trousers

People joining motorways that don't realise that they don't have right of way if the inside lane can't move out safely to let them in. You have to give way to the traffic on the motorway not the other way around FFS.

Computer generated cold calls...pick up the phone...silence for 20 seconds...then some knob at the other end gets miffed when I then take 20 seconds to answer their first question.

Call centre staff who profess they "only work here" and can't speak on behalf of the company they work for. Customer service my arse.

People who come and sit in the seat opposite you when the rest of the carriage is virtually empty.

Idiots that walk out of shops onto the pavement without looking thus expecting the flow of pedestrians to swerve out of their way. I simply clatter into them as hard as I can.

Sheffield wednesday 4 Huddersfield 4

Full time at west ham

Sorry, I don't speak cockney....

Skacel scores

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2549552,00.html Lallana: "For us to be top at Christmas would mean needing a win on Sunday too, so that's what our intentions are."

So, on that logic, one assumes you'll be listening to the next Chris de Burgh album in full before choosing whether or not to buy it ....? ;-) Quite often you don't need to open the tin when the writing on the lid is clear enough.... That was a statement by the Tenuous Analogy Party

I think that's what they call "dithering" in some circles...*cough* Ed Milliband *cough* ;-)

Or more to the point, one WAS an asset (SFC) and the other isn't anywhere close to being an "asset" per se (PFC) So, you're right, PFC can hardly be conceived to be a sole asset of CSI when it's not an asset full-stop..... ;-)

That's a peculiar arrangement....win a game in May 2008, get paid a bonus for doing so in July 2009....?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16209414 UK officials will join talks over eurozone deal UK officials will join talks over what should be in a eurozone fiscal pact, despite refusing to sign up to it. The UK has accepted an invitation from the European Council to join talks, alongside 17 eurozone states and nine other EU states considering signing up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/dec/14/edmiliband-davidcameron Has Ed Miliband suffered his Westland moment as David Cameron wins? MPs draw parallels between Ed Miliband and Neil Kinnock who struggled against Margaret Thatcher during Westland crisis. David Cameron faces Ed Miliband at the last prime minister's questions of 2011 Link to this video Prime minister's questions was bound to be tricky for David Cameron today. He needed to attack Ed Miliband, who was on strong form on Monday in response to the prime minister's statement on the European summit. But Cameron could not be too aggressive because of the deep Liberal Democrat unease over the prime minister's decision to wield the British veto in Brussels on Friday. Even with these difficulties, Cameron put in one of his strongest performances of the year at the last session of prime minister's questions before Christmas. Some government MPs were even drawing comparisons with Neil Kinnock's woeful performance during the commons debate on the Westland crisis in 1986. Margaret Thatcher went into the debate wondering whether she would still be prime minister by the end of the day. In the end she emerged stronger after Kinnock spoke for too long and lost his way. This is why Miliband failed to score a clear hit: • Lack of versatility The key moment came when Cameron delivered, with perfect timing, his pre-prepared joke in response to Miliband's inevitable jibe about tensions between the prime minister and his deputy: "No one in this house is going to be surprised that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats don't always agree about Europe. But let me reassure him he shouldn't believe everything he reads in the papers. It's not that bad. It's not like we're brothers or anything." As Tory MPs erupted into laugher there was a pause before a chuckling Cameron added: "He certainly walked into that one." A versatile leader with the sort of emotional intelligence required to be a truly front rank politician would have thrown the joke back at the prime minister. Miliband lacks that confidence so he just trotted out his pre-prepared joke. It was an excellent joke but it fell flat because they failed to capture the mood of the house. He said: "I think our sympathy is with the deputy prime minister. His partner goes on a business trip. He is left waiting by the phone and he hears nothing until a rambling phone call at 4am confessing to a terrible mistake." • Lack of clarity Cameron challenged Miliband to say what he would have done at the summit. The Labour leader came close to answering this when he told the prime minister he should re-enter the negotiations. Miliband quoted Nick Clegg as saying there was a better deal. Miliband's careful remarks in this area show the sensitivity of the European crisis for Labour. The party can attack the government's negotiating tactics. But Labour is wary of saying that it was wrong for the prime minister to seek protections for the City of London. • Labour's record Miliband found once again that it is difficult to challenge the government over the rise in youth unemployment. This is because it started to rise to levels where it became a structural problem back in 2004. The Labour leader raised this issue before Europe. The prime minister showed that David Miliband is turning into a very helpful prop when he said: "We won't take lectures from a party that put up youth unemployment by 40%. Even his brother admitted the other day that youth unemployment was not a problem invented by this government. It's been going up since 2004" Cameron's success means that one of Miliband's main messages today, which could resonate in the years ahead, did not really strike home. This is that one of the government's central ambitions for the economy – that the private sector would pick up the slack as the public sector shrinks – is failing. Government MPs thought Cameron was the clear winner. One said: "It had a slight feel of Neil Kinnock and Westland. The prime minister was there for the taking and Miliband failed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/15/britain-build-europe-outside-euro "Britain can build a Europe outside the euro - Cameron should position himself as the defender of a European escape route from a project that has every chance of collapsing Britain needs to stress that it sees the euro as the great danger to Europe and, rather than bizarrely pushing for its centralisation under a German economic aegis – a provision that will ensure permanent proletarianisation for the southern nations – it needs to seek and create a new EU growth pact for those who wish for an alternative outside the euro but in Europe. For the common currency area that might mean separate euro zones or parallel currencies with greater or smaller spreads in relation to the euro. Rather than letting domestic policy-needs trump any international dimension, if Cameron is clever he could utilise one to augment the other and create a euro opt-out for nations for whom saving the euro would mean their own democratic erasure and impoverishment . If Cameron can make the most of this policy opportunity he will have created a vital exit strategy for European nations from a policy and a position that has every chance of failing. And, in time, Europe may thank Britain once again for saving them from themselves"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/15/france-eurozone-row-uk-credit-downgrade "France stokes eurozone row with call for UK credit downgrade"

