Barry the Badger

Exactly.

100% right but shows a total lack of class to come out with it then.

Fair enough, I was just being difficult really. It is a massive boost to see it there, and I have a feeling we may be watching the goal difference very carefully at the end of next month, makes me nervous just thinking about it.

Then you are ahead of them on goal difference, but it's not "worth a point" because if somebody else comes in and gets a point more than both of you, they finish above you. Would you swap our current goal difference and have it reset to zero, in return for a point? Yes you would, because the goal difference is not worth a point.

Normal service is resumed.

He really needs to be if he's ever going to make an impact for us.

Everything Andy has said on this thread is entirely sensible. I would not let this put me off a relationship if I really liked the person and was prepared to accept the limitations their condition might place on our relationship.

What?

My Liverpool supporting mate quite likes him, looking beyond the fee. The trouble is the second you remember what they paid for him it's impossible to feel he's ever going to do that fee justice without a massive technical improvement.

It amazes me that anybody falls for this. Somebody at work put all their details into one of those fake bank emails, why are people so dim?

It's been great to see a group of players grow gradually together in quite a steady way. I forget how many signings we've made but recently watched the jpt highlights and the team that day makes you realise how far we've come.

I dunno, if I were him I'd be determined to force my way in. I thought he'd been dropped due to.injury. A lot of games as the season draws to a close, I'm sure we will see him again.

You mean Mark Wotte?

In my group of four, each match one of us will be on beer duty and will head down at around 42 mins to get the round in. I hate it when it's my turn but once every four matches is not too bad, and as Scott Saints says, if you're down there and Saints score it's pretty good fun.

We were down anyway.

I always find this statement a bit bizzare. Teams drop points over the course of the season, no harm in hoping that those around us do so at crucial times.

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