Lord Duckhunter

Fluke there. Get in. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Every successful relegation battle I’ve seen, and it must be over a dozen there’s always results and weekends when you think “that’s it, we’re done”. We gave up 4 points to Stoke last season, this corresponding weekend last season we lost 2-0 at home to Liverpool and then went 7 games without a win, including 2 disgraceful performances at West Ham and Newcastle. We still stayed up, despite it looking increasingly unlikely. I think we’re a better side and have a better manager than last season, and we look a decent threat away from home. It’s a 12 game season and I’d back us to get 1 more point than Cardiff do. Our last 8 look tasty, with only Liverpool a real toughie & Watford, Bournemouth, West Ham, Wolves with nothing really to play for. And of course there’s Huddersfield last day. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

4-0 win for wolves tonight and we’re out of the bottom 3 Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The worst thing you can do is ignore them. They are enforceable provided they are correctly issued. Martin Lewis is ok but this forum is far far better. I urge people to post their circumstances on it and they’ll get some great advice. They’ll also go over your ticket with a fine tooth comb if you post it (make sure you black out the personal details). http://forums.pepipoo.com/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They have a plan, ever closer union. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pony. You just made that up. Nobody is saying people aren’t welcome. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’re right. That can, and does happen. It depends on the parking company. Ive heard that Britannia Parking don’t take people to court. Other companies aren’t so reluctant and will chase you. That’s why it’s important people challenge fines under the POPLA regulations as it gets chucked out permanently if you win. Council ones are different, you have to pay them and have no redress to POPLA.

