Crouchie's Lawyer

Agreed, he seemed to be very funny when posting his drunken stuff!

Apologies Pancake, god knows how as I have re-read it 4 or 5 times now but I misread your post and thought you were having a dig at me! I am a tw&t!

See last paragraph of my above post Poshie. Seems like your ex is a c*ckle and that infact he doesnt deserve to see them anyway!

Having seen St Lards post above and your comment I cannot help but pass my own comment. I know I know nothing in terms of facts so I say this loosely, but you saying that your interpretation of your ex's current and previous state of mind makes you wonder if he will do something similar and in turn, may lead you to reassess your arrangements with him is horsesh!t. Its things like this which make it unfair on men when the courts make their decisions on who gets custody. I dont mean to be rude, however if you had post natal depression for 5 years, it could have been argued that you may not be in a fit mental state to have got custody of your children? You say that something as discpicable as this did not cross your mind in the 5 years you had your post natal depression, yet you are quick to say the state of your ex's mind may well lead him to think like this? Did your ex use your post natal depression excuse in court when arguing the custody case (if he did argue it?). If he did not then I would argue it is because he may have believed you would offer more stability and less upheaval in terms of who gets custody. In which case, he was thinking for the benefit of his kids. If you did decide to play silly buggars with your ex over his arrangements to see his child(ren?) because you are worried he may do something similar, do you not think this in itself would frustrate and annoy him, and (going to the worst case scenario) could actually prevoke something to happen? Yes you may be bitter at your ex for whatever reason and may not get along with him now, but please dont let this get in the way of his relationship with your child. Using a child as a points scoring tool is not fair on the kid and ultimately will lead them to grow up bitter. Im not for one second implying this is the case with you Poshie, however there was a remark you made in your post which hit a bit of a nerve so thought I had to comment. Please note Poshie, I am in no way having a dig at you, just reading StLards post above and knowing there are so many blokes out there who struggle to see their kids because of women who play the system and try to get back at the bloke through their kids. For all we know your ex may have left you for someone else, never pay his way when it concerns the kids and may not be all that intrested in seeing them. So please dont take offense.

I feel for you SL. I dont have kids at the moment but when I do, should (and I hope it doesnt) the situation arise whereby I split from their mother, I would like things to be equal. Im a firm believer than kids should see both parents equally to stand a good chance of a decent upbringing. Thats not to say people brought up by single parents dont stand a chance! There are numerous times when people brought up by only one parent have gone onto be better people than those with two. I cant help but think that when it comes to the courts, women tend to get it easy which leaves blokes like you short changed. The fact she is taking your money intended for you child and spending it herself is a farce. If there was any way of actually proving this then it should be up to the courts to change things. Either enforce her to stay living local for your sake (in terms of your relationship with your child), reduce your contribution if she can afford to spend your money on her, or change the amount you get to see your kid.

I heard an interesting comment over the weekend re offside's. That there should be a second lino in each half on the opposite touchline from the current one. If you think about it, the job of a lino is near on impossible to get exactly right. He cannot physically look at one thing (when the ball is being played) while also looking at when the player makes his run and is in an offside position. Ok so he can get it pretty accurate which is how its survived up to now, but I feel a second lino would be a very good step forward. You arm Linoo 1 with a bleeper which he presses as the ball is played and lino 2 has an earphone and hears when the bleeper is pressed. Its then his job to decide if the striker is in an offside position when he hears the bleeper. This way he can be directly in line and should limit mistakes further. Im gonna take it on dragons den. 10% for £300,000!

I hope that wasnt a dig at me

Ahhh, how sweet, you can take a dump while Kitty does too!

Ah, forgot about Pekhart...

You're not seeing my original point. I was not saying Jan having decided to change your formation, here is what I think you should do and who you should play. I was saying I dont think he was right to deploy 4-2-1-2-1 or 4-3-3 whichever way you look at it from the start. He should have started with 4-2-2 and those would be the players I would pick for each position based on a fully fit squad.

3? Llana can play in the middle, out wide or off the front man as shown so far this season. I firmly believe with a player like John as his partner, he would do well upfront. He is skillful and quick and has proven he can finish the ball. Surman (if that was one of your other ones) has proven he is better as a wingback or full back than a central midfield player. I actually think he has done well as a full back. Rudi - I admit he is a left sided player and playing him on the right is out of position, however, having a talent as good as his available, I would prefer to play him and play him out of position than have him sat rotting in the resi's. He can deliver a cross and is also skillfull with a good shot. He is experienced and we need this in the team. Who else are you classing as out of position then?

As James is injurred and Killer too, I wasnt saying on Sat I would have had, or come this Sat I would like to see. I know of our injurred players hence why I said 'Given the options and available staff' In other words my ideal XI

I personally cannot get away from the fact that unless they are propper wingers who love to get involved with the attack, having 1 striker with two wide men doesnt seem to work. I would rather traditional 4-4-2. Two strikers is the key. Given the options and available staff I would have the following team: Davis James / Killer / Perry / Surman Rudi / Wotton / Schneiderlin / Holmes Stern / Llana

According to Steve asked to be banned? I wonder why?

That is horrific! You could bet your wage that person is obese! Still, I would love to buy that kind of house. Think how cheap you could get it and how much money you would have added just by cleaning it!

You're not a pedant now are you Bates?! Anyway, wheres the bewbs?

Saints do jeans now too?! Is this why your TMS input has been disappointing so far today then? Your actually working!?

