Lord Duckhunter

Oh FFS , it's a well known seduction technique . Maybe I'm old fashioned , and I admit I haven't been on the pull for over 20 years , but come on, stop being such an old woman.

What I am saying is you can be convicted of raping a women who has willingly had sex with you over a 20 year period , but was incapable of consenting one time due to drink . Doesn't the thought occur to you that this is perhaps a lesser degree of offense than a stranger jumping out of a bush in the middle of the night. Half my sucsessful pulls involved chucking drink down the birds throat to loosen her inhebitions . Some of them probarely regretted it in the morning , but I doubt they'd consider me a rapist

I've had sex with Mrs duck thousands of times over the years ( poor women) , but can still be convicted of raping her if she's ****ed up and claims she didn't consent that one particularly time. This is clearly less traumatic than a stranger forcing himself on her. Surely there are different degrees of rape as there are with most crimes

Very strange what's going on with him. I find it a bit suspicious to be honest.

I started off my first post on this thread by saying I wasn't going to comment on his guilt or otherwise . Only the jury sat and heard the full facts and only they are in a position to judge his guilt. However, there is an important principle at stake here. Once offenders have served their time should they be allowed to play football? If you watched QT you would have seen the ridiculous argument that they shouldn't earn a lot of money and shouldn't be allowed to play in front of thousands. Why? , and who decides how much they can earn and how many people they can plays in front of? If a football club are willing to pay him and their supporters are willing to watch him, why shouldn't he earn a living. Taking the personality out of it, somebody who is appealing their sentence is hardly going to admit their guilt are they? Unless you have a law that only ex convicts who admit guilt can work ,its irrelevant whether he admits it or not. I always thought that admitting guilt was part of early release, but obviously its not.

Number 1, I didn't bring up the plumber some politician on QT did. Her point was he could earn his living as a plumber but not a footballer, I was questioning this logic. It really isn't coherent. Of course Ennis is entitled to do what she wants. Just as he is entitled to play football if Sheff Utd believe he is good enough. Unless you're trying to say ex convicts shouldn't work if someone is willing to employ them. Everybody is just jumping on a bandwagon , I don't recall this amount of fuss when that keeper killed those kids. As for the entertainment profession , Pete Townsend seems to make a decent living after accepting a caution for possessing child porn, and everybody was wilfully blind when it came to Michael Jackson. Nobody stops ex convicts playing guitar or acting, why should they be stopped playing football? Whether anybody will pay to watch them or buy their records is irrelevant, part of their rehabilitation is being able to try and earn a living .

That Robertson looks good, weren't there rumours we were in for him?

I'm not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of the conviction as I didn't sit in court or receive guidance on the law from the judge. My first point is that convicted rapists should serve more than two and a half years. Had he served a " proper" sentence this wouldn't have arisen because after 6/7 years inside I doubt he'd be capable of resuming a career. Second point. Unless you work with kids , you really can't start legislating what excons can and can't do. Rod Liddle was a lone voice on QT last night , some ridiculous arguments were put forward by other guests and audience." It was OK if he was a plumber" but not a footballer was one, as if its OK to call round women's houses to mend the boiler, but not to play football in front of them. Another guest claimed he shouldn't play in front of thousands. So therefore its OK for him to play for Eastleigh, but not sheff utd ( what happens if his team with 100's of supports plays a big club in the cup, does he get dropped). The simple fact is you can not start changing your mind depending on who it is or what he does. You either believe ex offenders are entitled to work or their not. They are either allowed to play sport or they're not. The size of the crowd or the league you play in is surely irrelevant. Thirdly, why is it impossible to discuss rape in a rational and sensible way. This type of rape is clearly different than a masked stranger jumping out of a bush, yet to say so will get you no end of trouble. There has been so much moralising nonsense over this. I read that this Charlie bird who resigned her position had previously tweeted her excitement over meeting mike Tyson . The BBC employed Dirty Den who killed somebody, yet some paxo wannabe was desperately trying to humiliate Gregg Dyke over the fas response.

Long started well, looks lively and a couple of good chest lay offs.

During Red Ed's 6th relaunch yesterday he said he was going to take on UKIP, said that it was time somebody stood up to them, " we must debate them " he said, before adding he was going to take them apart. Nigel is obviously up for it, what's the betting Ed will bottle it. If you're going to call someone out and say you're going to debate them, that's what you need to do.