What are you on about you ****ing plum. A private parking company can enforce a penalty fine for breach of contract, provided they comply with the FOIA and POPLA. If they don’t comply with these acts of Parliament, they can not. It’s not for customers to say “you have no legal right to charge me this money, but I’m going to pay anyway”. In one instance my Mrs overstayed by 3 minutes and received a penalty notice for £60. Extortionate. She broke a contract, but the contract was illegal because they couldn’t be bothered to comply with an act of Parliament. That’s not dishonest, that’s the law of the land, you chump. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’ve got City 4-1 so hoping they calm down a bit. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol Evertonian Barclay helping city out Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Encouraging performance yesterday. Shame he didn’t cap it off with a goal, but his best display since he came into the side. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He’s made up for it now Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Long would’ve buried that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don’t pay it, but act quickly. These blokes are brilliant, I’ve got off 3 parking and 1 speeding because of their advise. http://forums.pepipoo.com/ The biggest error the parking companies make is not advising the registered keeper that failure to name driver will result in them claiming the money from the registered keeper. The freedom of information act clearly states that you don’t have to name driver, therefore if they don’t advise they will chase owner, you can just refuse. My Mrs has got off 2 by refusing to name driver quoting that act. As I say go on the pepippoo site post the PCN with your details blacked out, and they’ll find the loopholes. You must follow the appeals process 100% otherwise the POPLA will find against you, even if you’ve got a case. Believe me, the parking companies rely on people just paying the smaller amount and do not follow process properly. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here’s the form table from Kelvins Spurs game till now. If teams keep roughly the same form we’ll go into the last day level with Cardiff but 6 above Brighton. If Newcastle lose away at Wolves tomorrow, we’ll be 4 above them last day. Obviously, you can take groups of games to prove anything. But with Ralph basically half way through his season, it’s not a bad barometer of form. Brighton are the ones for me, they’ve still got to go to Chelsea Arsenal & Spurs and last day they have City. Their last 2 are Arsenal then City. Provided they don’t beat us, I’m pretty confident we’ll chase them down. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ladbrokes have Cardiff & Burnley at shorter odds & Newcastle as the same. Brighton look tempting at 8-1. Burnley seems a bit strange as they’re the form team, 2-0 at OT with 5 mins left & are unbeaten in the league this year. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re getting wages/salary and CSP/ SSP mixed up. You can get CSP which may pay you less than your wage, and for most people SSP will be less, but you cannot reduce someone’s wages. There is zero chance that footballers will be paid anything other than 100% salary when they’re ill or injured. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly. Footballers don’t run out of sick pay and go on SSP. There is absolutely 0% chance that the PFA or FF agent will accept us reducing his wages. None whatsoever. There maybe a series of fines if he doesn’t train, but I doubt very much we’d start fining him if he’s got mental health issues. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That’s illegal . You can’t reduce someone’s wages if they’re ill. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This pony about the leaders of Brexit having “no plan” is also wide of the mark. People really should read Tim Shipmans excellent book which is neutral but full of factual accounts by people who were there, of what actually happened in each camp. During the debates the Leave campaign were attacked, not for having no plan, but for their plan. Angela Eagle in particular was tasked with attacking their plan during the big debate. Osborne & Cameron were sent onto Marr to attack their plan and the Remain campaign thought Leave had made a fundamental error that would cost them the vote. The error (in their eyes) , was setting out their plans for a post Brexit UK, out of the SM & CU. Shipman writes that Remain decided to go hard on this so everybody knew this was Leaves “plan”. They really thought by forcing Leave to reveal their plan, that would swing it. Of course the same people wanting this plan highlighted and attacked are now saying there was no plan. Whether the plan they had was workable or acceptable is another question, as is whether the public paid any attention or based their vote on it. By as far as possible in a referendum, a plan was mapped out by Leave leaders. Admittedly it was grudgingly dragged out of them, as they really didn’t want to campaign on too many specifics, but the Remain camp have gone from congratulating themselves on forcing the plan out into the open , to denying the existence of one. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Still doesn’t explain why Blackmore asked Ralph if he had a problem with Bertrand, Ralph’s waffle in response and then Dave droning on about “writing players off too early”. Dave & Blackmore have plenty of faults, but over egging stuff like this isn’t one of them, and even if they were,why didn’t Ralph answer “of course I haven’t got an issue with him, he’s just injured”. Perhaps Bertrand’s body language made Ralph think he wasn’t interested, but now he’s got to know him he’s realised it’s misleading. Let’s face it, he can look like he doesn’t care. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Looks like lawyers Herbert Smith Freehills agree with my earlier post that the NI border could have been included in the PD rather than the WD. Most papers picked up their analysis that it’s illegal under international law because it has no unilateral withdrawal mechanism, but I also notice they claim it breaks EU law regarding A50. They claim it’s “illegal as a matter of EU law” because A50 only allows the conclusion of an agreement that deals with separation issues, not agreements setting out a future relationship. To my my knowledge that’s 3 legal challenges to the BS. Trimble taking legal action because their will be no NI representation, which breaks the GFA. Illegal treaty because there’s no unilateral withdrawal mechanism. Is illegal under A50 because its part of a future relationship. I’m not saying any of these will be successful, but it may just ramp up the pressure to change the Backstop. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

City play in the League cup final and that’s why their Everton game was yesterday. Therefore Liverpool’s game in hand is that sunday. Just noticed they’re at Manchester Utd that day, so that’s their game in hand. That’s going to be some game. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because A50 was deliberately written to 1. Discourage countries from leaving and 2. Give EU the upper hand when it came to negotiating the future. Lord Kerr who drafted it has admitted as much, it was never meant to be used. The sequencing of talks was something the UK couldn’t argue with apart from one important element. There is an argument to be made that the NI border should have been part of the future PD than the WD. The border between Spain & Portugal certainly would have been had the Portuguese been the ones leaving. Surely logic dictates that until you know the future relationship, you don’t know what border requirements are needed. Ireland have a veto on the future relationship so there’s absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have gone into an extendable transition period without the need for a backstop. Agreeing that was May & Robbins biggest error (and they’ve made plenty). But we are where we are and some sort of fudge around the temporality of the BS will probably be enough to get a deal done. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk