Lord Duckhunter

So you would review , throw in's, corners, offsides, & determine where fouls were committed. That's how cricket started, line decisions. Soon moved onto LBW, which is always subjective and the law even says "benefit of any doubt given to batsmen" How long before the presure to get other decisions "right" leads to more technology, as it did in cricket?

How far back do you go? And why just a goal. If Saints need a win to stay up and are drawing 0-0 in the last minute, the ref gives a goal kick when it should be a corner, therefore depriving Saints the chance of one last attack and the chance of that winning goal, why can't that be reviewed? Especially as earlier in the game the opposition had scored and a review had awarded the goal. What's Adkins going to say "control the controlables" or "why could one decision be reviewed, but not another". I can hear it now, "we have the technology in place, why aren't we using it?"

Good luck with telling Fergie that the offside goal against Man U will be given because the video ref reviewed it and said it crossed the line. Can't dissallow it for offside, because it's for goal line stuff only. I can see it on MoTD now, week after week managers queuing up to ask, "why was that corner, foul, offside,dive, handball that led to the goal not reviewed"? It will lead to creeping technology, reviewing all decisions .

If that's the case then surely an organsation that is run by a poll tax from the public purse, should ensure that every single person they pay, pays the correct amount on that particulary money. If the "star" doesn't like it, then go and work for someone else.

That's my point. The people calling for goal line tecnology only, would have given that "goal", but ignored the offside. Unless they are now calling for all offside decisions to be reviewed.Why then stop at offside, shouldn't Maradona's handball be reviewed? What about fouls or dives? You could end up with a situation where a guy dives for a peno, the resulting peno is smacked down onto the line, reviewed, and a goal given, yet the intial dive was not reviewed. You say review all goals, but that wasn't a goal as the ref didn't give it. If the ball stayed in play, when do you stop and review it, and how do you restart the game after stopping it, if it wasn't over the line.If you wait until the ball goes dead (which could be 4/5 mins in the modern game), all sorts of events could happen. What if a player commits a bad challange and gets a second yellow during the period we are waiting for a review, if we then go back and give a goal does the sending off still stand?

He has worked for the BBC. An organisation funded by a poll tax, taken from us, normal tax payers. Are BBC "stars" & emplyees all PAYE and if not, why not?

I had a few of them work for me over the years and most were pretty fit (apart from their teeth, they all seemed to have bad teeth). They were very good workers, very respectful, and a credit to their Country. According to a couple of the guys whio tried to get into their knickers, they dont put out very easily, but a couple of the girls told me that they found English blokes too pushy, so it may have been them.

It looks like 2 mistakes were made, one by the lino and one by the offical by the post. How is it fair that one mistake can be corrected by technology and the other one not. It's all well and good saying it is for goal line stuff only, but that will change once the unfairness becomes clear to people. remember cricket started for line decisions only, and it now includes LBW. The LBW law has always stated that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsmen. That law has clearly been overlooked since technology came into play, because there must be a doubt for the umpire to refer it. I beleiev that within 5 years of tecnology being used for goal line decisions, all decisions will be subject to this. This is what happened in cricket, what makes people think football will be any different?

I am totally against goal line technology. Not becaues of time, but because of fairness. What if Maradonas handball goal, had bounced just over the line and been subject to technology. The camera would have shown the ball over the line, but he punched it over the line.Are people who are saying it should be "only goal line decisions", prepared to allow the goal to stand when a reply clearly showed a handball? What if a throw in is awarded at OT against Man Utd when it was clearly their throw.From that throw in, Frank Lampard smacks the ball against the bar and just over the line, the Ref waves play on, but we go to the goal line technology and the video guy says it's a goal. What's Fergie going to say "fair enough", or is he going to say "why was the ref helped to make one decision and not another one". Even the hawkeye stuff in the goal wont stop the unfairness, what if a guy crosses the ball when it's clearly behind for a goal kick, it's headed just over the line. Hawkeye gives the goal, but the ball had clearly gone off for a goal kick. It will be the thin edge of the wedge. Bring it in for goal line stuff and it'll end up being for every decision. I prefer every decision made on the pitch to be subject to human error, not some subject to human error and some not. It's quite simple really. A goal is a goal if in the eyes of the ref and his asst it is over the line. It doesn't matter a toss what anyone else says, if the ref doesn't think its a goal, it's not a goal.Just as if the Ref doesn't think it's a foul, it's not a foul. Or if the Lino thinks it's a goal kick, it's a goal kick.

How can you have a Country where the Head of State is inherited, where people sit in the Parliament on the basis of what their father did, yet tax the eyeballs out of ordinary people, who make a few quid and what to pass that down to their kids? Dont forget they have already paid tax on the money that they are passing down to the kids. The problem with our tax system is that it is designed to punish or drive certain behaviours, rather than raise the most revenue. The Laffer curve illustrate's this perfectly. Tax people too highly, whether it is income or land/inherited wealth and people will find ways of avioding it. The rich aviod it, the poor dont pay it, and the poor saps stuck in the middle get stung. It's a joke that the state takes so much of our money to waste. Governments of both clours are obbsessed with wasting our money.

