Whitey Grandad

I assume you're talking about transfer pricing? This is very difficult to prove but there are rules in place to regulate it. Tax on profits will have to be paid somewhere, the problems occur where our tax rates are significantly higher than other comparable countries, Eire for example. There will still be VAT on these goods. Are you thinking of a particular company? I know nothing about Chris Moyles but HMRC rules on operating a business are very strictly defined and it's not up to him to decide whether or not he is bona fide. HMRC are very aggressive and unreasonable on these matters and there is no room for negotiation.

Why the abuse? If you don't like it then change the law.

You'd need to look at the next year's figures to see that.

Legally there is nothing such thing as 'spirit of the law'.

Me too.

That all depends on what you consider is a 'fair share'. And please mind your language, not everybody thinks as vindictively as you.

That's not what I said. The example you give is a very small proportion of the working population and merely illustrates the ridiculous anomalies of the tax system that Gordon Brown created.

That's rubbish. Are you saying that the the only way anybody ever earns any money is because of public subsidies? High taxes restrict your ability to earn, not enhance it.

The public sector has never managed anything at a profit.

You're quite right, we are severely lacking in any sort of light railway/tramway system. Hampshire County Council had many such schemes planned for years but eventually had to give up when there was no government money forthcoming. No votes in it, of course.

Wish

His missus didn't want to move.

I'll be dead before we beat the 27 years so give me a European run any time please. Better make it soon.

All the government money goes to the North innit.

Have you tried actually talking to her?

Win the Europa League and you get a place in the CL the next season. (I think this is true)

Is that Bulgarian for lady-boys?

Still quite a few games to go but 4th is looking unlikely. There are several top 4 fixtues where they have to play each other so points will be dropped but we need to win almost all our games to have any chance. Beating Spurs is vital.

Gerrard is getting quite a bit of stick on Facebook. Here is his heat map: https://www.facebook.com/Troll.Football/photos/a.345973325442890.83467.345971365443086/1359334647440081/?type=1

Have a look again. Does the yellow number 12 catch the forwards trailing leg causing him to miskick wildly?

