Lord Duckhunter

There are unemployed people or low paid receiving housing benefit that rent off private landlords. These people do not receive a spare room subsidy .

People are only defending him because he plays for us. Had Redknapp signed him for QPR and he performed like he has done, it would "prove" what a shiete manager he was. So far in the great Saints web roll of Gaston excuses which has been running for 12 months, we've had ; Young , in a new country, not "saints fit", keeps travelling back for internationals, other players aren't on the same wavelength (my favourite that one),MP will get the best out of him, and we've even had one that Lambert's presence somehow affects his game. All I've seen is a bloke who flatters to deceive, how keeps giving the ball away, plays ok when we're on top in a game, but isn't really a bloke you'd want in the trenches next to you. Rather than getting better, he seems to my untrained eye to be becoming less and less interested. All this for an outlay of £12mil. Tim Vickery said all along he would not make an impact in English football, and from the evidence so far he's been right. Some people want him to do well so badly, that they are overlooking the actual facts. He has been average and is further away from the starting line up than he's ever been.

What about the fact that social tenants in the private sector don't get a subsidy for any spare bedrooms? Is this a disgrace, or are there deserving and undeserving poor.

Complete nonsense. We would have stayed up regardless. We wouldn't have played with 10 had he not signed, someone else would have played and would have contributed. Maybe we couple have signed someone else with the money we Spunked on him. I can't think of one game when I came away thinking" we'd have lost that if Gaston wasn't playing". He has been a monumental waste of money, had he been a harry redknapp or fat sam signing people on this forum would be ****ing their pants.

Spot on. The pro climate change people use "science" to back up their opinions, when in fact there is no way of knowing and it boils down to belief, not science. If I conduct a scientific experiment , I will be proved right or wrong. If I do A, then my opinion is B will happen. If B happens , then I'm proved right. If B doesn't happen, then I'm wrong. If B doesn't happen for a particular reason, then surely it is for me to prove why B hasn't happened. Yet in the "science" of climate change those who were wrong are automatically assumed to be right. The dire warnings of 20/30 years ago, have turned out to be wrong, yet the climate change lobby are still right and challenge disbelievers to prove them wrong. I equate it to life after death. The one fact is we will all die. Whether there's an after life we'll never know. It boils down to belief. The fact here is the climate is changing, how much man has to do with it, can never be known. It boils down to what you believe. It is not a science, because to be a science there has to be an opposite position that can be proved wrong. If I said that I had a special dance and every time I did this dance it rained within a week, it would either rain or it wouldn't. If it rained someone would say "it would have rained anyway". If it didn't rain and I was wrong, would I get away with saying "I misjudged it, it will rain, just not in that week". Would I

Clearly nobody knows very much about it, seeing as nobody predicted a "pause". Difference is , I'm not part of a billion dollar gravy train. Just a bloke who thinks the climate will continue to change (as it always has done) regardless what man does. We are being told today, that islands will dissapear, that this will happen and that will happen. When it doesn't, there will still be tree huggers moralisng and anyone who dares point out that they're in the altogether, will be labelled a daily mail reader.

Just listened to a great John Lennon podcast on Radio 4, well worth listening to if you're a fan of Lennon or the Beatles. I had read the Rolling Stone interviews in a book, but compelling listening to the tapes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/r4music

The old Daily Mail, rebuttal. Anyone who disagrees with you, must read The Daily Mail. There has been no global warming for 15 years. Nobody predicted this , but instead of holding their hands up and saying "we were wrong", it's now called it a pause. When all these predictions of Armageddon were being delivered, it was done with certainty, no caveats. All of a sudden when proved wrong by events, all sorts of excuses are made. The gravy train keeps on running, earth warms up, it's man made. Earth cools down, it's man made. Earth stays same, it's a pause. For something to be scientific the outcome has to prove your theory. In the weird and wonderful world of climate change, the tree huggers ensure that any outcome proves their theory.

You should read "The Emperor's New Clothes" . How do you explain the extreme climate swings prior to man? Ah yes that's right , it's now a mixture of man made and natural causes. Of course this "man made & natural" causes is a win-win. I remember all the dire warnings from 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, and they'll keep on coming year after year after year, getting it wrong, but explaining it perfectly. Until someone points out that the Emperor Lucas is bolloko (god forbid, I bet she doesn't shave her bits).

How do the tree huggers explain climate change before industrialisation, or even before man walked on the earth? No doubt they'll be a explanation for this, and a Guardian article posted. I expect millions of pounds of money has been poured into this "science" which will explain how man made the climate change without even being on earth. Are the tree huggers trying to tell us they know what the climate on earth would be if man had never existed? Are people seriously trying to tell us that if we all followed the Caroline Lucas manifesto and all lived in wind farms, rode round on penny farthings and rowed to our seaside holiday destinations, the climate would stay the same? Thank god there weren't people like Lucas around at the end of the ice age, they'd be issuing dire warnings about ice caps melting and man made destruction of the planet.

I don't get all this no celebration of goals. I just about get it if you're a legend, maybe if Rickie returned, but journeymen like Phillips who was just a player passing through. He's rewriting history here, he couldn't wait to get away. Let's give him plenty of clog and he should stop being a soft **** and rub our noses in it if he scores.

Yeah, let's get rid of all these no marks making millions out of shares and invest our pension pots in your mate the chippy.We could also give everyone who is unemployed a job in a tractor factory.

