Arizona

Bet he has a few interesting chants sung about him. "Sh*tov, sh*tov Sh*tov the b***ards below" etc. Actually, he is a 22 year old RB, so maybe CDAJFU.

Mugs? Panorama clearly had an agenda with that programme. The stuff they were coming out with was so biased it's untrue. The bloke complaining that he missed his flight because he couldn't get his baggage checked in was very much the exception rather than the rule. Most of the delays in Stansted in August were caused by staff shortages for the handling agent and computer problems within the airport. The pilot moaning about having 45 minutes to prepare a flight should count himself lucky he isn't being laid off like a handful of pilots at most other European airlines. The narrator flying to Vasteras failed to mention that he wasn't forced to fly there and that if you want to fly to Aarlanda with BA that's your choice. The fact that so many do prefer Vasteras or Skavsta to flying with BA shows more about public oppinion IMO. He also failed to mention that there are probably only half a dosen airports like Vasteras which are out in the sticks. I did laugh at Michael O'Leary taking the p*ss with the interview at the end though. The fact that the beeb refused an unedited interview just shows them up as mugs more than anything. This isn't Ryanair trying to save face, this is Ryanair taking advantage of some very kind free publicity from the BBC. Ryanair are often the cheapest (not always) and have an enviable on time record. That's the bottom line for 99% of passengers, everything else is trivial.

If the govt (whichever one) wants to make a bit of cash, all they need to do is legalise drug (the lot of them) and then stick the mother of taxes on that. Would solve a whole world of problems.

Should be coming from Lincoln (assuming we don't sell out and I can buy a ticket on the day) and Leeds is on the way. If you can get to somewhere like Castleford or Morley on the M62, you might be in luck.

There are 28.9m million workers in the UK, as of July 2009. Of which only 2.6m earn less thatn £7k a year. 20% of £3,300 (The difference between £6,700 and £10,000) for 26.3 million people (Those earning more than the current tax free threshold) gives the UK a net tax deficite of £17.4bn Under your scheme, those "super-rich" (1.1 million people earning over £200k) would have to fork out, on average £15.8m each per year to make up for the deficite alone. Out of those, only 6 thousand earn over £1m a year. Closing the tax loop holes used by less than 2% (earners over £200k) of the population wont even scratch the surface of £17.4bn. And to cap it off, the 2.6 lowest earners in the UK get no benefit what-so-ever.

That's a whole bag of nails you've just hit on the head.

Debrecen.

Chelsea sign Henry, Chris Crocker, Miss Teen America, Rudi Skacel, O RLY and Numa Numa Guy.

I'd have Skacel in for Mellis, but that's just my opinion. Otherwise I'd agree. EVERYTHING about this team and even this club is miles better than last season.

See if you can figure it out.

This is the Lounge guys.

Locked at users request.

Sorry, perhaps I've misunderstood. I thought the government was on about saving a few hundred million by buying one less submarine. I wont pretend to know how many subs or missiles are needed for an effective deterant, but if we can save a lot by cutting back on either, whilst maintaining an effective deterant, that makes sense IMO.

Vignal was probably our best player after John in the second half of last season. When he got his mojo back he was a top CCC fullback. Much as I rate Harding, I'd say Vignal just edges it.

The old lady scenario - I really don't see how it's beyong the realms of capability that she could move. Most older people have younger relatives or friends of some kind who can help with moving. There are very few who couldn't and I'm sure they could hire help of some kind. As for the young couple scenario. I'm young, I rent a flat. I pay the same council tax as the middle aged couple next door who own their flat. As it happens I share with some work colleagues to help spread the bills around. I don't feel in the least bit hard done by. Local public services aren't cheaper just because I am young or rent a flat. Trident - I disagree. 1 less sub I agree with, but we do need a nuclear deterrant. 30 years ago you could have said there is no need for any weapon other than nukes. Russia was the enemy and any conflict with them would only ever end in nuclear war. Imagine trying to 'liberate' Iraq and Afghanistan if we couldn't do anything but level entire cities. I.D. Cards - I'll drink to that. The most pointless concept ever to be pulled out of Westminster's collective orifice.

