buctootim

Sisters

Liverpool 47 shots against league 2 Carlisle. Ended 1-1

pees

Like in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s you mean? When we weren't part of the EU / EC. The EU has just become the convenient scapegoat for all the things people dont like about globalisation. If there was no EU you'd still have massive inward and outward movement of people.

He ..

This seems like the best thread for this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34292809

He hasn't specifically denied that afaik.

Cherkizovsky market bomb. Slavic Union (SS in Russian)

Would be interesting to know if that costs money or makes it. Intuition says loses it but most of the players they have out on loan were academy or cheap buys but they loan them out at 'Chelsea player' rates.

Except in football there is trickle down. When Man U or Liverpool buy a Saints player we give some of the cash to Celtic or Burnley. They give it to Kilmarnock or whoever. When the rich invest their additional money in daughter Jemima's trust fund or a new holiday home its not quite the same.

My view too. It will be bad for football in general - 95% of the players and 95% of the clubs. Only the very top clubs and players will benefit. If Man City or United dont have to pay transfer fees they will pay more in wages. However most clubs depend on transfer income in order to break even (very very few regularly turn a profit and take money as dividends). Transfer fees currently cascade down through the leagues - they get spent many times over as clubs in turn buy from the those just beneath them in the food chain. Without transfer income those clubs will be able to pay less in wages and the large majority of players will lose out. Seems an odd thing for a union to do - promote something which will stitch up the majority of their members.

......and mix with people who really did steal theirs

Sorry, better memory than me! Anyway I think we agree that in most cases triple isnt justified and usually money would be better spent insulating walls or loft. on

Thats only partly true. If you were paying a lot more for triple glazed windows on a south facing wall Id agree (reduction in solar gain) but it does make sense depending on your priorities. I went for triple glazed for a number of reasons - because the frames were thicker and more substantial, it cut out some road noise at at rear of the house and because triple glazed was only 12% more than double so they would eventually pay for themselves giving the other benefits for free.

These people do great doors and windows. Ive got some Norwegian made triple glazed units. Made in wood but clad in aluminium so you never have to repaint. Beautiful quality, really solid, excellent insulation for heat and noise (0.9 U value). Sounds expensive or overkill but they really arent. Double French doors 2m wide with a 50cm sidelight cost £1,800 a couple of years ago. 1.8m x 1.5m windows were c£600 each. From memory I looked at these guys http://www.nordan.co.uk/UK/contact_us/index.php but chose these guys based on price. http://broxwood.com/ With the latter whilst the quality is really good you need to find your own fitter (not hard).

Interesting you chose 1920 instead of 1933 or 1939. Im pretty sure he didnt set out to leave 30 million dead and Germany in ruins. Its what he did that matters - not what he said he was going to do in order to get elected.

Thats true and if he planned to do it every week it would be a mistake. However there were positives as well as negatives - it demonstrated a willingness to get away from yah boo politics. The fact they were real questions from real people made it impossible to dismiss them as 'just the opinion of a left wing head banger'. PMQs is normally just a pantomime of people saying things they often dont believe because the other party has said the opposite. Theres more to effective opposition than contradiction.

My choice too

Seems a generous offer. Are you sure you've actually got the money Goaty? What you going to do with it after, or is that a private matter?

Thats bizarre! Looks like a Lidl version of Redknapp's and Blatter's dealings.

Their mistake is to treat the issue as though its a finite, manageable of number. Its not, its an elastic number dependent on how risky and expensive the journey is and the degree of certainty that they will be welcomed and supported in a country with a much higher standard of living and security than they have now. If it costs £10,000 to travel , there is a 30% risk of death and you end up in Turkey only the desperate will risk it. Make the journey safer, cheaper and offer a guarantee of settlement in Germany and hundreds of thousands will make a logical choice to move.

You're taking at face value Hitlers own description of Nazism being neither left or right wing. You've outdone even your own high standards.

My mum too, Express in her case though.

Corbyn should have a pop at Morgan for being a fat smug **** no-one likes

Corbyn / Cameron / Ramirez can still can come good.