Whitey Grandad

Van

Burns

For money? Not being facetious but every player is for sale at the right price.

Boruc did.

It was a perfectly good word, methought.

Well perhaps the club decided that we were safe for this season and we would go with what we had.

So it looks like an extra match for the one previous valid suspension plus one or three depending on whether this one is denying an opportunity or serious foul play.

Vodafone is non-existent where I live in Chandlers Ford.

Normally, yes. We may have to wait for the referee's report. Previous suspensions lead to an accumulation of more than one game ban. Has he been sent off before during this season? Have a look at section 8g: http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/2013-14/memorandum-of-disciplinary-procedures---section-a_b_c.ashx

Well he'd better hurry up, I'll be 65 in July.

No it wasn't against him The free-kick was for an earlier foul in the centre.

Yeah, in your fantasies. That's what I saw. I'll be interested in seeing it later.

The junction was ok this evening at 18:15 despite the A27 being closed. Mind you I was going westbound, eastbound was a bit sticky.

The A27 around the Swan at Mansbridge was closed today and so was Stoneham Lane just north of the Concord Club by the AC Delco sports ground where there was a big puddle yesterday and there was apparently a vehicle stuck in the middle of it. That would explain the problems around J5. It's probably worth checking the situation tomorrow. Try this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/hampshire

Sorry to hear that. I'm taking my eldest grandson (11) tomorrow for his first game. I suppose I'll have to take him to the shop first

The key question is who posted the video on the Internet? Without that would the poor did dumps have been bullied?

No, it's still turning. In fact the more carbon in the air the more that is soaked up. The global warming community got quite a shock a decade or so ago when they found that their estimates of the Amazon rainforest canopy were under by more than 10%. Apparently all the leaves had got bigger so although the canopy looked the same size it was in fact absorbing more CO2. Of course they keep chopping it down...

Ah, but is that an appeal against a CAS decision or against a domestic one?

Usually 6 to 12 months: http://www.tas-cas.org/en/20questions.asp/4-3-228-1010-4-1-1/5-0-1010-13-0-0/

These are very simplistic and don't tell us anything that we didn't know already. It's the difference between the carbon sources and sinks that's important and these have only been estimates for some time now, particularly the sinks.

It's not a real choice though, is it?

And how much of that is re-absorbed? Without CO2 there would be no plants. Without plants there would be no animals. Drop CO2 back to pre-industrial levels and see what happens to crop yields and then see how many people starve. It's not all one-way negative.

Haven't West Ham been in trouble before? How much did Sheffield United get, £20million?

Indeed, too many dinosaurs or things. Which came first, the CO2 or the temperatures?

We could do better.