Haven't seen this on the forum today, so thought I'd post it. Alan Brazil tweeted that there are whispers that Judas will walk if Adebayor isn't moved out of the club in Jan. Now, it is Fri afternoon and Brazil is a drunken Scottish bum , but he did play for spurs and has provided useful info before

My point wasn't whether I agreed or disagreed with Nigel, just that it is a legitimate debating point. The original post on here struck me as implying " what a moron Farage is, he's so ignorant over this ". It's a valid opinion , not some sort of crackpot 9/11 , Boston marathon type pony.

Its a legitimate historical debate . John Pershing and later on Roosevelt both put forward the same argument.

Fonte did great , even if he'd scored they'd have struggled to get another one. Most players would have bought him down and had a one game suspension , missing villa game and giving away a peno anyway. Pelle caused it by not bothering to jump for header. Yes, the game was won , but by giving up like that he was lucky not to cost José a ban.

So why are Australians , Africans and Canadians subject to different rules than Greeks. You said it was a global world , does that not extend beyond the borders of the EUSSR. Surely in your utopia the citizens of the world should be allowed to settle anywhere. **** the citizens of a particular country , all that matters is that you and your kids can work and live where they damn well want. Don't worry too much about the locals , we could always move them onto a reservation

Even if it means taking a job that could be done by a native or living in a house where there's a waiting list and locals can't get housed? I guess it's every man for himself, never had you down as a Tory . Btw , what are the hassles you write about? What hassles do Canadians or Australians looking to settle in Germany face that uk citizens don't have ? And are these hassles so bad that it's worth giving up some of our sovereignty for? Cutting red tape, are you sure you're not turning into a Tory?

Bletch, just to add my opinion on immigration to my earlier answer to you. The ills of the country are not caused by immigration, particularly here in Poole. However I do not know what it's like for people in other areas. What is certainly a fact is that we have hundreds of thousands of young people out of work, and hundreds of thousands of low skilled immigrants are working here. Anybody who blames immigrants is ignorant and is also guilty of letting the incompetent pygmies in the establishment escape the blame for the mismanagement of the country. Most immigrants who have worked for me, or go to school with my nippers (and there are a few even here) , are hard working, polite, friendly and a credit to their country of birth. I want to leave the EUSSR, but have nothing against Europeans, in fact I wish that some British were more like them, in terms of behaviour and family values . In particular the Germans 'Greeks and Poles ( I draw the line at the French lol) that I have met have all been upstanding citizens with decent values. I realise that's just a bit of a generalisation and there's good and bad in every nation, but I'm just saying that I'm no little Englander who hates foreigners. I would like a points based system where people with the skills we need are allowed to work and settle in this country , there also must be scope for humanitarian immigration as we did with Amin's Ugandan's and the boat people. I would not judge people by where they come from but by the content of their ability. I would like the numbers set by the elected UK Parliament answerable to the British people. At the moment the EUSSR want any citizen of the Super state to be able to move and work freely in England , like Scots and Welsh have always done. I do not want this situation to continue. In terms of benefits, once you allow people to come and stay in your country and work ( in a points based system , they're doing the jobs we need) , they should be treated as any other citizen. The safety net of the NHS and benefit system should be available to them. However , until you control immigration and only allow people in you want, this is never going to happen and immigrants will continue to be demonised and resented.As an aside the Liblabcon politicans are incapable of talking about EU immigration without banging on about "clamping down " on benefits. They are demonising immigrants every bit as much as any UKIP politician. Because they want to be seen to be in control, when in reality they never can be (whilst we remain a member) they concentrate on the one area they maybe able to excerise some control (welfare) and push that at every opportunity. It just further adds to the very thing they claim UKIP do, which is attack the foreigner. It's very unhealthy. Welfare is not the issue, only a tiny % of EU immigrants claim welfare, but just watch and see, every single time a Liblabcon figure is asked about immigration they'll bring it up.

If you look back through my posts, I've never been opposed to immigration. What I am opposed to is the misrepresentation of UKIP's position and the distortion of their position. There is a cigarette paper between the Establishments position on non EU immigration and UKIP's on immigration. Just because UKIP want to treat French, German and Spanish people the same as Africans , whereas the liblabcon want to treat them differently, they're the "racists"?

