pedg

Something to do with compensation - if they cancel the service now, they don't have to pay compo if any were running late tomorrow.

More, I believe, that they want to send special trains down the lines to check for fallen tree's etc before sending normal passenger services.

tapatalk currently 64p on google play https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.quoord.tapatalkHD

One thing about the Broad incident that I have not seen covered in the press is the viewing angle of the camera compared to that of the umpire? Given the small distance the knick went before hitting the gloves and that the camera is further back and higher up I think its quite possible that Broads bat hid the trajectory of the ball from when it was knicked to when it hit the gloves when viewed from the lower and closer umpires position. Everyone saying it is a bad mistake by the umpire but that's based entirely on a view that the umpire did not have.

@pn_neil_allen: Worth bookmarking this #Pompey story and referring to it on day Holmes signs and other L2 fans start whinging! http://t.co/rKXRW059gt

 

The chief executive, though, refuses to be embarrassed about the new direction the club is following.

 

He said: ‘People from other clubs still think we are massive and when I tell them our budget they don’t believe me!

 

Me thinks there is a word beginning with C missing between "massive" and "and".

Actually several possible C words but the one I am thinking of rhymes with "Bleats"

As a leftie I would have thought he would have been anti our corrupt honours system.

There have been a number of good articles fairly recently from people who accepted honours who you might expect to have refused which are quite informative (e.g. http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2012/12/obe.html). I am sure it possibly crossed his mind not to accept but I think his statement is clear that he accepted as the title could help with some of the things he is involved in and that he is not taking it that seriously.

"I'll use my new title with abandon to highlight the causes I believe in: the importance of culture, the arts and heritage in our society, and the plight of the infirm elderly and their carers. I also pledge that I'll slaughter all unruly dragons, and rescue any damsels in distress who request my help."

Worth pointing out that this was a political award, i.e. almost certainly nominated by the labour party whose national executive committee Tony Robinson was on for a while. Opposition parties are allowed to put a number of suggestions forward and probably better him than some retiring MP or whatever.

I'm feeling quite sad about this thread - 6 days to fill a page. I mean! Even Rallyboy's sarcasm is struggling to raise a smile. And the relentless tub-thumping from 'Factless' sounds just that - a hollow sound born of desperation. This new Skate-world, with them at least vaguely attempting to live within their means, signing players who played last season for AFC Wimbledon ffs, of world tours of East Hants District Council wards - it's all mildly amusing, in a slightly cringey way, not laugh out loud as the lunatics take over the asylum sort of way.

I'll keep visiting this dear old thread, like faithfully turning up to see your Nan in a home when you were a kid, aware that her best days are behind, old memories and a sense of duty dragging you there rather than a sense of excitement or hope, until one day she will be gone.....

Pompey takeover saga sir? No its not dead, its just resting...

Interesting article on the use of the much quoted term abomination in the bible:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D

In summary its mainly a mistranslation and should really be 'Taboo' or something similar.

You miss the point. Adultery doesn't exist in civil partnerships. Under the existing law gay couples can only "marry" in a way that doesn't recognise that their union should be exclusive to each other.

I don't think I missed the point. I may have not explained my point properly though...

Lets assume we have a couple (sexual orientation irrelevant) that wish to make a commitment to each other.

Lets assume they have a free choice between Marriage and a Civil Partnership.

If the main difference is adultery is not punished in a civil partnership then what sort of couple is going to choose a civil partnership over a marriage?

Those that would implies to me a likely attitude that would often be referred to when married as an 'open marriage' where there is a implied agreement on non-exclusivity. This then implies that if they were married they would be less likely to sue for divorce for adultery anyway. In which case they might as well be married anyway.

You're right. One of the differences between proper marriage and civil partnerships is that civil partners do not get '"married" to the exclusion of all others. Because of that adultery is not a ground to dissolve.

Would someone who would file for divorce on adultery agree to a civil partnership rather than marriage if that's the main difference? i.e. if they are the sort of person who would probably file for divorce to end their relationship if they found their partner had committed adultery then they would probably prefer marriage and if they were not then there is no difference between the two?

Problem is that previously most of the ukip media stories came via Farage. Now his new band of councillors are doing their bit to show another side.

Ukip Councillors In Lincoln Refuse To Sign 'Multicultural' Anti-Racism Pledge

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/18/ukip-councillors-anti-racism-pledge-lincoln-_n_3297890.html

Ukip Councillors' Racist Comments Posted Online Mock Immigrants And Barack Obama

A Ukip councillor has described "illegal immigrants" as "sandal-wearing, bomb-making, camel-riding, goat-f******, ragheads".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/19/ukip-councillors-racist-comments_n_3301138.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

UKIP Councillor Eric Kitson Resigns

Eric Kitson resigns just two weeks into the job after admitting sharing offensive material about Muslims on Facebook.

http://news.sky.com/story/1091098/ukip-councillor-eric-kitson-resigns

If it is a car park and not residence parking on the road then I would have thought you would be fine.

He is a busy boy isn't he? Just about everything mention was being investigated and considered and stuff.

I'm pretty sure that equally the German workers who are involved in manufacturing those products which we import from them will be very careful about hoping that their Government doesn't slap trade tariffs on our exports to them, encouraging us to reciprocate by slapping trade tariffs on their goods, thus making them less competitive against products from their rivals in the Pacific rim and the USA, etc.