Cheers mate. Its not the smoothest but it does the job! Made me lol!

How far into this is it? I am half way through and still havent seen it. Its four and a half minutes long and all the other you tube video's of it have been removed due to copyright from the football league.

Its all ok, we have Ikea now! : rolly eyes thingymabob :

If I were the Watford players and knew it wasnt a goal, yet the goal was awarded, I would have walked off the pitch and refused to continue. This way forcing the FA to instigate a replay. They couldnt have really done anything else without causing a massive uproar!

I think a lot of people are quick to jump onto the 'Mortgage brokers = evil people' bandwagon because of the Panorama documentaries portraying this. I am or was a mortgage broker. One of the main lenders when I started in 2006 that we used were a Lehmanns Brother company called Southern Pacific (SPML). Due to the Lehmanns problems, SPML stopped lending late early this year and consequently a lot of brokers who used them started to struggle, including the company I worked for. I decided to jump before the ship sank and although heavily waterlogged and IMO still sinking the broker I used to work for is still trading although I have come to realise that the owners are very dodgy. I find that a lot of the negative press about brokers is coming from very small companies or one man bands wanting to make a very quick buck and having no morals, will do anything to achieve this. One of my colleagues knows of a company who would fraudulently photocopy a passpork and docture the DOB so the client fit into the age brackets of a lender. This kind of brokering is the 1% which has led to a bad name for the 99% of other brokers out there. A lot does have to be put on the client though and this is the one main gripe I personally had about the panorama program. While they were filming Spazzy McIdiot having just been reposessed as his mortgage payments went up and up and up and his mortgage was obtained on the basis of his income being higher than it actually was, not once was it pointed out that a) You signed all the documents with this information on so would have realised the application was based on a lie and in signing it, are actually committing as much fraud as the broker who is doing it for you. And b) had you read through the paperwork, it would have explained that your mortgage has the potential to go down OR UP so it was a risk you took. I understand a lot of people are mortgage illiterate and wouldnt know where to start let alone what is what which is why a broker is required, however filling in an application for with your information is not something which can be misunderstood and consequently, the people who had had their income inflated by these brokers are IMO just as bad as the brokers who did it for them. The other point regarding people who moaned about the rates going up and their mortgages becoming too much to afford is that (and I have seen dozens of examples like this) when the mortgage was originally advised, their financial situation is looked and and the recommendation is then given taking this into consideration. If a lender allows 4 times your income (a lot of lenders now work on 'affordability' though) and you earn £30k, of course a mortgage of £100k is within your limits, providing you do not have much unsecured debts at time of application. So even a few mortgage rate increases (presuming your on a variable rate) shouldnt make that much of a difference to your ability to afford the mortgage. The problem comes in the following form and I would put money on it, that a lot of the reposessions over the last year and repo's which will happen in the future were and will be because of the following. Credit card companies and personal loan companies dont tend to care what your income is. They also dont cross check (on an auto application, its different if its manually looked into which is hardly ever) how much other debt you have, yet they were (its a little tighter now, but still fairly easy) still dishing out credit left right and centre. So Mr Jones who is on £30k a year and has just got a mortgage of £100k which is well within his affordability limits gets his nice new house and wants a new bathroom, kitchen and to redecorate. He takes out a personal loan (as there is not sufficient equity in the house to take a home loan and he has only just got his mortgage). Payments of this loan plus the mortgage and ever increasing council tax and utility bills start to mount up and while still affordable, make it difficult for Mr Jones to live the lifestyle he did before he got his house, clubbing most weeks with his mates, holidaying once or twice a year to a nice destination. Temptation is always very hard to resist, especially in todays 'buy now pay later, must have it now, credit' generation and a nice credit card application arrives on the door of Mr Jones house the day after his mates all decide to go on a lads holiday to Ibiza. Mr Jones whacks the cost of this on his credit card as he has no money to pay upfront for it. He will simply pay it off in installments. Once he gets back from his holiday interest rates go up two or three times. Now this wouldnt have been a problem under the advice given by the mortgage broker originally as his income could have supported this but now, having easily obtained a large personal loan and with a few grand on a credit card, it makes it impossible. End result? Mr Jones has his house reposessed and gets made bankrupt. Who gets the blame? The credit card or loan company for allowing him to take the credit card / loan out when it was clear he couldnt afford it? No, the mortgage broker! However, when the FSA look into it, quite often this is spotted and consequently the broker (quite rightly) doesnt get fined or told off yet this isnt highlighted in the press and consequently the broker is made to look bad! The credit crunch has happended for a number of reasons but the fact that the dopey yank companies like the Lehmann Brothers accepted applications in the states which were known as NINJA (No Income No Jobs or Assets) loans has IMO majorly contributed to this so at the end of the day it was their own doings which were the eventual downfall of themselves. As you can see, I am quite bitter however my loss of income this year is a direct result of the credit crunch and when your income is cut by 70% or so, then I think you have reason to be p!$$ed off

Hello PL, where have you been?!?

Litterally asked or did he do something which meant he had to be?

I found out about this last night as my Mrs's Mum works in social services and was informed of it. My Mrs received a text reading 'Dad killed 2 kids then hung himself' Needless to say, my mrs briefly cacked herself thinking her dad had done something before realsing what her mum said. Sick bloke (dude who killed his kids, not my father-in-law to be). He resigned from his job on Fri and his wife left him. He was also living in a caravan. I know it must be pretty tough living like that and having bad news, however you dont see us topping ourselves and why take the lives of two innocent kids?!