Lord Duckhunter

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.

It gets exaggerated purely because he plays for Saints. A good young keeper with potential will make the odd mistake, but look solid and good the rest of the time. There will be positional errors and the odd misjudgement. With gazza he looks like an accident waiting to happen all the time. Apart from one save against Newcastle the only stuff he's managed to keep out the net is routine stuff, and even then he's either let that in, or juggled it. Bart was the same and I now look forward to monthly threads calling for Gazza to replace XYZ, until he leaves on a free at the end of his contract.

What I really cant see is this "Gazza's got potential", I'm not saying he hasn't but on what basis is everybody basing this on, 1 great save against newcastle? I'm sure even Tommy Forecast has made one or two great saves in his life, most keepers have. At Everton his positioning was all over the place, Swansea he cost us, QPR was one of the most inept performances I've seen from a keeper with not much to do. Yesterday he was poor, the goal was soft and second half the way he stayed on his line a couple of times was comical. I'm sure I could have jumped out the Kingsland ran into the box and picked the ball up before he did. It seems to me that people are saying he's got "potential" because he plays for Saints and because he's playing. I haven't seen much potential, it seems that every time someone shoots, he lets it in or looks like he's fielding a googly. Forget "potential" you're either good enough or you're not...end of. Shaw is young and good enough, Gazza is not and has never been since he came into the side. Maybe he will be, maybe he wont (I remember all the praise heaped on Bart on here).If Nigel persists in playing him, we'll get relegated, simple as that. Oh, and well done to the old women who reported Boruc, that was helpful.