pap

Article on the Guardian website suggests that Miliband is going to propose shaking up social housing allocation policy. Full article. I think I've said something very similar myself, on this forum. Personally, I think we need a lot more social housing and that people who work should get priority. It's little wonder that the council estates are getting worse when priority is purely based on need. A young girl on her own with a few kids is always going to get priority over a single couple looking to start a family. Surely this is a policy that people would support across the board, irrespective of party colour?

I thought crying about the state of the pitches was a Pardew-era excuse, tbh.

Well, at least we know what the target is now

While I cannot claim to have an in-depth knowledge of Einstein's work, the cool thing about this discovery is that the limitation his theories placed on us is suddenly gone. We probably won't see it, but humanity will need to leave the Earth at some point. If we had been limited to the speed of light, even a trip to our closest neighboring star system would have been an 8 year round trip. From my limited scientific knowledge, I understand that Einstein's reason for suggesting that nothing can go past the speed of light is that because photons have no mass. A neutrino doesn't weigh very much, but has mass, and scientists reckon they've seen neutrinos move faster than photons. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Last time I did any physics was in 1991 As to Einstein spinning in his grave? Possibly. But given that science is evidence-based, I'm sure he'd have a couple of alternate theories if he had seen the stuff going on at CERN.

Does this mean we can get warp drive now?

Yeah, but if it was Any Questions on Radio 4, you wouldn't even have that. She'd just sound like an ignorant simpleton.

Well, the role of the whip extends further than that - they ensure that the MPs votes the way that the party wants to. Personally, I don't know why they bother, and I don't know where they got the idea that we want them all to believe the same things. The reason that the non-politicians always come off best in those shows is because they've got the courage of their convictions and greater freedom to give an honest opinion.

Anyone else see Question Time? I am watching it now on iPlayer. Another wholly unimpressive set of answers from the political party members. Private Eye's Ian Hislop and Justine Roberts of Mumsnet made the most sense. Common thing in Question Time. What is about being a member of a political party that turns you into a soundbite machine? It appears that the Conservatives are going for style over substance. Preti Patel seemed totally clueless, betraying hints of a nasty streak as she fumbled her way through her answers. Her response during the debate on capital punishment was particularly left field. Don't really think she got the point at all.

Still undecided on this one. The junior pap collective is not available for this fixture, nor is Ms pap. This means I'll either have to go on my own or take my nephew, who is ginger, northern and so far, bad luck.

Seen it with my own eyes, unfortunately. The main road near to my house was teeming with pubs 10 years ago. This month, the last one has been closed and put up for rent. The others have either been outright demolished or turned to other uses. The people behind the smoking ban thought "Ah, people who go to pubs will be less inclined to smoke". Nope, people who smoke will be less inclined to go to pubs. And now we have no pubs, concentrating everyone in city centre, as rocknrollman points out. Big knock on effect everywhere else too. Fewer people going out means fewer taxis, etc.

Right time, right place, right people - drinking is some of the best fun you can have if you keep your levels right. My favourite session these days involves starting at around 2pm on a Saturday, drinking through the afternoon watching the results come in, nosebag at around 9pm and home in an easily available taxi by 10pm, befpre all the kids are coked up, blotted and looking for a fight.

It is. People seem to go out on the continent, drink, but not be massively drunk. I actually think that a lot of it is down to the fact that as a nation, we are unnaturally reserved, probably unhealthily so. You don't see too many Frenchmen or Spaniards having difficulty expressing their feelings in sobriety. That's why the idea of 24 hour drinking ushering in a more continental pattern of drinking was hogwash. We're emotionally repressed b*st*rds, whatever time you close the pubs. Well, all that politeness comes at a price. When you've had to smile sweetly when all you've wanted to do is call someone a giant nobend, it's little wonder that people trade the stiff upper lip in for a half-eaten kebab chucked at a shop window.

Wouldn't want Stoke away. Britannia Stadium is not a happy hunting ground for visiting teams.

Can't. Noel Edmonds-averse. He makes my skin crawl.

Twisted my arm.

The pictures on the guy's website are excellent. Don't really think you can take this as evidence of us all being morally corrupt, but the question of why we Brits ( and our mates the Irish ) love going out on the lash so much is an interesting one.

Speak for yourself. I stole my fiver from a tramp.

btw, your location - Wigan?

You're not the only one being selfish. I'd like to play Liverpool or Everton away. Nige and the lads can pick me up in the bus. I'm not out of their way.

Why do you want the 3G? Never really understood it on a Kindle.

No doubt. If China survived the first year though, they might have a chance. A couple of reasons, really. After you've gone through your existing stock, waging a war becomes a supply chain issue. The US would need to revitalize large parts of its manufacturing economy ( I've no doubt that it would though ). China already makes a lot of stuff. The other factor I've considered is technological advancement when there's a war on. Aerial combat and tanks were introduced in the Great War, while World War 2 gave us RADAR, computers, rocketry and atomic bombs. All game changers. People invent a lot of stuff when everything is at stake. That all said, I'd say that you're about 90% right and that China would probably get pwned.

Yawn.

Well, I'm glad you clarified your point - but I think you've jumped the gun in terms of your conclusions. I think everybody on this forum appreciates the ultimate sacrifice made by US citizens to end the tyranny of Nazism. However, the US Government's reasons for getting involved were myriad, and didn't exclude self-interest. The US couldn't afford the cost of a Nazi victory, nor could they have dealt with the consequences if the Soviets, woken from their slumber and on the march, and had got to spread communism across Europe. If they were that concerned about the fate of Britain, they'd have joined the war in 1939 on the strength of their convictions, not in December 1941 after they'd been attacked by an Axis power. Dr Patricia Clavin, of Oxford University, reveals this in a BBC article. Today, the term "special relationship" is largely bandied about by our politicians, not theirs. The new bloke even prefers our baguette-baking neighbours:- My personal view is that the relationship is very one-sided. You only have to look at the extradition situation or the way that Tony Blair's Labour government jumped into the lap of neoconservatism as soon as he was called for. When the defunct Most Favored Nation status was in effect, it was Communist China, not "special relationship" Britain, that were conferred that status. The US media made great capital out of the word "British" during the BP fiasco, despite the fact that it is just another multinational. Right now, President Obama is making noises about the Falklands going back to Argentina. In their relatively short history, the Americans have achieved great things, shaping the world we live in, and you're right, this conversation probably wouldn't be happening without their involvement. That said, I think there is a tendency for Brits to think that they are just like us, largely on account of them speaking the same language. I think British politicians enjoy the association with glamour and success and big the idea of the "special relationship" up. We need to remember that they are a different country, have a totally different outlook on life, and have their own international agenda. Keeping us happy is not one of their biggest priorities, and while we should respect the sacrifice of the American war-dead, we can't be blind to that fact.

Don't get it. How does this relate to the special relationship? Are you suggesting that the US entered WW2 purely because it loved the UK so much?

Heard something about this on the Today programme yesterday morning. Gotta say, have little sympathy - the gruelling schedule only really affects the players that do really well. The makeweights who get smashed off the court don't have nearly as demanding a time of it.