trousers

My gut feeling is pretty much the same as yours TBH. The 'in a nutshell' statement being "it makes no flaming sense"....

This. 110%

The vast majority of 'open to the public' forestry land in this country is already owned and maintained by non-government organisations....

Some would say that HMRC didn't come up short. Some would say the goalposts were moved...

How many is "a lot"?

p.s. yes, I know it can be downloaded from the iPlayer itself but that only allows you to play it for 7 days - I want to be able to keep it 'forever'...cheers

Anyone got any 'best of breed' solutions for saving iPlayer broadcasts to one's PC?

Seems a reasonable hypothesis.

Do you mean "Saints Aid"? I know a lot of people that gave up a huge amount of their time to help the cause on that day, and in the days and weeks leading up to it. I've no idea where the money ended up but a helluva lot of effort was put in by the organisers and participants, I know that much.

How many is "many"..?

Yes, I've already agreed with that part....

Nobody is saying that it's (a) "ok" to not sell someone a ticket for no reason whatsoever (although, that's any retailer's prerogative) or (b) it's "ok" not to tell someone why they can't have a ticket. All those of us sitting on the 'fence of judgement' are saying is that we'd rather have the full facts before making a judgement one way or the other. As I've said several times, the anecdotal evidence suggests the club are being unreasonable and if that's the case it would be nice to see an apology. If, however, it transpires they did have a valid reason (in their eyes) then the debate can move on to whether people think their reason was understandable or not. I don't know the full facts thus I won't make a judgement one way or the other (I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist for the same logical reasons) I thought this thread was about showing solidarity for fellow saints fans rather than criticising them for reserving judgement? ;-)

Only when Rickie yawns at the critical moment....that's a real passion killer....

If you think I'm typing that into my search engine you've got another thing coming....

I doubt this story will have much public reach outside of this forum. I, for one, would be none the wiser if I hadn't come on here today.

Indeed. Like it or not, Cortese has a blanket policy of keeping what goes on at the club inside the club. This IFO organisation (which I'd never heard of before) obviously don't have the power to demand evidence from 'the defence', otherwise Cortese would have had no choice but to comply at the time of their enquiries. If this IFO organisation is going to be 100% effective (i.e. able to come up with judgements based on having all the facts disclosed to them) then it should be given the appropriate levels of authority within the football industry to achieve this. It all sounds a tad half baked to me - an ombudsman with, ultimately, no powers. The words 'chocolate' and 'teapot' spring to mind....

Tokio Marine Best Marketing Campaign Barnsley - Get What You Want Colchester United - The Colchester United Voucher Scheme Derby County - Black and White Forever Doncaster Rovers - The Rovers Roadshow Reading - Engaging Female Supporters Sheffield Wednesday - Season Ticket Holder Birthday Bar Southampton - 125th Anniversary Kit Launch Southend United - Thriller Campaign Fat chance of winning that one. The PC brigade will be voting for Reading in their droves..... ;-)

Indeed - it does look bizarre on the surface. Which is why I suspect there is a piece of information that the club has withheld (for whatever reason) that would help explain this apparent bizarreness. It's only bizarre because we don't both sides of the story. It could of course still be a bizarre if we did know the facts....will we ever know?

If such a tactic is good enough for Pompey..... ;-)

Chamberlain up for one too.... Football Manager Apprentice of the Year - npower League 1 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain - Southampton Dale Jennings - Tranmere Rovers George Baldock - Milton Keynes Dons

The way I read it is that they weren't privy to all the facts as the club refused to divulge all the facts (as they see it). So, the IFO found in favour of NI precisely because that's all they had to go on. (as far as I can tell) So, yes, the club are guilty......of not providing the information requested. And, yes, I think it's odd that if the club did nothing wrong (in their eyes) that they didn't give the IFO the full picture. It could be said that this implies they have something to hide. There again, it could imply that they didn't see it important enough to get embroiled in. All of which supposition means that I will remain a relatively lone voice and not cast judgement on either side.

Alas, that logic seems to be falling on a few deaf ears....

How can we be so sure of that? We know what the club did but what we don't know is why. Unless I, and the IFO, missed it somewhere? I totally agree that all the anecdotal evidence points to the possibility that the club have handled this shabbily, but we have no tangible evidence to back that up, just anecdotal evidence. In this country, saying "No comment" does not prove guilt. It's a basic right of defence whether we like it or not. Saying nothing doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Yes, it can imply guilt, but that is all.

Minimum of 6 in the main cabin. If memory serves me correctly, we've had a 7 seater before -> 4 seats (with table), plus 3 seats behind that (+ driver and passenger seats at front of course) We've used http://www.vansforbands.co.uk before but they're based in Oxford so looking for something closer to home cheers edit: this is what we've used before (although not quite as posh as this one!)