Barry the Badger

I stumbled across the JPT final highlights the other day. He certainly had some pace, and confidence, but his crosses were generally just floated randomly into the box whether there was anybody there or not. He wasn't as good as you remember him.

I would imagine they do, whether they can actually fix it on the fly is another matter. Who'se to say it was something simple.

Fair point but they also say (and I assume they've researched it as they've made a whole website about it!) "The law basically says that you should not obstruct dropped kerbs unless you are obstructing a dropped kerb outside a house with the permission of the owner". This suggests that the charge is probably correct by the letter of the law, but it is clearly completely over-zealous and lacking in any common sense. I've gotten out of a parking charge in the past where the attendant was technically correct to issue a ticket, but was pretty harsh given the circumstances. I just wrote the local authority a letter and appealed to their sense of decency, and they rescinded it along with a "don't do it again" type letter. I would suggest doing that, it's probably luck of the draw who opens the letter and what kind of day they're having, also perhaps if you have any previous offences I guess.

Well, not entirely. It does say "Highway Code rule 243 which states: DO NOT stop or park: • where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles; • in front of an entrance to a property. " Without any mention of the lines, I suspect this is what you've been done on, although it's clearly totally crap that they can do so. Their general point is that in London people were getting done for parking on single yellowed dropped kerbs, at times when it's normally ok to park on single yellows and with no indication to the contrary. It's a fair comparison as you've also been done for parking in front of a dropped kerb when there was no indication that you shouldn't do so.

They should spend the extra money sending somebody from the team on a video encoding course.

http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/parking/contraventions-for-parking/contravention-code-27/ Still a bit vague.

It was a bit hard to work out, was it 3 Tadanari Lee's followed by the sushi line? Tadanari Lee Tadanari Lee Tadanari Lee (slightly different tune) Got him on a free and he eat's sushi,,, repeat. That right?

The whole thing is prefaced with "at the same time". It only applies to programmes broadcast online or anywhere else at the same time as on TV. From the link I posted. "You do not need a television licence to catch-up on television programmes in BBC iPlayer, only when you watch or record at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is being broadcast or otherwise distributed to the public" The issue is that there are a lot of people who watch TV but don't pay the licence, which leads the BBC to aggressively pursue people who genuinely do not watch TV.

I'm not. That only applies to things being broadcast live online... "at the same time (or virtually the same time) as the programmes are being broadcast". You can use iplayer without a licence, and the same goes for the BBC website. http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence

Good for you. My point was, Wade was suggesting that the licence fee covers you to use the BBC website or iplayer. It doesn't, you can use them without one.

Anybody in the world can go on their website, I don't see any of the international users paying the BBC licence fee.

I thought the atmosphere was the best for a while, very good.

I don't really get the Pompey are cheats thing. Surely if you believe that Pompey's overspending was cheating, it follows that we were also cheats, albeit to a lesser extent.

Stopped as in "whats that, oh sorry its not a fag carry on", or stopped as in made to stop using it?

Yes I do. Apart from the cringy bit where they let a fan ask the man of the match a question.

Would've taken that before the match. At 1-0 down when they went down to 10 it's a decent result.

Well I typed "woot girl" into search engine and this came up, so what the hell.

Time to get Hammond on for Cork

Hate saying it but he's done a great job at Spurs, and did a great job down the road. I don't think we have any better candidates.

Yeah what an idiot, he started chopping and changing players at Bristol City away when he brought Chaplow off after 10 minutes and he's been at it ever since. He dropped Lallana, then Fonte, then he brought Lallana back in , and at one point he even dropped Lallana, Fonte and Lambert all for the same match! Now he keeps leaving Jos out but I bet he will change it again and bring him back in soon. Come on Adkins, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

You need to get out more. Hopefully the fact you snapped your disk out and snapped it like an idiot will enable you to do so.

But is it not massively inconsistent for that to be the case?

I've heard this mentioned a lot, but there were plenty of other games played in equally dodgy weather yesterday that weren't on sky.

I appreciate that, but is it not a little inconsistent that from a football perspective, Terry is being tried on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis while Suarez was tried on a "balance of probability" basis?

They're also wildly inconsistent. It does get at me those bloody scousers always moaning but in this instance I think they have a point. John Terry, subject to criminal charges, so the FA won't investigate. If Terry is found not guilty as it cannot be proved beyond reasonably doubt they will say that it has been dealt with by a higher power. Luis Suarez, not subject to criminal charges so the FA investigate and find him guilty on the balance of probability. Hmmmm.