pedg

Doubt he will be there as "For Mention" according to yahoo answers means "Cases listed for mention in court are usually to fix a date for trial or agree outstanding issues. They can sometimes lead to a change of plea." So unless he is changing his plea to guilty then its just about firming up details about the real trial.

What is it about our stadium that every report has to start with a panning shot of it?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15564007.stm

Mod's, I think we may need the maximum font size increased before the end of the season..

I believe the procedure is to remove his finger from where it is stuck on his chin.

This thread reminds me of one of my favourite jokes. Many people can remember what they were doing when they heard Thatcher was leaving.... Smiling.

I agree I am just saying that IMO the daily mail is far worse in terms of personally libelling people. Yes there are cases involving the guardian but it appears that the Mail unleashes the hounds of hate, bias and lying on a daily basis. Also consider the case of Neil Morrissey in link above. The mail contacted him to say they were running the story. He told them it was complete fabrication but they just ran it anyway. Then they finally admitted it was wrong, agreed with his solicitor about where the apology would be printed and then did something completely different.

Yes they count but in the almost personal vendetta competition they are in the Ryman's league compares to the Premiership Daily Mail. Do you know what the mail's latest wheeze is? They basically libel people then when threatened with legal action they print a small bit in their new 'corrections' column months or years later. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/oct/27/dailymail-medialaw

Can probably guarantee a lot of that story is fabricated and any figures are exaggerated. Nothing like having someone who can't sue the paper for lying to produce a story that appeals most to the reader. Personally i am more annoyed at the money Thatcher is getting for staying alive.

I know the tabloids sometimes make things up but according to the sun it was 1-1!?! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3903144/Southampton-1-Middlesbrough-1.html

With the drop in the cost of the components its likely that a halving will still see a return rate of about 8 or 9% p.a. so still a fairly good investment (though you effectively lose your investment money by the end of 25 years so the effective rate will be less than this). One assumes that those installing will also have to take a cut in their profit margin to get more business which will also bring down prices.

I suppose you could consider specific exercise, e.g. people going for a run or having a knock about where often those taking part are already often fairly fit and coincidental exercise, e.g. walking somewhere, generally being out and about. Though unfit people may not exercise more as a specific choice I would expect that the lighter evenings would get more people out and about thus exercising by coincidence. Also this ties in with a likely change to shop hours to be more like some of our continental cousins where the shops are open later into the day. With lighter evenings and more shops open more people would go out in the evening.

Today is a good a day as any to show why a change would be good. Now the clocks are back on GMT the sun rises as 6.40 meaning its light from about 6 and sets at about 4.40 meaning its light till about 5.20. How many people are going to take advantage of the light from 6 till 7 compared to how many could take advantage of the light from 5.20 to 6.20 if we stayed in BST?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAYIbpl3RH4

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/football-league-blog/2011/oct/29/football-league-your-thoughts-blog

Pinched from twitter

Number 6 is fairly obvious I would have thought. With an extra hours light in the evening every day it increases the window in which people can exercise outdoors. Number 4 is based on this report: Hillman, M: “The Likely Impact on Tourist Activity in the UK of the Adoption of Daylight Saving”, Policy Studies Institute: 2008 (p.11). I assume it is a fairly detailed and researched study and not someone sticking their finger in the air and guessing.

Pompey's new digital scoreboard during the extensive testing phase...

Actually the light would still change back and forth as the proposal is to add an hour all year, including BST so we would be on GMT+1 in the winter and GMT+2 in the summer.

Thing is that most of the arguments from scotland are based on misleading figures. In the last trial there was a small increase in morning accidents that got all the headlines but there was a greater decrease in evening accidents, even in scotland. So changing the hours would be good for them as well but there is this deep seated belief that it would be worse because of the morning accident data.

Also a change in the hours (which I am in favour of) has many positives for the economy. From http://www.lighterlater.org/benefits.html 1 Cut at least 447,000 tonnes of CO2 pollution – equivalent to more than 50,000 cars driving all the way around the world – each year [1] 2 Save 80 lives each year and prevent hundreds of serious injuries by making the roads safer [2] 3 Lower our electricity bills by maximising the available daylight and reducing peak power demand [3] 4 Create 60,000–80,000 new jobs in leisure and tourism, bringing an extra £2.5–3.5 billion into the economy each year [4] 5 Reduce crime and the fear of crime [5] 6 Help make people healthier and tackle obesity by giving people more time to exercise and play sport outside in the evening [6] 7 Save the NHS around £138 million a year through reducing road casualties [7] 8 Improve quality of life for older people [8] 9 Make the nation happier – including reducing the effects of Seasonal Affective Disorder [9] 10 Demonstrate that dealing with climate change can be good for the economy, good for people and good for society as a whole

Though the commission are the only group that can propose laws it almost certain that they take into account what they think the parliament would agree with otherwise they would not get things passed. It's not like the commission live in a locked room and pass directives under the door there is always going to be a degree of formal and informal communication and cooperation between them. Actually if you the electorate feel strongly enough you can start a petition and if you get enough people to sign it they will think about it (remind you of something...). Who would you suggest proposed the european laws? The largest group in the european parliament, country leaders, mass referendum's?

If you actually looked into it (an unusual act I grant you but) you will see that directives from the European Commission need to be approved by the European parliament. The commission is the source of the laws but they need to be passed by the council and the parliament before they become legally enforceable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

I think the point is that getting the rest of the components will push the final bill to over 500 (mouse, keyboard, decent monitor) which is well over the budget suggested.

Remind me how many elections in a row Tony Blair won my appealing to the middle ground?

In that case I thank UKIP for their efforts in making sure the next government does not have a tory majority.