Indeed

BBC Breaking News: Hungary & Czech republic WON'T give up independant taxation rights and are now doubtful to sign up to the new treaty

Rings a bell. I think they made the rules more objective in that they focus on whether the 'football club' is able to trade "within its means" (i.e. solvently) regardless of the trials and tribulations of the parent company. SFC run out of income, either from internal sources (the SLH board) or external sources. However, PFC 2010 seem to always find some extra cash heading their way from sources of varying levels of dubiousness.... Until that money stops hitting PFC 2010's bank account, from wherever it cometh, then I don't see how the Football League can declare them insolvent and thus deduct points, can they...?

Loaned or gifted? Either way, they are arguably trading solvently until they stop receiving more money (from whatever source) than they pay out, ergo I believe they are staying the 'right' side of the points penalty rules. Indeed, if anything, by receiving money from a source other than CSI demonstrates that they are not financially dependent on their parent company....does it not? Here's hoping I'm being thick here!

I think Corp Ho makes a valid point.... Up to the moment where CSI went into administration, PFC 2010 was simply one of several "asset-poor" companies in the CSI 'portfolio'. It survived (and therefore remained solvent) solely because it's parent company (CSI) was able to keep it afloat. Nothing wrong in that. (For example, The Times newspaper runs at a loss but is kept afloat by Murdoch redistributing News International money) But....the moment that funding tap was turned off (i.e. when CSI went into administration) PFC 2010 ceased to be in a position where it could continue to trade solvently APART from the fact, of course, that they still have some of "CSI/Andronov's money" sitting in their bank account. Now, this is where my understanding gets fuzzy.... At what point do the Football League's "trading insolvently" rules (and therefore points penalty) kick in? In other words, are Pompey deemed to be "trading solvently" by virtue of the fact they can bridge the 'income vs outgoings' gap by tapping into the money CSI/Andronov conveniently put in their bank account before CSI went into administration OR are the Football League rules less forgiving than that? (i.e. the FL don't count "money in the bank" as a source of income per se) Alas, I'm guessing the former. If, for example, I was paying off a personal loan using money given to me by my parents but then my parents were declared bankrupt, I wouldn't default on the loan until such time that any savings I had were used up. So, what will happen first? PFC 2010 running out of the money in the bank that is keeping them "trading solvently" (and free of point deductions) or someone buying them, thus staving off the insolvency and point deductions? The $64,000 dollar question being "when will the money that is keeping PFC 2010 solvent run out?" Days? Weeks? Months? Never?

Cheers for the heads up on this one.....that's a stocking filler sorted for Trousers Jnr :-) I assume Pompey supporters don't have to use their own cash to buy stickers for their team?