Lord Duckhunter

What a bunch of amateurs. The whole thing has been a complete and utter shambles. I understand that maybe the website would crash and the lines be busy, although it's hardly The Olympics. We're not selling that many. Tried to buy online, but all my Friends and family had dissapered. Could have bought 4 online all in my name and at renewal prices (what a cock up), but one wanted to pay by installments and I wanted them all to have them in their own names. Rang up to book 4 tickets, after giving up after 3 hours yesterday. One for me, with my mate an existing S/T holder. No problem so far, got a seat 2 along from him.Then wanted 3 together for my nipper and 2 older boys in block 40. Found 3 together, went through names, customer numbers ect, then got to how do you want to pay? Two of them on cerdit card, one on instalments. "Oh you cant do that, you have to all pay in one method". Tried to explain that I was paying for my nipper, that one of my eldest had given me cash and the other could only pay by installments. You'll have to book seperate then . "Why the **** didn't you tell me that at the start". To which she replied "how did I know how you were going to pay". Said ok, can you still get 3 together. "Just depends if someone snaps the other one up whilst I'm booking the other 2". Luckily nobody did. But I cant believe there's no system that can process 2 different payment methods. Then told me I needed to pick nipper's up to prove his age, no problem with that. She told me from Monday, but advised "I wouldn't go down there until at least the end of the week, because it'll be mayhem". I'm no IT expert or no ticket guru, but I'm ****ing sure selling tickets to people who want to buy them has to be simplier than this. They also know there will be "mayhem" early next week, but instead of doing something about it, advise people to stay away.

Danny Fox was in Bournemouth this afternoon, told my mate that the kit was like a Sunday league one. My son has seen the pics on Facebook, so he was defo with him.

Andrew Neil, who is fast becoming the best interviewer on TV, interviewed Douglas Alexander on The Daily Politics. Alexander repeated the same old tired cliché (obviously on message) of cuts being "too fast, too deep". Neil then pointed out that the cuts amounted to 0.8% of GDP, "yet this is too deep"? he questioned. Alexander was just waffling on, whilst Neil keep on questioning him "if 0.8% is too deep, what is the right level of cuts"? Of course an answer was not forthcoming. These Labour chumps really do try and take people for fools, dont they?

Great article on the BBC website........ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18611936

A friend of mine was having problems conceiving and saw various NHS consultants. Because she was in her 30's and her partner already had children, they were way down the waiting list for NHS, so they decided to go private. They arranged it and when they had their intial consultation it was the very same consultant they had seen on the NHS. People go on about private and the privatisation of the NHS, but one of the biggest beneficiaries are the Doctors themselves. Anyway to cut a long story short. They ended up with 2 healthy and happy twins. They told me that they paid for the private treatment in instalments which carried very very low interest payments. The only thing they had to fork out for which wasn't included under finaces was the drugs, which off the top of my head set them back about £700. It got me thinking that maybe a lot of boob jobs, IVF, Sex changes, cosmetic stuff could be done on the NHS, but be charged back to the recipient over a number of years, much in the way that student loans are. I must stress, this would be lifestyle surgery only.

But it's not Free at the point of delivery. When I get my normal bout of tonsillitis, I go to the Doctor. My visit is free, but the prescription he gives me is not. My visits to the dentist aren't free. The issue I have with NHS debate is the misleading slant that is put on this, mainly by left leaning people, that it is either the wonderful "free at the point of delivery" UK version, or the American version. There are plenty of inbetweens, Germany as you have outlined, France, Spain and loads of other Countries, none of which long for the UK version. The NHS maybe a grand and noble thing in principle, but in practise it wastes a huge amount of our money and delivers some treatments that the State should not be funding.

What I was trying to say was that maybe McGuinness is doing the right thing for the right reasons. And maybe I was wrong to think that he should be thrown into jail. We tried throwing him and his like in jail and that just added fuel to the fire. Maybe by turning a blind eye and drawing a line, the people of NI have a "peace". It's not a "peace" that many of us would recongnise, as there are still divide's and the IRA haven't gone away, but it's a much better life than they have had for the past 30 years.

What gets my goat is the coverage of this and the constant "how wonderful the queen is" by making this gesture. As a non political head of state, she doesn't get to decide who she shakes hands with and who she doesn't.She just does what she's told to do as the figure head of our nation. The real courage here was shown by McGuinness, not only does he have a electrate to think about (many of whom will be sickened by this), but it wasn't so long ago that this gesture would be an act of suicide. Even now there could be a bullet with his name on. Why has he taken the risk? There was an expert on the IRA on TV last night. He claimed the whole thing was about making Adams electable in the South. He said that the IRA had got all they were going to get out of the Brits in the North, and were now turning their attention to politics in the South. He claimed that a sinnfein president would ramp the pressure up on the UK Government and if sinnfein could become the major party in the South, that would serve the interests of hard line Republicans more than an armed struggle in the North. Shaking hands with the Queen will soften their image to the mainstream voters in the South.

I agree. What I've found is younger people do not have such a romantic view of a united Ireland.

I visit Dublin regulary and my republican friends will claim that any referrendum should be for the whole of Ireland. A united Ireland will affect the people in the South, so surely they should be given a vote.

I remember a time when British politicans would say that Ulster is as much a part of the UK as London. That pretence has now been given up and we have ended up with a sort of half way house. My personal opinion is there is only one way this is headed and that's towards a united Ireland.

