trousers

That's one way of looking at it.

I think that's a good summary. People hang onto stats that tell them we don't have an immigration problem per se. However, these same people are the first to have a pop when governments are reactive rather than proactive to problems. There is a risk that immigration *could* increase to a level that stretches our infrastructure too far (some would argue we've already reached that point) so what can possibly be wrong with the concept of introducing sensible controls so that current and future governments can preempt problems rather than deal with problems once the horse has long since bolted? All seems like common sense to me.

What's more "uncomfortable"? Sitting on the fence or questioning those that do?

What a fabulous story - thanks for sharing. This is what football should be all about and kudos to Pelle and the club for making it happen. Great stuff.

Pompey 0 Stevenage 1

Fear

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29705901

I think people may be missing the point regarding Dan? I think he's supposed to be somewhat dour, in a Karl Pilkington kinda way. Obviously needs some work but a decent enough start IMO.

[video=youtube_share;OsX2ME1i7F8]

Sky Sports News video report of the same story: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152453192372671

He's listed on here: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?45650-Official-Australian-Saints-thread-everything-you-need-to-know&highlight=thornell#.VEZnNfl4rz0

​..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29362811

I'm more worried about the collapse of the space-time continuum when the number of pages over takes the current year....

Have you ever tried repairing a sinking ship in the middle of a storm? It quite often takes on much more water than you can pump out before you've plugged all the holes.... Don't you mean "for more or less the same level of services without the added bureaucracy costs"?

So are you saying that the savings (aka "cuts") should have been more expansive than they have been? As WG alluded to, the first phase of deficit reduction is to apply the brakes on current spending.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/luke-shaws-45-minutes-nothingness-4473253 "Luke Shaw's 45 minutes of nothingness"

Penny Mordaunt MP ‏@PennyMordauntMP #Pompey fans didn't just save their club, their actions are helping reform the national game. So glad they will be part of expert group #PUP

[video=youtube_share;lep6XIVPevk]

Back to semantics but I guess, but that depends on whether "not being 100% sure" = "a mistake". Unless the referee comes out and explains why he didn't give it then we'll never know for sure whether he (a) saw clearly what happened, and thus applied the rules incorrectly, or (b) whether he couldn't see clearly what happened and therefore was duty bound to give the benefit of his doubt to the keeper. That said, if the answer is "(b)", I guess one could argue that his "mistake" was not being in the right position to have a more clear cut view of the incident. Anyway....about time we got back to gloating about the 8-0 win. My grin is still as wide as it was on Saturday!

[video=youtube_share;9xLbcIianBg]http://youtu.be/9xLbcIianBg

@SouthamptonFC: TICKETS: We've opened up Block 43 to #SaintsFC fans for this weekend's visit of @stokecity

Cheers. That would put him 2 or so weeks ahead of where Koeman placed him last week so good news if true.

My initial gut instinct was that it was a penalty but I wasn't 100% sure. Which I think is the point Wes is making. If you're not 100% sure then its not "clear cut" IMO. Semantics I guess. Does a referee have to be 100% sure before giving penalty decisions or do 'the rules' give him leeway to award a penalty based on a percentage certainty? It doesn't really matter how "clear cut" a penalty is upon fine tooth comb scrutiny. Its how "clear cut" it was to the referee in real time.