revolution saint

This may seem strange but I agree with a lot of this. The banks should have been regulated a lot better than they were. However, that tighter regulation would have had to occur when banks were posting record profits. Can you imagine the outcry if government intervention happened at a time of rising (apparent) prosperity? It's the fault of the banks (and us) that have believed an economy based on debt could carry on forever. I don't think there was much of an alternative when the banks started to fail though. Let one bank fail and the rest would topple like dominos. Millions would have lost their homes and their savings. I don't think there was much choice in the matter - the government had to bail out the banks to prevent meltdown. There's a delicious irony here that when unfettered capitalism produces results then it's because of entrepreneurs and the private sector, when it fails then it's the fault of the state.

Not sure I understand, isn't it "political correctness" that's kicked him out? It's liberalism that would allow him to speak. For what it's worth both terms are meaningless labels IMO. I agree. You don't win an argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening.

During a conversation at work today we stumbled on to the idea that there doesn't seem many band names containing body parts. Naturally this topic proved far more interesting than work and we came up with: Elbow The Shins Flaming Lips Belly Stiff Little Fingers The Faces We discounted Radiohead as too tenuous. Can anyone come up with any others? I suppose I could google it but where's the fun in that?

I saw that the programme about the depression as well. Very interesting especially about the amount of credit available to speculators. Trouble is when an economy is doing well then introducing regulation is seen as a curb to entrepreneurs etc. In many ways the government can't win (and that's any government) because when things are good then they're perceived to be an unneccessary hindrance and when things are bad then it's their fault. Take the housing market here - anyone could see that for quite a while prices have been far too high. If we'd enforced strictly the 3 x your salary rule then domestically the housing market would have been realistic but what government is brave enough to do that? Who wants to alienate people and tell them they can't buy a house when the credit industry is crying out to lend? Anyway back on topic, at least it looks like Ford is offering a decent redundancy package because statutory minimum is awful. Still very very bad news though and good luck to anyone affected.

I only ever got Setanta for the boxing which is still the best coverage there is.

That would be the terrorist fist bump again!

I frequently refuse to be televised.

Think I'm right in saying we never finished lower than 12th with CN in charge? There was some great football, great kids coming through but as others have said - following McMenemy was a hard task. Our defending at times was abysmal though and whilst we seemed to score for fun we could also concede equally easily. Given the state of the club since he left I'd take CN's brand of football any day of the week. Oh, and technically I don't think he was sacked - didn't we just not renew his contract? Whatever the reason the idea of appointing Branfoot was lunacy as was getting rid of Case.

One of the main players in "Debbie does Dallas", take your pick - a pr**k or a c**t.

Thing is he's a bloke who's doing a god awful job. I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing but the problem is that pretty much no one agrees with him, and they're all right. the dutch experiment has been a failure. He's brought us to the point of almost relegation for the second time - is that success? No. Frankly if we had a chairman who did absolutely nothing then it would be less harmful so in that respect then yes anyone but Lowe is better. Could anyone do a worse job? I doubt it. You're forgetting relegation. You're forgetting refusing to back our best manager in years when the funds were available, you're forgetting buying a bloated average squad instead of quality, you're forgetting that the stadium would never have happened without the council, you're forgetting the many numpty managerial appointments. I think any success we had was in spite of and not because of Lowe. The only thing I will give him credit for is the rejuvenation of the academy. If that had been married to a policy of buying quality and not many average players then we'd have been OK. Unfortunately Lowe thought he knew best and guess what? He didn't. The idea that he can come back and have another go at being absolute rubbish is why people protest. If he was the manager would you support him after so many bad decisions? He's said before "this is a results based industry" and he's right. His results will see us relegated for a second time. I'm all for seeing if anyone can be as bad as Lowe. I don't think it's possible.

OK, it's time to put an end to this pro Lowe argument because frankly they don't exist. I've not spoken to one single saints fan that supports Lowe. Sure there's a few trolls on here and some who just fancy a wind up but they don't compare to the numbers that marched. Think about it, as saints fans in the stadium, at games, at work, or anywhere have you ever heard a good word about Lowe recently? I'd guess the answer is no.

