of days, but loan companies have been targeting people with crap credit ratings for a long time now. I turned down a job in 2007 because one of my prospective employer's clients was offering 76% APR loans to its clients, and these definitely weren't designed to be settled up in a couple of days. From a Western perspective, there is much to criticise about the Islamic tradition, particularly when it comes to women's rights and punitive measures, but one think they can be commended for is their attitude to usury. They won't have it, and fair play to them. Totally accept that there are a lot of stupid people out there, and ultimately, no argument - it's their fault. The shame of it is that we allow these legalised loan sharks to compound these problems further. Having more desperate people out there isn't good for society. I'm not saying that we should go the whole hog, but I don't think it's a hard sell to legislate for a maximum APR that people should pay on anything, at least, not to the British public. I'm honestly not sure what is a more damning indictment on our society. That these loans exist in the first place, or the fact that some see them as the just desserts for those too ill-disciplined to control their finances.

Don't really think you're being fair here. Many of these "idiots" you refer to will be using services like this so that they can squander the cash on food or heat, etc.

Completely agree with you, Special K. That these companies prey on the weak is bad enough. Putting it in front of kids is even worse. I'm perfectly aware that the kids won't qualify for these loans, but it has the dangerous effect of normalising these companies in their eyes at a young age, particularly if they have a catchy advert.

May well chuck that on in the background.

Another disgusting side-effect of the rampant capitalism that we're spending so much money to keep.

To chuck a bit of balance in here, Newsnight led with the story about News International using private investigators to discredit the lawyers of phone hacking victims, and they also devoted a lot of time to Berlusconi. If you're seriously interested in the news, Newsnight is better than the 10 o clock news four days a week.

I gotta say, while I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, it is interesting to see the way the club is perceived, particularly by those in the media. Seems that some pundits are still plying the same old tropes. Still, people not having a clue about our club isn't necessarily a bad thing. And in Football Weekly's defence, it is free. Richardson is the bloke who did Football Italia, and Late Kick Off.

Trust me, compared to the coverage we usually get, that is a very large mention indeed The only time you ever hear them devote that much time to a Championship team is when a high profile manager gets the boot ( a la Schteve or Sven) or they're doing really well or especially badly.

I listen to the Guardian's Football Weekly podcast. The 'cast is primarily concerned with Premier League and major European leagues, but they occasionally devote some time to the Championship and lower leagues. This week, Saints got their biggest ever mention. And by big mention, I mean a whopping one and a half minutes. Anyways, it's a great 'cast so I recommend the whole thing, but the time-poor/cba'ed can hit the Saints chat by skipping to 40:27 in the link above. Worth a listen. They praise our youth, Adkins but also make mention of "mysterious European owners".

Appreciate the context, old bean.

However, some credit must be given for the research they have got right. CM/FM fans all knew who Vincent Kompany, Neil Lennon and Ronaldo were long before they played for big teams

My first piece of advice would be to get both. I realise that this may not be practical in expense or setup terms, but that really is the best situation to be in. No question. If you can't buy both, it then really comes down to the following factors. Online XBox online support is better, but it comes at the cost of a yearly subscription. PS3 online is not as good, but it's free. Both online offerings p*ss all over the Wii's meagre efforts in this department. If you're buying new, I believe both consoles have wi-fi now. Older X-Box 360s were wired only, save an extremely expensive wi-fi adaptor. Exclusives Not as much of a factor as they used to be. You can buy Tekken on both platforms now, for example, but each console does have exclusives that you'll never get to play on the other. Take a look at your Uncharteds, your Halos, etc. Also, compare Kinect and Move, if you're into that sort of thing. Media PS3 is a better media centre. For starters, it can play Blu-Ray. It also has stuff like LoveFilm, iPlayer ( btw, the reason the XBox doesn't have iPlayer is because MS basically doesn't believe that you should get anything for free without an XBOX Live subscription, and the Beeb wouldn't countenance XBox users having to pay a subscription for Beeb content ). Both machines will play .avi's at standard definition, both support USB drives etc. One annoyance on PS3 is that it won't read media unless it is in certain directories. Bit of a pain, tbh. Neither will play nice with .mkv files ( large HD video downloads ). Controllers and extras XBox generally has a better controller than PS3, apart from two key areas. First, the 360's digital pad is poor and unresponsive - not really a biggy on the modern games, but is a pain on some downloadable games when the d-pad is more suitable than an analog stick with a load of travel. The other issue is power - you can power a 360 controller with AA batteries or a rechargeable pack ( about £10 ). PS3 controllers come with a built-in rechargeable that is charged with a USB-little USB cable. The other thing worth mentioning is that in general, the PS3 has always been a "cheaper console to run". To be fair to Microsoft, they have got a lot better - wifi is now standard and they will let you save your stuff to a USB memory stick now, but they still retain tight control over other parts of the console, such as controllers and hard drives. You can just bung a standard HD into your PS3 if you want to upgrade, whereas the proprietory XBox Hard Drive upgrade is probably the most expensive form of magnetic storage in the world Oh, and MS still won't let a mouse anywhere near their machine ("It's not a computer!!!"), whereas Sony is a lot more chilled out about it - not that many games support it. Conclusion As I said at the start of this post, if you can afford both, get both. The quality of the exclusives makes that a worthwhile proposition. If you have to pick one, I'd suggest getting the one that gives you the most for your money. Don't worry about what others have said about graphics. It really is marginal, some games far better than others on either platform, and you'd have to be watching them side-by-side to see a lot of the difference. Get yourself a couple of magazines etc, have a look at the top games, and see what floats your boat more.