Whitey Grandad

It can take 3-6 months for a new player to settle in to a club and a team. The big clubs used to buy somebody and you wouldn't see them for half a season.

Let's hope we don't qualify. Then we could have our normal season, minus all the mercenaries of course. Some clubs would struggle to put out a team.

The use of the term by Spurs fans is the equivalent of standing up and saying 'I'm Spartacus'. They are showing solidarity with the Jewish section amongst them.

I believe not. They would have to apply for membership.

The Scots wouldn't like a society modelled on Denmark. Every ex-pat that I ever met there hated it. Far too rigid with no room for self-expression.

Quite a few more on here: http://www.espressogossip.com/articles/view/115 To be honest, some of them I prefer without.

Nearly half past eight.

You probably saw more in London than you would in the Middle East.

Like these? http://www.angloboerwarmuseum.com/images/boer/mem_ceramic/jug_gould_haiglloyd.jpg

Phew, that's a relief. I used to think that I knew all the rules, at least I think I used to know, but some of the postings on here make me doubt my own sanity sometimes. So just to be clear about this, we can draw all our home games but as long as we get more than a point a game away we'll be ok?

Or a life-size photo of their face stuck to the front? With holes for the eyes, of course.

? Are only home games included in the final table?

On the contrary, it supports it???

I'm sure most of them have been touched up to some extent.

By 'UK government' do you include the Scottish MPs?

The edit was to look back and copy the quote that I gave earlier. This is not easy on an ipad and by the time I had sent the first part of the post the editing time limit had passed. Let's not go looking for motives that don't exist. The Poll Tax is an example of a 'law' that was not accepted by the populace and had to be changed, which rather supports my point. Of course, strictly speaking we are talking about a government action here and not a law and the same applies Royal Mail privatisation. I was only passing on what I was told. It was a bit of a surprise to me too but it was the subject of the first lecture of the first day of a law course. The big question is whether laws can direct the ways that society behaves or whether they exist to regulate existing behaviour.

Agreed.

Sadly the English don't get a vote. We are going to get all the talk and discussion and media coverage over the next year about something that we have no say in.

It matters not where I went, only that this was what was taught in the law faculty at that time. The Poll Tax failed because of the widespread opposition to it, in other words it did not have the acceptance of the public. I think that what I said is not quite the same as what you say I said: 'You cannot pass a law that is not supported by a large majority amongst the people it affects.' That is not to say that laws have not been introduced that were opposed by some of the population. The main point is that you cannot enforce large changes in public behaviour just by passing a new law, there must be a large measure of support for it or it runs the risk of failing.

I can't stand Alex Jones. That horrible whiny voice.

He wasn't a jerk. Nice knees though.

That's what my neighbouring fellow students at Cambridge told me in there first few days of lectures. The Poll Tax debacle more or less proves the point. My main point is that in general the law tends to follow the prevailing sentiment at the time. You can't force a new behaviour on a populace that is not prepared to accept it.

Yeah, whatever. Lots of laws in England are based on precedent.

One of the first lessons at law school is that you cannot pass a law that is not supported by a large majority amongst the people it affects.

We are not telling them what to wear, we are telling them what they can't wear.