What's odd is posters making things up. Please point me in the direction of any post that shows my love of any of your listed bogey men.

Have you noticed that McGuinness is now the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Strange sort of "victory".

What are peoples thoughts about this historic event as an IRA leader and the Head of the British state make a hugely significant gesture. Whilst always believing that Ireland should be united, I have always felt that McGuinness is a murderous scumbag who belongs in jail. However this has finally convinced me that maybe I was wrong, maybe him and Adams are genuine. It is a very brave thing for him to do, as he could end up dead. And what about the Queen, despite being a staunch republican myself , she must take enormous credit for her part in this. Is the “war” finally over?

We're on to another leftie favourite now, the NHS. In a minute there will be an "envy of the world" quote. If it's such a great service why aren't the French, German,Spainish, Italian people pushing for a British style NHS? Bloody hell the French dont need much excuse for a protest.

I cant see why elderly people should automatically get a discount. Does Alan Sugar get a discount at Spurs and if so, surely he shouldn't. I know a few oldies who have season tickets, and they are considerably better off than most supporters. I'm pretty sure the various discounts offered as "perks" of the job, increase the price for the rest of us.

Whether you or I like it, politics IS down to 3 parties in this Country. My earlier post of the "least worst option" is how I vote. Despite Cameron being the worst leader of the Tory's since Grocer Heath, I would still have them in power rather than Labour. I do not trust Labour to clear up this mess, they will just kick the can down the road. I do not want my generation's debts weighing down my 11 & 12 year old children's generation. I object to all the attacks on the Government, when all they are trying to do is get our finances under control. And by under control, they dont mean down to a sensible level. They are not trying to pay off large amounts of the Mortgage, all they are trying to do is get our spending down so we can afford the repayments. Even the title of this thread is bollards. We need to "slash" welfare, but if anyone thinks Cameron is trying to, or is going to they must have been smoking with Willie Nelson. My Father's generation owed their very freedom to their fathers and grandfathers sacrifices. We are handing a massive bill to our children and for what? So toe rags can live on benefits for years. You can not turn on a TV, read a forum without someone banging on about "I didn't cause the crash", or "what about me and my benefits Blah blah blah". We have become a ntion of people whose first instict is to turn to Government and ask "what are you doing about this"? What about people doing something for themselves, with a safety net under them in the event of unforeseen temp hardship?

I dont think Ed Balls would consider it as "left hand not knowing what right hand is doing", or even a u turn. This is what he said this morning; "Labour put up fuel duty in the past. But we often delayed or cancelled planned duty rises based on the circumstances at the time". At least we wont hear any nonsense about u turns ect from him over this, because they've "often" done it in the past themselves.

Power to the people Comrade.............

Dont spout such nonsense. The Country is in the middle of a 1930's depression that has nothing to do with the previous Labour administration, or the beloved Euro.it is all to do with "out of touch rich boys, looking out for the wrong type of people", the Daily Mail readership, and that dasterdly duo the Murdoch's. Things would be so much better with those lovely comprehensive working class boys Ed & Ed. You know Ed & Ed, the ones that advised that genius Gordon Brown..........

Can I count on your Vote?

Fcking hell, the blokes a lefties dream pin up. An Immigrant, on the social ,and working for the BBC. Surprised he 's not a Guardian columnist.

I'm trying to get some money together so me and my nipper can get a S/T. I might start a riot and maybe Andy will help me out.

Number 1, please point me in the direction of a post where I have agreed with removing housing benefit from the under 25's Number 2, I dont buy a paper, so certainly do not get my views from the Daily Mail. It appears to me that the latest insult when someone disagrees with a leftie is that they are a "Daily Mail" reader. It's become rather like a glory supporter, as in " I cant discuss football with you, because you're a glory supporter". I would just add that for such a disreputable rag the mail does appear to have a large readership. If I read this right, we have to continue to pay such a high level of benefits to stop the kids rioting and also to stop their Mums going on the game . I would also like to know if any of the taxpayers money will be used to pay for these services that these poor Mums are handing out, because if there is, then I'm against that as well. I am well aware that most housing benefit is paid to working people, and that the working poor is a major problem in this Country. However continuing to throw money at the unworking poor, will not make getting up and going to work very attractive. The way I look at it, there are 2 ways to make work more attractive then benefits. One is to increase pay and the other is to cut benefits. Now you could increase the minimum wage by £3 an hour, but that would load more costs onto employers at a time when they have enough already. Surely forcing employers to bare the burden of 40 years of Government failure is just not on, and will lead to mass job loses. The other politically and practically easier way is to cut benefits, to go back to what the welfare state was designed to do, be a safety net, and stop making benefits a lifestyle choice.This should have been done by the last Labour Govt, but they will never do anything about it.

Nonsense. What is the "first rung of the ladder"? Even if we give them a leg up onto the first rung of the ladder, to stop them rioting. Surely they'll want to get onto the second rung. If they see that having a riot got them onto the first rung, then they will work out that a good old riot will be rewarded with a free place on the second rung? "You need to treat the causes of the riots". The causes of the riot was greed & wanting to cause disruption, plain and simple. They weren't rioting to find food, they were nicking electrical goods, trainers ect.Or just pointlessly smashing up people's neighbourhoods. It wasn't some grand cause like the race riots in the USA during the 60's was it?