Lord Duckhunter

He went to the same primary school as Ed Milliband (who as we know from his wonderful speech, is just an ordinary joe), surprised he didn't put it in his speech.

He also indicated with his arms that Lambert was climbing over the top of the defender. A poor poor decision.

Sgt Bilko-Phil Silvers fantastic NYPD Blue-Great show, fantastically written and acted, particulary Dennis Franz as Andy Sipowicz, one of the greatest portrail of a cop there's ever been. Curb Your Enthusiasm- Larry David is a genius.

I guess it's about opinions, but I dont think he's defended correctly all season. I dont think he covered Fox particulary well on Sunday and he also gave away a silly free kick from which they hit the post. Most of the season he's left Fox pretty exposed, Arsenal being a prime example. I dont think he should be dropped, but shoud have come off on Sunday, I thought he ran out of ideas and some of his crosses towards the end weren't a patch on Fox's. I struggle to see how we can get enough of the ball to play him and GR in most away games.

So lets get this stright, you could "accept this as a go forward measure" , but only if it's done nicely by Labour?

Without wishing to upset anyone, I think there are two different "stories" here. In my mind there is a big difference in being a bona fide paedo praying on girls or boys who are clearly underage and taking advantage of your status and banging groupies without checking their age. Richard Manuael used to send the road crew out to take polaroids of the girls queuing up so he could decide which ones to allow into the dressing room. I'm sure he didn't also require the roadies to check id's as well. I've no doubt that nearly every single pop star must have used and absued a girl under the age of consent without realising. It appears nowadays if you sleep with a girl who is 15 and 11months old, you're a peado whether you knew her age or not. Glitter was clearly a peado, the jurys out with saville, but if you're going to start calling Peel a peado, then it's going to add a whole load of 60's and 70's rock and roll stars into that bag.

You also need to look at lallana's covering of Fox. Towards the end they were outnumbering us down that flank.

I thought Fox and Fonte did well at the back, but Jos is a liability. Maybe he'll be better against West Ham and their long ball, but he looks out of his depth at present. MS and Davis did well. I thought Punch & lallana flattered to deceive, I would have taken both off instead of RL. Also thought Guly did really well. It's ok people saying with GR we would have won, but they were missing 2 class players. Really needed the second goal in the first half when they were poor.

What was Saville's response to the above accusations?

Someone tweeted yesterday that his quote he wasn't "born to lead" (unlike Cameron), was a bit strange considering the last 2 in the Labour leadership election was him and his brother.

Saville was never convicted of a crime and is now dead, so can not defend himself. Not knowing one way or the other, I'd rather stick to the innocent until proved guilty camp, if that's ok with some of the witchhfinder generals on here. Innocent until proven guilty is the solid foundations that underpin a civilised justice system and it should apply to the dead as well as the living. Why is it that the media and popular culture fawn over the memory of Michael Jackson, yet trash this guy. Maybe it's down to the multi million pound Jackson brand that can afford it's teams of highly paid lawyers, as oppossed to some sad werido with no family. What about Pete Townsend, who now seems to be a national treasure.Perhaps Jimmy was touching up these nippers because he was reseaching a book. I'm not playing down what happened to these children (if it did), but I find it strange that the girl who alledged Glitters involvement didn't come forward when Glitter was convicted previously.

If it's all about money and value for money, why dont we just hive the head of state off to the highest bidder. If Alan Sugar bid more than her maj, then we'll get better value for money under King Al. Of course it wouldn't really be fair and create the feeling of "one nation", but the only difference that I can see it making is that King Al's first born would have to bid when old Sugar popped his clogs and so wouldn't be a shoe in for the top job. It would also cut down on the hangers on as I'm sure King Al's children would have proper jobs and not ponse about at tax payers expense.

His bit about Cameron writting a cheque for £40,000 to millionaires was pure class warfare that his father would be proud of. It also showed Labours attitude to tax and income. Their attitude is that this was governement money that was given back to the wealthy, when in fact it's their money and the Govenment has just decided to take less of it. It's also complete and utter ******s.Saying "millionaires" was disingenuous. Andrew Neil monstered Douglas Alexander on this popint when he repeated it on the Daily Politics. He said to Alxander "is Ed Milliband going to receive a £40,000 tax break" to which the reply was "of course not", Neil then said "well he's a millionaire, so whys he not getting it" to which the reply was "but he doesn't earn a million a year", Neil replied "exactly, so why did he claim millionaires , there's a massive difference between people worth a million and people earning a million a year, as you well know".

The problem with politicans today is that you can't disagree with anything they say. They all speak in terms that are so wholly there's no counter arguement. "We have/need a plan for growth", "we are on the side of hard working families", "we want the richest to pay their fair share", "we face difficult choices" What I found so fascinating about politics in the past has been lost in a mush of bland sound bites. There is no great divides and no great ideological debates, it is just one party of middle class wets slightly to the left argueing with another party of middle class wets slightly to the right. Politicans are led by focus groups instead of leading the public. Party conferences are now stage managed to aviod frightening the floating voters. It's all very sad, no wonder the turnout at elections is so poor.

