Whitey Grandad

I have that and also this terrible swelling...

My apologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion. I've re-read your post and I think it could be taken either way. I just like to highlight all sides of the debate which is not easy in today's 'climate'. All contributions are gratefully received!

You don't spend £12m (or whatever) buying a club in order to play in League 1. I see this as part of a long-term plan to get the club properly capitalised and working its way back up the leagues. Most companies are undercapitalised and that's where they have problems because they cannot weather the bad periods. In our case this does not apply. Relax and enjoy the ride!

I must admit I hesitated before posting this. My first reference is Dominic Lawson in The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6982310.ece but that seems to originate from another comment posted in a newpaper by someone purporting to be from the Met office. This article: http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/01/however-cold-it-gets-this-is-officially.html attributes it a comment in the Mail from 'Tony in Norwich'. I personally find this extremely hard to believe but people will believe what they want to believe. I would take it with a pinch of 'muriated natrium' myself. There are some rethinks on Arctic Ice though: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/28/uk-met-office-backpedals-on-arctic-ice-unlikely-that-the-arctic-will-experience-ice-free-summers-by-2020/

No, that is weather, not climate. For the same reason that our cold winter is not evidence of global cooling. More in the Mail today. Take it, like the weather, with a pinch of salt. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html And one from last February:. 'Britain can now expect a winter like this only every 20 years'. That'll be two in a row then. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5682862.ece Interestingly, because of the way that the Met Office uses the statistics they are already saying that this winter is one of the mildest ever, despite the fact that it is only January 11th. They take the 12 highest temperatures and average these to give their figure for the winter. These 12 highest all occurred in November. (IIRC) More about the 'Met Office for Weather and Climate Change': http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/01/britains-met-office-predicted-mild.html

Hardly 'mythical'. Many people have experienced it.

Where have I ever said that? A CRB check alone will not make a significant difference to child safety, but there is a danger in assuming that it is sufficient to ensure it. To return to the original question, would children better off in school at the moment, or out playing in the snow or on the ponds?

A CRB will only reveal previous offences and would not stop a first-time offender, and I don't believe it would have done anything to prevent the abuse that has been revealed in the catholic Church in Ireland. Children are most at risk from those whom they know and trust.

It's just a question of degree..

Any government that takes more than 50% of the national production is communist in my book.

We can only cover official positions. Unfortunately there are a few million parents out there who do not provide the loving protective environment that we would all like to see.

Very wise, although that is to protect you from accusations as much as to protect the children from harm.

Not absurd at all, and if you put your trust entirely in such a sytem then you are taking and enormous risk with children's saftey. Sadly, I do not believe that checking criminal history will prevent further abuses from happening, any more than I believe that having a Health and Safety Act will make any of us healthier or safer.

There's nothing wrong with that. The British public was better fed during rationing (before my time, by the way). But I have never said that we should not be saware of the potential for abuse, rather that we should not go creating monsters where none exist. I do not believe that a blanket CRB check will stop abuses, any more than a body scan at airports will stop terrorist attacks. We must never confuse activity with action.

Even I don't think that's what I was saying.

That's always the dilemma. The problem is that you end up with a society where everybody is a suspect, where everybody is looking over their shoulder to see who is watching them, where nobody is willing to take a chance or to take responsibility for making a decision. A society where everybody is living in fear, real or imaginary.

'The price of peace is eternal vigilance'

Sadly, I don't believe that any of these checks are going to make life safer for the children.

I've just got mine out and had a look at it (no, behave!). It includes: Position applied for: FOOTBALL REFEREE - CHILDRENS Name of employer - HAMPSHIRE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION I still need to the the Child Protection course before I can get back to refereeing, even though I only do adults' games. The argument given is that there might be a player who is under 18, yet the other 21 players don't need a CRB :confused: It's another reason why you can't get the refs today, not that they are all paedophiles, just that it's another obstacle to overcome.

Both statements are correct, but the second does not relate to the first

There I beg to differ. He hangs back and crosses from far too deep. He doesn't have the pace to overlap.

There's the penalty for an obvious one. Every game there are several occasions where he is caught out of position. When we are moving upfield he tends to ball-watch and doesn't position himself to cover his winger and often when our attack breaks down they just one-two the ball past him. Against Luton he went over to our left to cover their right-winger who then just skipped past him and put the ball across goal for that incredible miss. Against Exeter he left his post for their goal. I could go on all night. I use to play at right-back (not as well as him) so I take a special interest in the position. I think he is a much better midfielder and we are losing his services at right-back. There must be plenty of under-employed defenders out there and at least one of them must be available. We have let in 29 goals in 24 games whereas Leeds have conceded 14. That is the standard that we should be aiming for and we are not going to achieve it with James, he's is just not a natural full-back.

I find the support on here incredible. He is patently not up to the job as RB. he is too slow and has no postional sense and He gets skinned regularly. He is an obvious taregt for any oppposition team that has done its Homework. None of this is his fault, but that is what he is. As a midfielder he is a much better proposition and I have often said so but please, please, please can we have a RB soon?

Well done. I hope you didnt park on the double yellow lines. [-X

Queen Elizabeth Country Park is closed today and tomorrow: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/rh/closed.htm