Lord Duckhunter

I've been away all week, so have missed things on here. Perhaps someone could update me. Why was Guly playing, I thought Turkish told us that since the infamous "chat" Guly's "contract" of 15 mins minimum had been ripped up and Nigel is not being told to play him. Did his appearence yesterday mark the end of the "Adkin's alone" period with NC back in charge, or was it a legal decision after SFC's lawyers found we were in breach of employment law. The other option could be that Turkish was talking out of his arse, but that couldn't be the case, could it?

This is exactly right. We have decided to set a minimum wage that employers have to pay, and then by the very nature of topping up that wage, are admitting that it is set too low. All we are doing is subsidising Tesco, B&Q, ect's payroll costs and these Companies post millions of pounds in profit. By setting a minimum wage we are giving Companies a benchmark to pay their employees that is set at a level too low. I would imigane the Tesco's of the world, pay slightly above the minimum wage, saving themselves loads of money but looking like good employers who pay a reasonable wage (in that it's above the minimum). If you are going to set a minimum wage, then it needs to be set at a level that avoids the state topping it up. If there was no minimum wage the only benchmark they would have would be whether they could fill their vacancies, if they couldn't they would have had to increase the wage (forget about the present climate, I'm talking about the past 15 years). At the moment low paying employers are running a fixed price cartel. Ie, the price of their workers labour is fixed at a level and there is no competition to attract workers. I could except that, but only if the level was high enough that the state was not required to help out (disabled people, carers ect apart).

Agree, not that he's a good player particulary, but that he deserves our full support. One thing for sure, he's a better player than Chaplow, yet he would never get booed. I was really hoping he scored. Then the idiots would run on the pitch (surely they wouldn't chant and then not follow it through, not top boys like those), get chucked out and banned. We then wouldn't have to put up with the ****s anymore.

This is the point that the ****** Winklemen doesn't seem to understand. He keeps saying that without the move to MK, Wimbledon would have gone bust. If that was the case then surely an extra team would have come up from the Conference to the FL the following season. Therefore they either stole Wimbledon, or if they didn't do that, stopped another team from playing in the FL. The simple truth of the matter was that if they wanted a team in MK, they should have poured money into the existing MK team or started another one from scratch.

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has said that she does not support compulsory regulation, she says. "In a democracy, regulation of the press and imposing standards on it must be voluntary." This is pretty similar to Cameron's view. Do the Murdoch have something on her as well?

I thought the whole ground lacked any sort of atmosphere, their support was woeful. Couldn't understand the standing policy. Seemed to be vigourously enforced in one block, but not anywhere else. Where I was there was Zero tolerance of standing, even taking people out to "have a word with them", but one block over people stood all game. Away from the ground I found the people/taxi drivers ect great as always. Friendly and helpful.

Awful performance, seemd like the players had written this one off and were just happy to not get stuffed. Thought Fonte did well, but after that struggling to pick anyone out.

Thanks for the tip, great pub despite Pap's "feedback".

it's not as simple as that. Was it in the publics interest that perfumo was banging Keeler, if Cameron snagged Rebecca brooks would that be in the publics interest? Who decides what is and isn't in the publics interest. Now, you could say nobodies sex life can be published,but surely we don't want the great and the good hiding behind privacy laws. Please explain who deuces what can and can't be published. Is it you,who doesn't want to read about sex or someone who does.

Oh and just to add to the question " What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM" Levison found that they did no favours (despite what Gordon Brown claimed) and he also exonerated Jeremy Hunt , much to the lefties dissapointment no doubt. I dont suppose Tom Watson will accept that part of the report.

Oh and just to add to the question " What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM" Levison found that they did no favours (despite what Gordon Brown claimed) and he also exonerated Jeremy Hunt , much to the lefties dissapointment no doubt. I dont suppose Tom Watson will accept that part of the report.