Okay, so we basically agree on income tax, we can put that one to bed. But your view on council tax is again riddled with hypocricy. You are having a dig at those with higher incomes saying they are all moaning because they might have to pay more tax. Yet at the same time you seem to be supporting the idea that people with low incomes should be able to live in expensive houses they cannot afford. How does it "ruthlessly take from poorer people"? It takes a varying amount depending on the value of the property. If these old people living in large family homes cannot afford to pay the council tax, they should move. You may not think that's fair, but it certainly isn't fair to make other people foot the bill so they can carry on living in a big expensive house. The last paragraph is just childish. "better off people whinging that they might have to pay some tax. Boo hoo." Nobody is whinging that they might have to pay some tax. The argument is about how much tax and how it should be spread out accross society. Nobody is fronting a "tax increase for household earning less than £xxxx a year policy". Those in the higher tax band already pay more into society, both as a % of their salary and an amount in pounds and pennies. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be driving at a society where people are taxed different amounts to the extent where the amount they actually get to take home is the same, regardless of income. It's an extreme and ridiculous socialist POV and as people have pointed out, it's just going to lead to a mass exodus of high earners (who happen to be qualified proffessionals). I'm not supporting any party here. All have their fault. Labour had their chance and f**ked up big time. The Tories are all mouth and no trousers and the Lib Dems seem to just want to stick uber tax on everything.

I didn't hear that song, altough I heard people talking about it after the game. It must be bad if you think the "Boom Boom" song is LESS cringeworth.

Just back, decent team performance, and we got the result to match. The James incident - didn't see it only James crouching over on the ground, can't really comment. Schneiderlin's 'penalty' - Looked a bit like he left a leg out knowing he'd lost the ball. Baj swore he didn't make contact, I thought he caught the trailing leg. Either way he was definitely looking for it. Our best players were Harding, Jaidi and for the goals Lallana. Having said that all the team looked pretty good. Davis never really had to exert himself, altough his attempt at building a wall was disasterous. Perhaps we should get a Chinese goalie. The Saints fans made a terrific noise. The Shrimpers didn't say all that much. Most random heckle ever walking away from the ground - Some old Shrimp git walking up to me and going, "er... McGoldrick for England!"

Absolutely immense tonight. Jaidi won everything in the air. Harding was up against a very trick right winger, but had him in his pocket all night long. Not an easy task as Southend tried to play some nice stuff and send the ball out wide.

Just back and I'd agree Papa looked good. Despite his pace he never troubled the by line that often, but he is definitely that burst of energy our attacks have been missing for some time. His best moments were a shot second half which was blocked and collecting the ball just outside our area defending a corner, skinning two Southend players, tearing down the other end of the pitch and cutting the ball back for someone ( couldn't really tell in the bright lights and mist) who had two efforts saved. Not our best player, but an honnourable mention.

I think their criteria must be biggest wastes of money. There is no way Sheva and Rebrov are in there based on tallent.

This one is brilliant.

Right then... 1. I know. Only income above £36k, or whatever the exact threshold is, gets the higher rate. I cannot see ANY bias against poorer people there. 2. That point is massively hypocritical. You claim people such as myself and Colin are selfish and only look out for #1 (and in your "Robin Hood" eutopia it seems nobody else is going to). Yet you are claiming pensioners with no income should be able to live in large houses which they cannot afford and the working population should foot the bill. I'm sorry that is just plain wrong. If you are retired and living off a state pension, you should have to make somne sacrifices to live withing your means. 3. Morally dubious... nope sorry, you don't have a case there. I'm not Mother Theresa, but I wouldn't call myself selfish either. I have a reasonable income which I have earned. I fail to see why I should take home less so people with unqualified jobs can take home more.

I'm no accountant, so I wont claim to know the ins and outs of tax, but the way I see it, if every is paying a set % of their earnings, that surely is proportional. Infact based on income tax, those in the higher bracket (£36k plus?) are paying a higher proportion of tax. To me that sounds pretty much fair, if anything in favour of those who are in the lower income bracket. If we look at other forms of tax: Road Tax; The roads cost the same to maintain regardless of the wealth of those driving on them. Everyone should pay the same amount. Ditto council tax with the costs of local amenities. I've never bought a house, but I understand stamp duty to be a % of the value of the property. Capital gains tax Personally I think most of the complaints are from working class people who can't accept that they will have less disposable income than those with better paid jobs. I saw a woman on the news saying something along the lines of 'all the rich people with fancy cars and boats, why should they have more money than we do'. Well madame, they run their own software company, you work at the check-outs in ASDA. GO figure.