On Talksport last night they said that if you took the calender year of 2012, then Everton would be third in the table behind Man Utd, Man City,and just above Arsenal . Notice anything about those teams? If Fulham, Stoke, Sunderland & WBA had our fixtures, how many points do you think they'd have. Yet none of those teams are expected to face a relegation battle. Look at Swansea, in September they have lost to Villa, Everton and Stoke, and drawn with Sunderland.In the same period we had Arsenal and Everton away and Man Utd at home. Only Villa was really winnable, which we did (the same shiete Villa that Swansea lost to). Norwich have let 5 in against Liverpool and Fulham and are yet to face any of the Manchester clubs or Arsenal.Readings fixyures have been easier than ours, yet they are yet to win. If we were in a mini league with Swansea, Norwich, QPR, Reading,do their back 4 look any better than ours? I'd back our fire power to outscore them every time. To come out of Sept out of the bottom 3 is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

The great thing about forums is that the posters teams and formations dont ever get to go out and play Man Utd, Everton, Man C and Arsenal like Nigel's teams have had to. Christ, how many points did people expect us to get? All this talk of 4-4-2 is nonsense, when we went into taht formation against Wigan we were outplayed and couldn't get hold of the ball. Against Man C, the experts in the MoTD studio said it was a great move leaving Lambert on the bench and then bring him on as a game changer, it so nearly worked. Against Arsenal we were undone by poor errors with people like Gary Neville saying we were set up right.He then contrasted our set up with Readings, is their manager getting stick on their messages boards? Everton, our starting formation confussed them at the start and had Jay Rod buried a very scoreable chance who knows what would have happened. It's too simplistic to balme Nigel and claim he hasn't got his tactics right. Personally I think the midfield are not protecting the back 4 enough. The main culprit is AL, but he's untouchable on here. Lets get AB in nets and then see where we are after our next 4 games.

I thought West Ham looked pretty decent yesterday. They certainly were'nt all about knocking long balls, they defended pretty well and hit QPR on the break well. A good professional performance and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's it now, I'm sick of that ****ing Dave Merrington banging on like he's some sort of Brian Clough like expert on managing in the Premier League, I'll be relying on the experts on here now for updates.

People like Coogan and that chump Johnny Rotten get a free ride from Dimble, they shouldn't be on their spouting their nonsense. He was so one eyed it was unbelievable. He even started blaming the Torys for the Lib/Dem idea of pension pots being used to guantee mortgages. His rant about only Torys having a private education was embaressing, particulary when Kirsty Allsop pointed out that Harperson (who was sat next to him) was privately educated.I thought his rant about how he was a state school pupil, was a great advert for privately educating your children. Dimble needs to grow a pair and treat these b list celebs like he does politicans. Contrast his nonsense with Rhyss-Mogg's points. You may not agree with them, but they were coherent and well thought through, particulary his point about the capital banks held. Coogan had a completely closed mind and just wanted to bash the rich.That's no way to run an ecomony and he should stick to making second rate comedy shows and leave political debate to people without an axe to grind.

The whole problem with tax in this Country was summed up by that idiot Steve Coogan on QT last night. When discussing the riots in Sapin and could they happen here, he called for higher tax on the wealthy, his exact words were that it may not bring in much more money, but it sends a signal to the masses in these tough times. That's the problem in a nutshell, political posturing and punishing people, rather than setting taxes at levels that bring the maximum in. I thought this arguement had been won after the disasterous tax policies of Labour and Grocer Heath in the 70's, but now the politics of envy are back. This weak Government seem unable to grasp that you can tax people less and bring in more revenue. Just to chuck around the phrase "wealth tax" is just lazy. Does wealth include pension pots, or is it just that you live in a big house and have a nice car. Are the rates different for different parts of the Country, because wealth in London has a completely different threshold than wealth in Hull. Do people seriously believe that the wealthy can not drive a coach and horses through any wealth tax, reducing their rate with clever accountants. Until we see concrete propsals about how "wealth" is judged and what exactly you are taxing, it just looks to me like an extension of the council tax. I guess calling it a mansion tax is easier politically than saying "we intend to raise council tax and put in an extra band at the top".

Rollocks. There would have been no need for tactical voting if we had PR. Take away Labour voters keeping Torys out and Torys keeping Labour out and their support will collapse. The last UK wide PR election, they came 4th.

The Lib/Dems USP was that they weren't Tory's and they weren't Labour. They attracted Labour votes where the Tory's were strong and visa versa. How many votes did Huhme pick up from labour supporters voting to keep the Tory out? Those votes have now gone. My Labour supporting mate votes Lib/dem in Poole because there's more chance of going to the moon in a shoe box than Labour winning the seat. He now hates the Lib/Dems even more than the Tory Party and doubts if he'll vote next time. Couple that with the loss of votes due to this pledge nonsense and they are heading back to 1970's type MP numbers. 2 examples. Solihull -175 votes Dorset Mid and Poole North -269 It doesn't take Jon Snow to work out that these seats were won because of voters voting tactically. Will they again? Of the 200 most marginal seats 27 of them are Lib/Dem ones, that's a high % when you only have 57 seats. Of the safest 200 only 4 are Lib/Dem ones. Clegg's pledge will hurt him in Sheffield and Huhme is toast in Eastleigh. Dont forget they lost 5 seats at a time everyone "agreed with Nick".

Perhaps the coppers outside Downing Street are Plebs. Gordon certainly doesn't want to follow Obama's lead and shake their hands.

That's the thing in a nutshell, and to be fair to Clegg ect they haven't really tried to weasel out of it. Why is it that labour had a manifesto commitment not to introduce/raise fees, broke it, yet didn't get the stick that Cleggover and his chums are getting? The reason in my opinion, is because people thought they were different and the people can see the original pledge was pure opportunism and political posturing. One phrase you wont hear at the next election is "I agree with Nick". Clegg has been found out, and if "Dr" cable becomes leader, he'll go the same way. I cant think of a time when politicans of all 3 parties were so poor and useless. Looking forward to UKIP trouncing the whole lot of them at the Euro elections.

But they knew that when they signed their "pledge".