trousers

Davis and Gardos back in contention for Saturday. Djuricic out with an ankle injury though.

Not guilty m'lud. I never had a personality to start with.

He wasn't prosecuted because the police/prosecutor decided the evidence wasn't convincing enough to secure a prosecution. Victims can ask for a case to be dropped but they have no right to demand it is. There were plenty of witnesses to the event so the victim declining to give a statement isn't reason alone to drop the case.

[vine]eBDHz3wA1PY[/vine]

Cheers Steve (apologies for the somewhat delayed gratitude, only just seen your reply!)

2pm...

He wasn't much cop in the Championship either ... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?37401-Oh-Fonte

I'd keep the opposition on their toes and replace the whole squad.

You sure about that? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fot

Any news on whether or not the Pope is catholic, pap? #saintswebforumrevelations

The UK's only likeable Tory? https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/one-of-us-e9ad6fa39a9e

I can't work out if this is genius or bonkers....or both....

Candidate for photo of the day

Isn't the contradiction in all this that Balls said he wouldn't advocate abolishing it whereas Miliband says he will? I agree the ability to inherited non-dom status isn't right. I heard a stat earlier that c.90% of non-doms stay in the country less than 7 years (i.e. they are classed as "temporary") and their net contribution to the economy is greater than if they weren't here setting up and growing businesses in the UK in the first place. Until one sees the evidence that abolishing non-doms will have a postitive effect on the economy then the jury is out, for me, on whether or not its a good policy. Btw, the number of non-doms doubled over the course of the last Labour government. But Blair and co were only Tory-lite of course....

How does omitting the line: “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.” alter the meaning/intent of the earlier line: "if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country."? (fwiw, all the clips of the Balls interview I've seen on TV today have included the "omitted" sentence.) Stories like this can obviously be spun whichever way one chooses, but the fact is that Labour have gone from Balls saying that it will probably cost the economy money to Miliband saying that it will add "several £100 million" to the economy. Which is it? p.s. No doubt if this was a story about a muddled Tory policy we'd be arguing the opposite side of the coin

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/news/38337/

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/healthcare/private-parts-of-the-nhs-say-the-nhs-should-not-be-privatised/

Nope

Agree, not explicitly. They simply hadn't thought through the consequences of being able to keep an unconditional pledge in a coalition scenario. Naive? Yes. Stupid? Probably. Willfully misleading voters? Not convinced.

One could argue that their supporters are being short sighted too in their clamour to punish a party that has admitted they made a mistake in making such an unconditional pledge. You'd have thought people would admire politicians that apologise and admit mistakes given how few do.

So, if tuition fees was a Tory red-line in the coalition negotiations (which it undoubtably was), Lib Dem supporters' preference was to duck out of a chance to have their party in government for the first time in generations? I appreciate that sticking to one's principles is a noble thing, but surely the lib dems stood more chance of promoting their other policies in government than as a minority opposition party. Sounds like cutting off nose to spite face territory to me.