 

We will want to contiue trading with them, and they with us. A compromise arrangement will be found to the mutual benefit of all. This talk about reprisals and retribution, disgruntled voters in the EU not accepting things, is all conjecture. Every country in the EU looks first at their own national interests rather than at the EU as a whole.

Notice any coincidence in the highlighted bits?

What I would like to see (and what has not got a snowballs chance in hell of happening) is for the government to set up a truly independent commission that would examine possible scenario's for different levels of engagement with europe and for each clearly state both the advantages and disadvantages, the likelihood that each such a scenario would be possible and the risks involved if we decided to pick that option but agreement could not be reached. At the end producing a report that was comprehensible to 'the common man' without having to be 'interpreted' for them by the media.

Why is it that when I read about people saying "well lets just have a vote and leave the EU and all will be fine" I think of this:

either way, Canada will have a good agreement and still pay £0 into the EU

How do you know it will be a good agreement? Do you know how it compares with the agreement we have being part of the EU?

I dont care

I know that they have just negotiated (the EU) a very good trading agreement with canada who pay £0 in to the EU

Can I borrow your crystal ball as all the new stories are about the fact that no final agreement has been reached with canada, let alone any details of the final agreements (given it has not been reached).

http://www.euractiv.com/trade/canada-close-agreeing-long-delay-news-519573

Canada is close to finalising a long-delayed free-trade deal with the European Union but will not set a timetable for reaching an agreement, even though the EU is set to start talks with the United States, a top official said on Monday (6 May).

 

 

Ottawa and Brussels started negotiations to open up access to each other's economies in 2009 and a deal was supposed to be concluded by the end of 2011.

That deadline was pushed back to the end of 2012 but the two sides are still trying to resolve differences over how much beef Canada can export and how much freedom EU companies will have to bid for Canadian government contracts.

Did you know that for all the countries in europe our contribution as a percentage of gross national income is the lowest?

I find it astonishing that one of the world major importers, the 5/6th largest economy etc etc would be turned away from a trading agreement if they were not in the EU

I am sure we would get a trading agreement. The question is would it be as beneficial to the UK as the current agreement.

I'm trusting on the political clout that the major European manufacturers and producers have with their respective Governments. I'm making an assumption that the German car manufacturers, the Italian fridge and washing machine manufacturers, the French wine and cheese manufacturers, etc, will still wish to sell their products to us. That trading arrangement can therefore continue on a reciprocal basis. Do you have any evidence that a Common Market trading arrangement cannot continue? Have any of our European partners ruled it out? There might have been some rhetoric attempting to convey the impression that they wouldn't allow us to continue on that basis, but if push came to shove, then I'm fairly confident that any of the major European players wouldn't wish to jeopardise their trading links with us. It is certainly feasible to trade with Europe without being a member of the EU, as several other countries prove.

I am sure that those companies will want to trade with us but there is no proof that any arrangement would be as beneficial to the UK as the current one. What will happen with VAT and import duties for example. My opinion, and that's all we have here to go on is our opinions, is that leaving the EU would result in a reduction of exports to the EU. Whether it results in a reduction of imports depends on whether you think we are able to economically producing the required good in the UK ourselves.

You are the one proposing we break away so its up to you to provide proof that it will all be fine.

I believe the other european countries that have trading agreements with the EU are relatively small, such as sweden etc and IMO its debatable whether the EU would accept the UK on the same agreements after we have been a pain in the arse in leaving the other area's of the EU.

But your bottom line is you have no proof only that you are 'fairly confident'.

The proposal is to continue with the trading part, the Common Market and discard the political and legal powers of Brussels, so I don't see that should be a problem. There is no reason why the rules regarding subsidies should not continue to be observed to maintain a level playing field. We are usually the ones to observe these rules meticulously, when everybody else ignores them anyway.

I think you are wildly optimistic to think that the rest of europe will allow us to stay in the trading part whilst dropping all the other parts. Do you have any evidence to show that such a move is both feasible and likely to succeed or are you trusting the future of the economy to a "Well it should be okay" gut feeling without any evidence to support it?

What exactly qualifies you to assess what the Germans or French would do if we left the EU? Do you not think that they will want to continue selling their products and manufactured goods to us? We are just as big a market if not more so than they are for us. Or do you think that they will want to continue selling to us, but not expect us to want them to buy our goods in return?

There will never be absolutes in this sort of thing but its hard to to guess that if extra barriers are placed between the buyer and one of the sets of prospective sellers that the buyer would be more likely to consider buying from elsewhere. It might be okay if we could keep the advantages of the common market without the other area's but that we would be allowed to get to that position is a lot less than certain. It is an enormous risk to say we will leave without knowing in advance what our trading position with the eurozone will be.

As an example there are many rules in europe now to stop governments subsidizing companies so they have a competitive advantage. Do you think we would be allowed to continue in a common trading market if we did not agree to those rules? Who then decided which rules we would have to agree to and if we break the rules how can it be resolved if you don't want to accept the power of the european court?

Carribean always nice but October is in the rainy season. Though been a few times and never more than a passing shower.

Or possibly you are, Lord D.

 

I am not the pedg

I am sparticus.. or something.