I think that until you've actually refereed a game you don't realise how difficult is the need for 90 minutes of full and absolute concentration. Switch off for a moment and something will happen that you haven't seen. You have to stay on top and in control the whole time or the game will get away from you with all sorts of things going on behind your back. It's a bit like when you were at school and you knew which teachers you could mess around with and which had a natural air of authority.The players don't help with all the moaning, whinging, cheating and diving. This is far worse in the professional leagues because more is at stake. One of my last Sunday games at Hamble involved a few ex-professionals who didn't know the meaning of the word 'sport'. SOme were brilliant and just accepted my decisions and got on with the game, one was flinging himself to the ground at every opportunity but never complained, another (a midfielder who had played for Bournemouth and Portsmouth) was nothing but moans and sly attempts at cheating. It should be easier for the League referees because they at least have a fourth official to handle the substitutes and the benches and give an extra pair of eyes for disciplinary matters and at least they are now miked up which should improve communication between the ref and his assistants. Maybe this hasn't helped, you rarely see the ref go for a chat with his colleagues these days. It more difficult to understand why there should be cases of mistaken identity but being verbally assaulted by a crowd of players doesn't help your concentration and these incidents seem to happen when play carries on to another phase. On balance, I think that the referees are being oveloaded but I don't think that video assistance is the way to go. The best view of any incident is in the middle of the park, in real time and with two eyes. I also believe that we should have the same laws for all levels of the game from World Cup Final to Sunday mornings. Television has paid a lot of money and thinks that it has bought the game. Too many commentators and pundits don't actually know the Laws of the Game and make the most stupid comments. There is too much exposure given to the cult of the manager, who actually has no actual standing in the Laws yet gets disproportionate coverage both during the game and after. So, after all my ramblings to get back to your questions. I don't think any of the decisions are actually 'bad', most fall within the range of 'within the opinion of the referee' and just because you or I might think otherwise doesn't actually make them 'wrong'. As for 'when in doubt', there was a good article in The Times recently by Matthew Syed and I risk their wrath by quoting it here in full but I think it's worth reading: Radiologists, like everyone else, make two kinds of mistake. Sometimes, they look at a radiogram and spot a tumour. They recommend that the patient is opened up so that exploratory surgery can be undertaken. It is then that they may discover that there was no tumour after all. This is a type I error: an error of commission. But radiologists can make a different kind of mistake too. They could look at a radiogram, decide that there is nothing wrong with the patient, and give them the all clear. No exploratory surgery is undertaken. The patient goes home reassured. And yet, the radiologist may have failed to spot a tumour that really is there. This is a type II error: an error of omission. Errors are important in life, because they show us where we are going wrong, and how we can put things right. But the curious thing is that, across most parts of the world, we often have a very different attitude to type I compared with type II errors. In the legal system, this difference is rather obvious. Most societies have come to the view (rightly or wrongly) that it is worse to put an innocent man in jail (type I) than to allow a guilty man to walk free (type II). This is why we have a whole range of institutions (presumption of innocence, “beyond reasonable doubt” as a threshold to conviction, etc) to guard against type I errors. In football, a similar type of reasoning applies. Referees are acutely conscious of type I errors. They hate to blow the whistle for a foul, particularly a penalty, only to find out (when the decision has been analysed exhaustively on Sky Sports) that there was no foul after all. They are far more inclined to let a foul go, because the consequences to their reputation are less severe. As Howard Webb, arguably the finest English referee of recent times, put it in an interview on these pages yesterday: “There is a feeling in refereeing that it is a bigger mistake to give something that wasn’t there than to miss giving something that was there.” But why is this? It is not difficult to see that referees are responding to public sentiment. Fans and commentators detest type I errors. Indeed, pundits will often say: “You should never give a penalty unless you are 100 per cent sure.” They also say “referees should never guess”, which amounts to the same thing. The idea is that there is something worse about mistakenly calling a foul than in mistakenly missing one. I suspect that fans are also more sensitive to type I errors because of the analogy with criminal justice. It seems unfair, almost morally affronting, for an innocent player to be penalised for a foul he did not commit. It offends deep sensibilities. Observe Match of the Day or Twitter after a type I error, particularly one that sways a result, and you will notice a level of outrage that rarely attaches itself to type II errors. But I would argue that football should try to eliminate this imbalance. After all, the consequences of missing a foul are no less serious than wrongly awarding one. There are behavioural consequences, too. When referees are nervous about type I errors, they avoid blowing the whistle unless they are certain of a foul. But this provides scope for tugs on the shirt, pulls on the shoulder, kicks to the ankle, and the wider arsenal of subtle fouls that have come to dominate football. You see them all the time — and they militate against the beautiful game. Football is, of course, a contact sport. There is no denying that players should expect a strong tussle out on the field of play. But what I am talking about are genuine but covert fouls, often committed against the most scintillating players, such as Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and David Silva. The consequence of the prevailing attitude of referees is that players have a huge incentive to commit precisely these kinds of foul. Indeed, defenders are often eulogised for crossing the line without getting noticed. Modern coaching is directed at teaching how to commit offences that exist within the margin of doubt. But this seriously undermines the flow and aesthetic of the game. How could it be otherwise? We should acknowledge, here, that the job of the referee is hardly helped by simulation. Diving is custom-designed to coax referees into type I errors. This is a scourge that needs to be kicked out of the game. But even if there were no diving at all, the question of a reasonable balance between type I and type II would remain. Moreover, forwards are far more likely to stay on their feet when confronted by subtle fouls if they believe that referees will have the confidence to blow the whistle, or bring the play back, if they don’t hit the deck. At present, forwards are incentivised to tumble when they are tugged because they are all too aware that it is the only way to win a penalty. It is yet another direct consequence of the present phobia towards type I errors. I am not saying for one moment that referees should blow the whistle willy-nilly; I am merely suggesting that a threshold of 100 per cent certainty, so beloved by pundits, is ludicrous. We need more balance between these two types of error, something that would subtly alter the dynamic of the game and encourage referees to clamp down on shirt-tugging and the like that have become endemic in the box. It would also encourage more dribbling at the expense of fouling. Of course, the most important objective of all is to cut down on both types of error. This is something that Webb and Mike Riley are working towards as they lead a team who, contrary to the present slurs, are impartial, talented and eager to improve. My sense is that they would be helped in this task by the judicious use of video technology. Certainly it would be sensible to conduct more trials. But until that day, referees could do the game a favour by focusing a little more on type II errors. Radiologists who have taken this approach have significantly improved their performance, and nudged the culture of their profession in a positive direction. One hundred per cent certainty is an absurd threshold for action — whether in healthcare, football or life — when the consequences of inaction can be just as damaging. © Matthew Syed, The Times, March 4th 2015.

Are we likely to draw a Bulgarian team in the Champions League?

Exactly this. Plus all the abundance of TV cameras and the fact that they only highlight the mistakes, even to the point of inventing mistakes when they don't understand the laws of the game.

You've obviously never seen me in operation ?

Kelvin was spotted in Waitrose in Chandlers Ford earlier today so although he likes saving it doesn't extend to getting a good deal on his groceries.