This is the laughable political scare story trotted out by the establishment anytime somebody dares to think that the British should decide who we do or don't let in. I was in Cyprus last year and there's loads of Russians living there. How many Americans live in France , how many Africans in Italy . Are you seriously saying that the Spanish will kick the Brits out , but not the other non eu nationals living there . Or are you trying to claim there are no non eu nationals living in France, Spain and Germany. At the end of the day it is up to the Spanish , French ect to decide who they admitt to their own country . If they want to deny British skills, British money and British pensioners the right to live and work in their own country , that's up to them . But I'm sure there's plenty of countries that will welcome us with open arms , whether in or out of the Eussr . Do you think there should be a limit put on the number of people allowed to settle on our small island? I presume most people do. What is the best way to administer this . A skills based system, so that skill gaps are filled by the best candidates or should we pick 26 countries from which anyone can come, regardless of their abilities or need , and let as many as want in. Whilst limiting the rest of the world. Only in the barmy EUSSR can a Greek road digger have priority over a Canadian midwife when it comes to settling in our country.

Cameron is the worst Tory leader since Ted Heath. This " deficit reduction plans " is just nonsense. They are not dealing with the debt at all, just acting like a typical labour government and passing it on to our children and grandchildren . FFS even Healy cut public spending more than this (when forced to by the IMF) If the Tories can't take the difficult decisions needed, what is the point of them. We elect Tories to do the job, not become labour lite. Cameron's only got away with it because he's been up against Brown and Red Ed . Alarm bells should have rung in the party when he promised to match labours spending when he first became leader, but the Tory establishment are in awe of posh born to lead Eton chaps. Big mistake choosing him over David Davis, and if they go for Boris next god help them.

I also read that one of the co authors of the report was one of the people that advised the labour government against transition controls as only 13,000 Poles would come to the UK. He clearly knows his stuff. To me there are only 3 coherent immigration policies. Let nobody in, let everybody in , or let the people in we want and need. I've yet to hear a main stream politician argue for no immigration or no controls, therefore everybody seems to have the same policy. Accept that these racist bar stewards UKIP want their policy to apply to everyone from anywhere equally , whereas those enlightened modern progressive liblabcon establishment want Africans, Asians and Pakistanis treated differently. I saw that buffoon Ken " we need to join the euro" Clarke on the Sunday politics tell Andrew Neil that " clearly you have to have controls, you can't have everyone who wants to just turn up" . He then went on to attack the only party that has the policy to do exactly what we " clearly" needed. Talk about double speak. When it comes to this debate, black is clearly white. What if UKIP had the policy that Aussies, new Zealanders , Canadians and Americans are subject to no controls , yet Pakistanis , Chinese, Japanese and Nigerians are subject to controls . Would such a policy be racist?

How do we know his legs haven't gone and we've managed to offload him just in time . It does seem strange that Brenda won't play him in his struggling side and he plays second fiddle to that fairy Borini . Brenda sees him every day in training and still doesn't play him , perhaps he moved on just in time. As much as I love the guy , and he's in the top 10 of my all time favs, he made his bed and all that. I can't see any benefit in bringing him back and if we want to progress we don't want to be getting Liverpool reserves who are over the hill. Also, what was his role in the Adam and lovren moves ?

It's not a great story at all, it's a remake of "Skate expectations " . It will all end in tears , their spending on wages and players is unsustainable for a club their size .

I happen to believe that the cause of withdrawal will be better served by labour winning the election that the Tories winning it. Even better would be the Tories in coalition with a 4th place ( in terms of popular vote) lib/dem party. My reasoning is that Dave is lining us up for a Harold Wilson tribute act. Go to Brussels , renegotiate and get **** all worth while , but try and con the British people by claiming a victory. With the weight of the establishment , self interested big business and wet Tory lip spittle rags like The Times behind the fix , I think he'll pull it off. The subject will be dead for another 40 years and more powers will be transferred useing the referendum result as cover. If the people are denied a vote by Labour or the lib/dumb arm of another coalition , people will get more and more anti European . It's all about timing , as Salmond showed you don't need to rush these things. The perfect storm for Nigel is 3rd in terms of popular votewith 2 dozen mp's , a Cameron led coalition and the Eussr in triple dip recession . However , Red Ed denying the people a say whilst crashing the economy Hollande style is a close second.

According to Andrew Neil the calculation was voted on and voted for by the Tories in 2013. Clearly the amount was unknown at the time, but the process that allows the EU to collect this amount, depending on the growth of your economy, is part of the rules. This suggests that either the Tories ****ed up and didn't understand the calculation , they thought our economy wouldn't grow as much as it did, or they didn't mind coughing up provided it was kept quiet. My opinion based on nothing whatsoever apart from not trusting pro EU wet Tories, is the third one.