revolution saint

Women can still work up till 65 and receive a pension, seems like they have the best of both worlds to me. You can continue to bash your head against an argument you can't defend if you like though. I don't think your argument started as a feminist defence though did it? All saints together - yes, as long as they talk sense. By all means continue in your persecuted little bubble though - makes no difference to me.

To be fair me too so I stand to gain from this.....

Oh dear god, are we advocating prices based on life expectancy now? What an utterly moronic suggestion. Do people in their 50's get a slightly reduced price as well? Or maybe serious illnesses need to be taken into consideration?

It's only going round in circles because you refuse to admit that the 60-65 age group is no different from any other working age group. You can't defend or justify it despite many opportunities. What did you expect after sooooo many moaning posts? Honestly, really?

Perfectly entitled yet unable to justify...... The second point is irrelevant until you reach the age of 65.

The over 65's do get a concession - if you think it's too low then join the argument that prices are too high and not the one that seeks to justify a concession you weren't entitled to. No one moaned when you got it in the first place but it is objectionable when you moan about it being taken away. The government thing is a complete irrelevancy and has no bearing on this topic, personally I didn't vote for a government that privatised nationalised industries, subsidise them and then place that revenue in the hands of the few but that's a topic for the lounge and not here.

So the justification is marketing? Seriously? Fact is you are NOT a pensioner - you can still work, and if your job doesn't cover the cost of a ST then welcome to our world. In many ways you were luckier than us and are still luckier than us. I agree that you should have been informed earlier and that would have been fairer but that's all we agree on.

Which is of course what everyone else is doing right now...so again why should you be different?

I agree means testing would be a stupid idea so with no justification as to why the 60-65 year olds should receive a concession I think we can agree that they've got away with it for the last few years and should be grateful. That subset of fans has been lucky - there's pretty much no chance most people younger will get away with it in future. If you'd like to moan about generational differences then let's look at the fact that the age of retirement will rise to at least 67, or that getting on the housing ladder is virtually impossible (due in no small part to the baby boomer generation buying up second homes to make profit). No other generation will be as lucky as yours and yet you still moan....

You are of course absolutely correct that not everyone in the 60-65 bracket is well off or has retired - that puts those people in the same group as the rest of us. Why should the 60-65 aged people get cheaper tickets? I'm not sure I'd class you as elderly as you can still work so what's the justification? Are you advocating prices based on an ability to pay?

To be honest all concessions are inherently unfair - the very nature of them ensures that. The cost of a seat to the club is exactly the same regardless of the demographic you fall into. That said, I don't begrudge concessions per se and they can be a good thing when taken in the context that saints are a community club. The 60-65 group of people should have had the price increase communicated to them earlier to allow them to budget but I don't think bringing them in line with the rest of "normal" punters is unfair; they're still of working age and no different to a 30, 40 or 50 year old. Some of the baby boomer generation are incredibly well off - my Dad's neighbour is a successful small businessman who is moaning about the increases yet I'm willing to bet he has more disposable income than most of us. My Dad is spending money like there's no tomorrow because he's inherited my grandad's estate and can retire early. Why should these people get concessions? They're no different to the rest of us. If you've retired early because you can afford it then good luck to you but don't expect cheaper tickets if you are of working age.

Yes, on my keyboard it's where the Alt Gr key starts although other keyboards may be different.

Why does water contract as it gets colder, except when it get to 4C when it expands and then starts to contract again as it gets colder still?

That's why the 82 Brazil squad should have been great.

Lothar Matthius never seems to be mentioned as a great. I'd probably go for the '82 Brazil squad in the should have been great category as well

with a little help from agents as well

Puskas Platini Could also make a good case for Gullit and Van Basten, and Rummenigge

crap joke removed

I can remember being a student during the first gulf war and being passionately pro-war, even to the extent of wanting to sign up for it (I doubt they would have had me though). I remember going to a debate about it and we discussed the bombing of a baby milk factory which it was claimed by the allies to have been manufacturing weapons and everyone of us there believed it. Except for one bloke who was virtually laughed out of the hall. He was right though. It was only later that I realised that we'd been lied to about a lot of things. I'm not sure here in Britain we've ever had much of a student demonstration culture though. The US had Vietnam and the French had '68 but we've not had much to mirror that.

Fair enough, I only caught Greer's bit at the end. Surprising of a Mail journo but pleasing all the same.

There's no evidence to suggest that Libya is carrying out state sponsored rape - it's a scare story designed to increase support for further military resources. This allegation deflects attention away from what we're doing and why we're doing it. Instead of our media asking questions and investigating they faithfully repeat a demonising mantra; let's invade Libya, why? Because they rape. Let's invade Iraq, why? Because they kill babies, harbour terrorists and have WMDs. It's the same story over and over again. There may well be legitimate reasons for military intervention and I'd probably agree with them but calling the opposing force rapists with no foundation doesn't help the cause. And what does Greer do? She gives credit to the claim by refusing to dismiss it as the falsity it is and discusses it as if it were true. Now when we commit ground troops the general populace will believe it's being waged against evil and rape - a simple argument for simple people.

Course you do, like rain on your wedding day, eh?

Course you do, like rain on your wedding day, eh?

It's only ironic if you bought the phone with the proceeds from pimping your wife out.

It's only ironic if you bought the phone with the proceeds from pimping your wife out.