Always makes me laugh the way the Sandal wearers, BBC and other nut jobs go on about global warming and how we must reduce our "footprint". I could live up a tree, go to work on a Penny farthing and heat myself by covering up with straw, and it'll not make a blind bit of difference. Look at these prunes who "off set" their carbon ommissions, whatever that means. Until India, China, USA, Brazil ect get onboard a few middle class Country supper types being good lefties, are wasting their time. Instead of polluting our beautiful landscape with wind farms, instead of brain washing our kids and our struggling population, the political elite in this Country should save their lectures for the worst offenders when they fly round the world to meet them (after planting a lovely tree to offset that jet flight).

Thanks, I spent loads of time last night trying to work out how the Dutch could go through, as they lost to both Denmark & Germany.

Why then, did they increase NI contributions for everyone in 2002, even the very lowest paid workers? Why didn't they just increase the top rate of tax and spare the poorest from paying extra NI and loading firms with an extra 1% cost on every employee?

If increasing taxes was the answer then the Labour Gov. of the 70's would be the most sucsessful we've had. Income tax take went up after Nigel Lawson's tax cutting budgets. If I am sucsessful, surely I should be able to leave the fruits of my sucsess it to my "feckless offspring". Rather that than it going to feckless wasters who've not worked as hard as me, or to be spent on a national celebration in honour of a family that have the greatest inherited wealth in the whole Country. My Father in Law left school at 14 with nothing, he built up a sucsessful Night Club business and made a lot of money. He went without holidays and worked many many hours building it up. He is now comfortably off, why should he be taxed more when leaving HIS hard earned money to his children, especially when he's already paid a higher rate of income tax on that money anyway? Had he pi ssed it all up, blown the lot, there would be no tax to pay.

This is one of the best articles I've seen recently, I particulary agree with the bits; "The heart of the matter is the way public debt allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of those as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn." " today's Western democracies now play such a large part in redistributing income that politicians who argue for cutting expenditures nearly always run into the well-organised opposition of one or both of two groups: recipients of public sector pay and recipients of government benefits." "The present system is, to put it bluntly, fraudulent. There are no regularly published and accurate official balance sheets. Huge liabilities are simply hidden from view.Not even the current income and expenditure statements can be relied upon in some countries. No legitimate business could possible carry on in this fashion." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18456131

Fantastic, I'm really pleased for the guy. Where would we be without his "support for the Commander-in-Chief" (mummy)?

Not only that, but we were specifically told that it would not happen. It was a Trading bloc, nothing more nothing less, that's what we were told. Grocer Heath lied to us, and the establishment have been lieing ever since.

Nonsense, there is a huge difference between States in the Union wanting to "guard their distance" and sovereign Countries forcing their peoples into a Federal Europe by the back door. If you think the tensions between the Greeks and the EU are the same as between the federal Government and Mississippi you are wrong. The people in Mississippi had a vote in their presidental elections, the Greeks did not, yet appear to have ended up with Angela Merkel running their finances. Last time I looked USA was one Country and the EZ was 17 Countries.

Exactly. This is what the "project" is. A United States of Europe.

Only because Labour promised us a vote. Had the Labour manifesto committed us to the Euro with no vote, Hague would have won a landslide. By promising a vote, the issue went away.

What a load of pony...... It is not a "good idea". You can not have monetry union without fiscal union, that is the plain and simple arguement that Farage and others have always held. What on earth are you thanking Gordon Brown for? He was for the Euro, he just wouldn't bend the rules for our entry, an entry that he wanted in principle (not that he would have got in past the British people). Thanking someone for not breaking the rules, is like thanking a hoodie for not mugging you.

It was not a "noble" idea at all. It was all part of "the project", and the outcome of "the project" is a federal Europe.

There is nothing wrong with owning your own house, but houses need to be owned to live in, not used as an investment oppurtunity. The only "savings" a lot of people have, myself included, is the equity in the house. I've always found it strange that we tax people on their hardwork and hammer them when they become more sucsessful, yet people can make vast profits, by just selling their house and the tax is pretty low. When we sell our house, we would have made a huge profit. What have we really done for that profit? It took no skill, no judgement, just being able to afford a mortgage at the time, paying the mortgage ontime, and we'll come out with a load of cash. We didn't buy our house to make money, but even after this downturn, we'll make a few bob.There are millions like us and then add to that the people who do buy to make money and you can see the issue. Unfortunately if you want more people to rent, unless you build loads of council houses, you are going to end up with even more people buying the houses to rent to those people, and making even more money that way.The market will still be inflated

We went last year. People are great and very friendly. Beaches aren't as nice as some Greek Islands, prefered Kos to be honest. But we went all inclusive so stayed on the site most of the time. Mrs Duck loved Rhodes Town, but I didn't see the attraction to be honest. The Greek people and the weather make it a fantastic holiday destination, but the past 2 years we've suffered delays and disruption at air ports and last year there was a taxi drivers strike. We are not going back this year, purely because of that, we were 5 hours sat on the plane last year, due to a strike and twice people left the hotel, only to come back later that night, again because of strike action whilst flying home. Just didn't want to risk hassle this year, as it maybe worse. Dont want to put you off, because it's got to be my fav holiday country.

I'm away for the first weekend, so I'm hoping for a Monday game, or Wigan/Reading/Sunderland away.