Turkish

She'd get it though, yes?

Why would Pompey fans kicking off get Saints a points deduction? Why would Saints get one when no other club for years has got one for their fans kicking off?

so actually this article makes no sense whatsoever.

West Ham and Reading to lose, Saints to win. FACT

Do other fans hate us then? Most i've come across think we deserve to be top. See Hull fans after our win up there, "easily the best team in the league" and "what Hull should aspire to be" are two descriptions that leap to mind.

They are good at taking disabled ends, remember Coventry c2001?

I wonder if they'll be bringing Donal McIntyre along with them this time. They can sit in their coaches talking about how hard they are without actually doing anything then claim scummers never show.

No they dont, they are totally normal. If you dont think about it then there is something wrong with you.

Yes, i agree with all you say there and got the wooden spoon treatment too!

It seems we're struggling to find support for this one, which surprises me on here given how fair minded and equal rights we are on here.

Really? Does it not make you really annoyed hearing a parent talking nicely and politely to their little kid while the precocious little git is creating havoc, ignoring the parent and generally behaving like a little sod? It does me. As i said before, i dont agree with lashings for the slightest misdemenour, but if they are persistantly misbehaving, ignoring the parent and explaining their wrongdoing isn't working then there is nothing wrong with a smack. I really dont understand this arguement business, i'd never have dreamt of arguing with my parents, not because i was scared of being smacked but because we didn't do that, we knew from a very young age you dont argue with your parents and didn't answer them back. I really dont see how smacking a child is losing an arguement, little kids shouldn't be arguing in the first place!!!

I think you've got it right, as i said before i'm not talking about parents terrifying their children with beatings if they put a foot out of line but there's nothing wrong with a good smack if they continue to be naughty and explaining and talking to them doesn't do the job. And all this nonsense about it meaning the parent has lost the arguement is utter ******, parents shouldn't be arguing with young children FFS!

This is what i am not getting, maybe i am not liberal enough to get it. A parent, as well as many other things, is a figure of authority over their child, they are there to instill values, morals, discipline and work ethic into a child. Therefore a young child and a parent do not have "arguements" There is no argument to be won, no arguement to be lost. The parent sets the boundries, if the child oversteps them they are punished. There is no arguement so i dont understand why some of you are banging on about smacking a child as winning or losing arguements.

Sorry, i cant.

I'm one of six and if we misbehaved and overstepped our boundries we knew we'd be disciplined, it didn't do us any harm and i dont see it as my parents winning an argument against me everytime i was naughty as you seem to view it. They were the authority, there was no arguement to be had. We didn't get 50 lashes everytime we spoke at the dinner table obviously but if we did something knowing it was wrong we knew we wouldnt get away with it.

No it isn't. A child has boundries of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, overstep them they are disciplined. Where does winning an argument come into it?

It's not about winning an argument with a child though it is. It's about correcting wrong doing and discipline. Children were a lot more respect for teachers, police and authority in general when they were allowed to give them a clip round the ear if they were being badly behaved.

That would be a cunning tactic.

He'd give the goalkeeper the eyes and outfox him. FACT

What about if Nige suddenly picks up a bought of gastric flu and cant pick the team or be on the touchline on saturday? WHo do we want to lead the team? Of course if it doesn't happen then this post is totally pointless but it might, if so who should we have in charge?

Articles like this usually mean the player is set to start due to an injury to someone else. There is a pattern of this on our OS of when a player gets interviewed despite having hardly played it usually means they play the next game. Danny Butterfield was the last one, he got interviewed despite only playing a few games and despite Adkins claiming we had a fully fit squad who should play at right back since then with no sign of Richardson, but Danny Butterfield. When Lee was supposed to be making a come back Sharp does an interview and he has started every game since then. It's the club PR spin to talk up a player before they are due to come in for a key player who is injured. This article is not good news for Lamberts situation i am afraid.

He's lost his way a bit, he was a huge prospect at Palace. I think in our team he'd be one we could get the best out and would offer us the pace out wide we've been lacking this season.

Was he gay?

One win in a year with an amazingly talented team? Maybe it's the coach....

I want them to go down so we can sign Victor Moses to play down the right of midfield.