All the best Ed, pleasure watching you on sky sports and knowing you're a saints fan.

It's a failure. I didn't expect much this season and I've still been disappointed. Thing is we always look to the end of the season as if surviving will mean we can start to get better next time round. If we survive then next season will be harder - we'll be further in debt, we'll lose better players than we bring in and knowing Lowe he'll probably herald the new football revolution "Hungarian total football". The close season we'll emulate those magical magyars, we may even sign the new Puskas - it won't help us when the season kicks off for real though. Next season we'll either be: a) In league 1 b) In league 1 and in administration c) In the Championship and in administration d) struggling to stave off relegation (from either division) and struggling to stave off administration. I better get that season ticket in early - I bet there'll be a queue.

I generally agree with this. I did a degree in IT though which I found endlessly dull. It was a purely vocational decision to enable me to compete in the job market which it did. However, after leaving uni and getting a job I decided to do some Open University courses in subjects I was genuinely interested in. The difference was amazing and it was a great experience. I've often said if I won the lottery then I would go back to fulltime education. I will point out that University doesn't suit a lot of people though and it's unrealistic to think that it's beneficial to everyone. Depends on the individual really. The other thing I'd say is that whilst a lot of jobs shouldn't really be demanding people have a degree to get on a shortlist unfortunately it does happen. HR departments will sift out many job applications purely on the basis that a person doesn't have a degree regardless of experience. It's not right but it happens. I also think that proper "trades" have suffered due to lack of decent apprenticeships around. When we had a lot of nationalised industries then there were many apprenticeships available - smaller private companies don't always have the resources available to offer these opportunities.

Moran for me. My first football hero and the fella we all wanted to be in the playground. It's a tough call though. Pahars was just too injury prone and Shearer wasn't prolific enough whilst he was here (not his fault though). Sadly never saw Chivers so can't really comment.

Rupert, you numpty. Does he really believe we're so gullible that we'll give the "revolutionary coaching setup Mark II" another go? This is just plain PR and I feel sorry for MS.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about? No managerial appointment under Lowe turns out to be permanent anyway. I bet Lowe is already wracking his brain on drawing up a managerial shortlist containing the worst options since the last appointment. You have to hand it to the guy - he consistently proves that he can make things worse than anyone thought they could get.

He was indeed. God I wish I had a job where I could post at work, then again I was an unproductive type when I could so maybe it's not such a bad thing.

But the bus driver is still a **** though right?

7 letters then as you also forgot how to count.

What a great response. Well done! Who would have thought 6 letters would have formed such a coherent reply to the question of whether it's socially acceptable to question the idea of god. Your pulitzer prize is in the post, don't be frightened if it's ticking.

See the thing is I'm not knocking religion, nor have I suggested it's wrong for people to believe in it. Personally I don't agree with their views but that's their right. This isn't about whether religion is a good or bad thing (it's too big a subject for a start). What I am suggesting is it's wrong for anyone to refuse to drive a bus simply because of what's written on it. The driver is not espousing atheistic beliefs by driving it. What he is doing is saying that another person's point of view is so utterly repulsive to him that he can't do his job. That's wrong isn't it? Is saying there probably isn't a god such a vile thing? Wouldn't it be more sensible to actually try and argue why there is a god rather than stamp his feet and throw his toys out of the pram? As I said at the top of the thread it's pretty much live and let live with me, whether I agree with people or not. I wouldn't stop someone or an organisation expressing their views just because I disagreed. For the record though I'd like to point out that religion doesn't have a monopoly on kindness. Sure there are many good deeds done it's name but there are also a matching amount done by non-religious organisations and individuals. There are also a lot of bad things done in the name of religion. My own personal view is that an act of kindness performed simply because it's the right thing to do and not because God told us to, or because a reward is waiting in heaven may be more meaningful.

Yeah that goes without saying. Obviously I'm not saying all Christians are intolerant - just the ones that post on here .......aw crap, that's another generalisation.

Well try and address the point. What I find ludicrous is the failure to accept another point of view. The idea someone can disagree with the right of someone to hold a legitimate and justifiable view is ludicrous. Let's see if you can come up with an argument.