Saintandy666

I think Murray does have an exciting game, and can produce some amazing shots from literally no-where. But I accept that is a matter of opinion. Over the past few years, he has been ridiculously ahead of everyone ranked 5 and lower, and within touching distance of the top 3. Which is a pretty good place to be. He has managed to compete more and more with the top 3 at slam level, and oddly often has little trouble competing with them at ordinary tournaments. I think a lot of it must be psychological.

Schiavone's experience guided her through. Robson could have won if she had taken her chance in the second, but she is young and it will come in time. She broke into the top 100 the other day! As I said before I think she will be top 10 one day.

Indeed it should be expected. None of us are saying it wasn't. All that we said is that it was a particularly tough match up for a first round, probably the hardest possible. We are just saying that the way he dealt with it demonstrates his ability.

Yep, he is a fantastic player.

Not at all. Just it was a tougher than normal first round. I think me and BTF are just a little bit protective as all tennis followers are because of the constant and unfair Murray bashing when he has achieved a lot.

He has been in 3 grand slam finals.

I don't understand why people are so keen to paint Andy Murray as a rubbish player.

I trust you. It is still one of the hardest draws he could have had. The guy won the ATP tour championships only 3 years ago and was a top 5 player. But Murray dealt with it excellently.

Davydenko is ranked 41 in the world if I remember the prematch stuff correctly. Used to be top 5 though and a fairly steady opponent. A big test for Murray in the first round and I was a bit worried because Murray often starts slow. Came through well though, but he has a very tough draw to come.

Laura Robson had a great go today. 3rd youngest person in the draw. She's one for the future, top 10 definitely. Hits the ball so hard. People need to get over the 'anyone but England' joke Murray made years ago too. Love Wimbledon though. Going again this year, but I do hate how everyone suddenly thinks they are a tennis expert based on watching a couple of matches over 2 weeks once a year. The same people who argue Andy Murray is **** when he is probably the best tennis player to be born in the UK ever.

In fairness to Osborne, we can't judge him on one month and the BBC did seem to indicate there are some extenuating circumstances. I'll judge him year by year, and last year he did manage to bring the deficit down a percentage point. But to be honest, they are doing all the easy cuts at the moment and there are more difficult decisions to be made. And I think they will struggle to get the deficit below £100bn without a good bit of growth.

I think what it shows is that on the whole the trend is that it was poorer men who had received level of education below that of the national average. That is of course just on average though.

Yes, that's true... some don't, but it doesn't change the argument at all.

Yes, there are exceptions - but if you look at the overall stats... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15426720

Well, you do get something in return. You keep these people on the first rung of the ladder and in society. Do you want to cut all benefits then?

Everything is relative though. It's all about getting a foot up in the system and some people in some areas are unable to even get on the first rung of the ladder. Again, you can froth at the mouth, but it won't solve anything. You need to treat the causes of the riots, not the symptom. When you start only treating the symptoms, you are effectively giving up and saying the problem is terminal.

They aren't filth. I don't like that term and I reject it 100%. People aren't born criminals. Just saying 'Some people are filth' doesn't solve anything. You need to look behind the symptoms and at the causes of why people turn to crime in the first place.

I never said anyone was, I merely commenting on a hypothetical future based on the attitudes of some people since the Riots. And obviously I have never lived in one of the areas in which these kinds of social problems exist... but I do know people who do and they tell me it is pretty bad, no jobs, no money and because of that little hope for the future and this is what breeds the criminal activity such as the riots. It's the fact that people felt they had nothing to lose and had no stake in society. A lot of the people in these areas also don't have many qualifications, so their job options are reduced before they even try to search and jobs are hard to come by in this double dip recession.

Yes, they are criminals. I agree with you there, they broke the law and should be punished accordingly. But how can we ever solve the problem if we just say 'They are just hoodlums. Lock 'em up and take away everything they have.' People aren't born criminals and they aren't born rioters. We need to look into why people ended up doing what they did and try to fix that. Get at the cause, not the symptoms.

Because that's exactly what I meant. As BTF, just said you are looking at this narrowly. It isn't about paying people off. It's about giving people a fair chance to compete in society, giving them a stake. When people drop out of society, that's when you get the UK Riots. I'm not saying that the Benefit system doesn't need reform, but if we slash it too far, it could lead to other more expensive consequences(and not just money expensive). What is your solution?

I don't really understand people who take the attitude 'Just take away the benefits, all of them. THAT'LL SHOW THEM'. Same rubbish after the London Riots... if you take away too many benefits you'll end up with a deluge of homeless with nowhere to go and no hope who will inevitably turn to crime because of their situation. Benefits can keep people in society sometimes when they hit hard times.

He's effectively starting his pitch for 2015 here. I don't think there has been any suggestion that this will go through this term, especially with the Liberal Democrats in government!

Already said Carr is a hypocrite in an earlier post. And I wouldn't say Liberalism is the preserve of the right or left. Both can be equally passionate about it in different ways. Ideologies don't occupy in vacuums either(as my politics teacher used to say!) so it can mean different things to different people.

I do think too much can be made of things like drinking Champagne though or eating at a fancy restaurant. Politicians should be judged by their actions in parliament and government/how they affect everyone's lives. It can distract from good work to concentrate on their drink of choice on a night out.

I don't think Sugar's attitude on women leaving the workplace after pregnancy is necessarily hypocracy even if I disagree with him(if that is what you are referring to). He has a habit of opening his big mouth and saying stupid things in the moment. Liberalism isn't just left wing. Rights for women in the workplace can span all the ideologies thanks to liberalisms infectious ways! And I'm glad it does.