The other thing that needs to be factored in is the rises prior to (god forbid) a labour government.If prices go higher than they would have, how's that going to help? These private companies run rings round governments, particularly left leaning ones. Plus, the effect this will have on the man in the streets pension as I'm sure some of our pension funds will be invested in this sector. There's also a very good chance that this will be challenged as there's some doubt that European laws will allow it. More costs bought upon the poor old taxpayer. I'm all for giving the working man some help,but take £6 less out of his pay packet a month, instead of trying to interfere with the free market. We could pay for it by making middle class families pay for their offsprings school dinners.

If you're going to go on national TV complaining about profits, surely you should have some sort of knowledge of what those profits are. Its basic research surely. The thing is Red Ed was energy minister, when he could of done something, he didn't. Bills went up , energy companies made profits. Why has this suddenly occurred to him? Even a dreamer like you can see what's going to happen when a price freeze is announced. What on earth do you think the energy companies are going to do with prices in the next year? What are people wanting to invest going to do? When asked by Adam boulton whether energy bills would be lower in real terms under labour than they are now, Red Ed was unable to answer. Anyone who can't see that this is a gimmick, proberly thought Michael foot was a great leader. What's the next policy announcement, free beer?

That's because its easy to discredit. Like all of labour's new eye catching voter friendly bribes, they're built on sand. You only had to watch Andrew Neil monster twigg and Mrs balls on the daily politics today to see that. Twigg,banging on about energy companies profits was challenged by Neil "what were their profits". Twigg, didn't know, just kept repeating it. Then said " everybody knows centrica made vast profits" , " what were they?" Neil asked. "I don't have that to hand" replied the education spokesman, do some homework before coming on and moralising on energy profits suggested Neil helpfully. Neil then pointed out that tesco made more profit than them, "why not a pricing policy for food, as the big supermarkets are making massive profits". As for Mrs balls asked about firemen and their strike, kept answering about policemen. Does anybody seriously vote for these clowns?

WOW, Just WOW. Has there ever been a period with so many political pygmies and illiterate economic arguments. Does anybody in the establishment realise how much debt we have and why do all 3 establishment parties seem to think more Government intervention is the answer. In the past 7 days we've had free kids meals for middle class and rich parents, "wrap around child care" , more bank taxes and now Government interference with private companies prices. Does Ed think he's hitting their profits, as Andrew Neil pointed out to Caroline Flint, in California the energy companies just cut investment in infrastructure which led to power cuts following a pricing policy. This is not going to come out of their margin, and it's telling that some energy companies share price went up following Milliband's announcement. Where on earth are these clowns going to get the money from for these pre election bribes, that's right, our money. OH no, of course, it's going to be a bank levy, a mansion tax and increasing the top rate of tax. Surely they can see that if you take more capital out of the banks, it comes at the expense of lending, lending that we need to boost the economy. Mansion tax, who decides the value of a house, are they basing it on existing council tax levels, or will there need to be an expensive revaluation of every property? When will this money start coming in, because the spending commitments start from day one.It's easy to throw around talk of a "mansion tax", but it's really not as simple as saying "you live in a posh house, pay up". Somebody needs to value these properties, which takes time and money. And of course the old Labour favourite from the 70's , raising of the top rate of tax, the answer to all our prayers. Money that the Labour party has spent about 6 times over. We've had 2 conferences and all I can think is "do they really think we're that stupid". I've no doubt the Tory one will follow a similar vain. I just hope that somewhere in my children's generation, there's a politician who can sort this mess out, because what we're handing down to them is a bloody Portsmouth FC style economy.

Woy has made it pretty clear he'll go with 4-3-3 most games, with Rooney, sturidge and wellbeck as the 3. Leaving Gerrard, lampard and Wilshire centrally . He might change it around against stronger sides, bringing milner in to close off a flank, just like capello did a lot and man city did on Sunday. Just can't see where a tidy ball playing wide man with little pace fits in. I seem to recall a thread "kelvin for England".

I think maybe we're a bit harsh laughing at the historic chairs bunged in the skip. After all it was the previous regime and now they're community owned mistakes like that are a thing of the past. I know for a fact that the PST have learnt from that mistake and rather than chucking out valuable Portsmouth chairs, they are now using them around the club. Trust members can now take turns sitting on them.

Well, seeing as we need some width and pace I'd hope he'd say yes, hes certainly an upgrade on puncheon . The best time to pick up a quality player is when they're in a dip. In fact that's the only chance we'd get of picking up young, cause if he's on his game there's not a hope in hell of us signing him. I've seen every game bar wba this season and until sat have not been particlary impressed with Adam this season. I didn't think he was that great last year. Its great he's come through the ranks, has been loyal and plays the game in an exciting manner, but some perspective is needed on here. Personally I think if Gaston gets his ****e together, forget about battling for England place, he'll be facing a real struggle to get in our side.

I think the Wenger quote of "everybody thinks they have the prettiest wife" is pretty apt with some of the comments on here.

If saints offered a swap Young for Adam, what do you think Moyes would say? Someone reckons he's on a par with Wilshire, perhaps Wenger is up for a swap deal.

Rubbish, there's plenty of doubt. Take off your red and white tinted glasses, Young is off form , but never in a month of sundays will a top 4 club sign AL.

****ing hell, he's had one decent game this season (which was Saturday) and all of a sudden he's better than Young & Milner, and on a par with Wilshire. Look at the managers who have picked Milner, Sir Bobby Robson, Martin O Neil, Fabio Capello, Woy Hodgson, are they all idiots?

You've got Lord Rennard running around sexually harassing females, with Cleggy hushing it up, Gordon Brown and his "macho culture", yet the BBC concentrate on a bar room buffoon and a dodgy "joke" he made. Every party has idiot's yet the establishment love a UKIP "story". It just goes to show how rattled they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKts4KoOWIQ