The Irish have a similar regulation that Levision is proposing, yet that didn't stop a paper publishing Kate's knockers. The BBC and ITV are "underpinned" by state regualtion ( Ofcom, the body that Levison proposes) and that didn't stop McAlpine being accused of the worst type of crime, without foundation. What exactly are we regualting against? Phone hacking was already illigal, and known about by the present and previous Governments long before the Dowler hacking came to light. Paying police officers is illigal. Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan seem to want some sort of privacy regulation, but that would end with rich and powerful people hushing up stuff ala France. Ok so maybe Steve Coogan's sex life is his own business, but is Gordon Brown's, was John Perfumo's, who decides whose sex life is private and whose is in the public's interest? Chris Pattern or some other career busybody? You cant make legislation on the basis of what victims want, if we did that, we'd have hanging and cutting off peado's and rapists balls. So who is going to lead this ofcom or similar type body? and whose going to appoint him? Is the Ofcom/similar chairman's sex life in the public interest or not? Who decides. There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple. Why do people always turn to the state to sort their problems out? We can sort our own out. Dont like the Sun, then dont buy it. Liverpudlians dont, if the rest of the country followed suit it would have 2 option, change it's practises or go bust.

The Irish have a similar regulation that Levision is proposing, yet that didn't stop a paper publishing Kate's knockers. The BBC and ITV are "underpinned" by state regualtion ( Ofcom, the body that Levison proposes) and that didn't stop McAlpine being accused of the worst type of crime, without foundation. What exactly are we regualting against? Phone hacking was already illigal, and known about by the present and previous Governments long before the Dowler hacking came to light. Paying police officers is illigal. Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan seem to want some sort of privacy regulation, but that would end with rich and powerful people hushing up stuff ala France. Ok so maybe Steve Coogan's sex life is his own business, but is Gordon Brown's, was John Perfumo's, who decides whose sex life is private and whose is in the public's interest? Chris Pattern or some other career busybody? You cant make legislation on the basis of what victims want, if we did that, we'd have hanging and cutting off peado's and rapists balls. So who is going to lead this ofcom or similar type body? and whose going to appoint him? Is the Ofcom/similar chairman's sex life in the public interest or not? Who decides. There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple. Why do people always turn to the state to sort their problems out? We can sort our own out. Dont like the Sun, then dont buy it. Liverpudlians dont, if the rest of the country followed suit it would have 2 option, change it's practises or go bust.

Barry used to be iwearahalo on 606, I'm sure he's not Dune.......

Barry used to be iwearahalo on 606, I'm sure he's not Dune.......

What was it Wenger said "everyone thinks they've got the prettiest wife". I cant believe we have supporters who are so one eyed they cant see we have the worst Keeper in the League. I would swap him with anyone and most sides reserve keepers. Contrast his performance with Norwich's second choice on Weds. We even have people comparing him to Reina. Please dont mention that near Anfield tomorrow, you'll only embarress yourselves.

What was it Wenger said "everyone thinks they've got the prettiest wife". I cant believe we have supporters who are so one eyed they cant see we have the worst Keeper in the League. I would swap him with anyone and most sides reserve keepers. Contrast his performance with Norwich's second choice on Weds. We even have people comparing him to Reina. Please dont mention that near Anfield tomorrow, you'll only embarress yourselves.

Based on what , one save against Newcastle? I've yet to see anything that indicates this.

That wasn't my suggestion at all. I was just pointing out that propping up failing banks/Companies is not Capitailism. Capitalism will only work if Companies that make bad decisions, Companies that are badly run and Companies that over reach themselves go bust. The worst thing about Capitialism is it allows idiots to make greedy decisions. Take the demutalisation of the Building Societies. People loved it, free money. Not so free now is it? Cheap loans, 125% mortgages.

For capitalism to work, failing Companies must be allowed to go bang. Bailing them out with tax payers money creates a win-win situation. Capitalism of the profits, socialism of the losses. And our children and grandchildren have the pleasure of settling the bill.

****ing hell, he gave one of the greatest goalkeeping performance I've seen in 40+ years of watching Saints. That game at Leeds wasn't that long ago. Had Gazza been playing instead it would have been about 14-1

When!!!! Everything he did I would expect any Keeper in the top 3 leaguse to save. It was routine stuff. Goals change games and going in at 1-1 rather than 1-0 changed the whole game.

Missed oppurtunity. They were set up for a point, but at 1-0 down would have had to open up a bit. This would have allowed more room for our front 4 to play like they did against Newcastle. I honestly think had we gone in to HT 1-0 up, we'd have gone on and won 2 or 3-0. Second half they were the better side. But that's Wigan, Swansea and Norwich gone with a grand total of 2 points. Just not good enough. Reading and Sunderland are must wins because of that.